Slashdot Mirror
Texas to Get Broadband Over Power Lines
mrops writes "CNet is reporting that Texas will soon be getting broadband over power lines. From the article, "Broadband service over power lines (BPL) is not a new technology. People have been experimenting with building communication networks over power lines since the 1950s. But it hasn't caught on due to its low speed, low functionality and high development cost." Unfortunately this technology matured a bit too late and has been subdued by recent rush of wi-fi products. The technology has a lot of potential and wi-fi black zones are not an issue in simple home setups."
This isn't just a new ISP. More importantly, this technology will allow the Texas' power corporations to monitor their power grid and be alerted immediately in the case of failures. Additionally, this technology could be used to take meter readings and remotely disable power to non-paying customers. A nice side benefit is that the company can offer internet access. What this all translates into is a company that can offer power at a reduced price to its consumer, because of the associated cost savings and secondary revenue stream.
Dose this mean that there will be brownouts whenever there is a high volume of trafic on the system?
I was happy to see this article paid some attention to the technical hurdles - namely interference - that BPL poses. Though I'm a little upset to see in the article that, "experts say these issues have been worked out and that interference is no longer a problem." This is simply not true. I'd love to know who their experts are.
As a radio hobbyist and student in electrical engineering, I feel this potential is really more of a certainty - its fundamental to the technology. It's not just a little kink to be worked out. That said, I certainly see nothing wrong with broadband over power lines (BPL) being given a chance to succeed or fail on its own merits, under sensible and objective oversight by the Federal Communications Commission. Unfortunately, the Commission is falling down on the job. The FCC has allowed BPL to operate under Part 15 of the FCC rules. These are the rules you often see printed on the back of remote controls, calculators or digital alarm clocks. They say simply that the device can't be used if it causes interference, and that it is afforded no protection from interference from other devices.
The big difference between an alarm clock and BPL should be pretty obvious. Small electronics are very low power, localized, and operate intermittently. Most of them shouldn't be emitting radio waves at all. BPL, on the other hand, works by injecting a strong radio signal into power lines (read: antennas). It operates over a wide area, with high power, 24 hours a day. Part 15 was never designed to deal with a system like this. Cable TV, for example, is governed by a very strict and specific set of regulations to ensure non-interference.
For Part 15 to work, there really needs to be a pretty reasonable expectation that devices don't pose any real risk before they're released into the wild. Such an expectation might be established through field tests or studies. Several such studies have been conducted, but since the outcomes weren't too favorable, the Commission has largely ignored them, and has contented itself by simply amending Part 15 to require that BPL operators have the capability to apply "mitigation techniques" to reduce, but not eliminate, interference after the fact.
But if those don't provide an adequate solution, then what? I don't think for a second that a BPL provider, with millions of dollars riding on its service, will just shut down its operations as the rules would seem to require. More likely, responses would range somewhere from outright denial of the problem, to definitional arguments over what constitutes "harmful interference." Such arguments could drag on for years. In fact, this is already happening in Manassas, VA and has been for some time.
This sort of deploy first, clean up the mess later strategy is a ridiculous way to allow an industry to operate. The rationalization seems to be that BPL is just too "exciting" a technology to be hindered with the gravity of sound technical analysis, and that it must be deployed even if it means compromising the Commission's obligation to protect licensed spectrum users from interference. But an effective Commission can't let catchy marketing monopolize its judgment.
Just seeing packets with a high hop-count would be a clue that something was wrong with the network - and that's just the absolute simplest example I can think of. A power network monitored by snmp? Sounds pretty robust to me.
Just an example; when Iraq was invaded, an attempt was made to disable all command and communication structures. This effort was not completely successful, as it proved impossible to disable all TCP/IP network connectivity - the network kept re-routing around damaged nodes, continuing to provide communication between those nodes which were still up. Our own military, partially foiled by technology they themselves helped to create! Would that qualify as 'ironic'?
How dependent on line quality is this deployment going to be? I've heard about broadband over powerline before, but my impression was that it was very dependent on the quality of the physical infrastructure (i.e. old cables = spotty transfer). Does anyone know how true this is?
NeverEndingBillboard.com
NeverEndingBillboard.com
Somebody else posted the idea that TCP/IP fixes stuff. Sure, if you have alternate routes available, IP can find them, and TCP can adjust traffic rates to match available capacity, but if your physical topology doesn't provide alternate routes, you're still isolated by equipment failures. Probably the higher-powered portions of a power distribution network have redundant routes, but the smaller feeder networks are more likely to be tree-structured, so there'll be limits on what parts can actually reroute around failures. The US telephone networks make extensive use of satellites for equipment monitoring - the overall data rates don't need to be very high, but the connectivity needs to be available when the underlying network is down. If the powerline folks want to get fancy, they could add some out-of-band monitoring in critical sections as well - but BPL already gives them a lot more information than they had before.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Until the infrastructure fails. -w7com
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
Just to show how inept our government officials are, do a google on "Willian Luke Stewart"
This guy spun a a big sack of BS of how his company (Mediafusion) could provide billion plus giga bits over ordinary power wires. Now our administration has modified part 15 (to the point of uselessness), ignored ITU agreements and is ignoring valid interference complaints from BPL deployments. BPL is the king of a cardboard, duct tape and bailing wire Internet delivery method that should of NEVER gotten off the ground. A person with ANY reasonable engineering skills would not even consider this abortion. When the commission was presented with evidence from the NTIA about the interference problems BPL would create they were met with, "So what, don't confuse us with all this technical mumbo jumbo, find a way to accommodate it, our minds are already made up".
To say the least I have no confidence in our FCC commissioners let alone other government officials to do their jobs properly.
"I bow to no man" - Riddick