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.
While Wifi and WiMAX are what most expect to be the future, how long will it be before small rural towns are 100% accounted for? If the goal is to give EVERYONE the option of having internet access in their town, BPL is probably the most intelligent option.
With the power infrastructer already in place, it should be much less costly to implement this type of service to people outside of the large cities. I applaud Texas for this decision and hope to see more states follow in their footsteps. The "WI-'s" will take care of the big cities first, but what about everyone else?
If the problem is getting everyone connected, then this is the solution.
The broadband-over-oil-pipeline lobby will kill this dead.
I thought the problem with IP on power lines is that power lines are really just large unshielded antennas. The IP traffic on them runs a frequencies that will jam Ham and other important radio traffic like air traffic control radio. Has Texas solved this problem or is it Damn The Ham!
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.
Tesla sold Hearst on backing his power transmition system by telling him it was a way for mass communications. The communications were secondary to Tesla who was more interested it providing free power. Hearst pulled backing and had the tower demolished when he found out what Tesla was really up to. It was much like radio. Tesla designed the equipment for remote control and considered communications a secondary issue.
Well, I've actually used broadband internet over powerlines between June 2002 and July 2005. Ping-times were horrible, the service was mediocre at best, and the modem was a PITA. But it was easy to set up(and easy to plug out and return to the ISP). Mostly it was the ISPs fault, because they underestimated the use, and overestimated their own capacity. Claimed a normal speed of 1Mbit/s, I usually got a 256kbit/s service. Used a modem by the Swiss company Ascom.
She: Hey, are you a traitor? Me: No, I'm atheist.
I work for a company that is rolling out BPL in Arizona. I'm not 100% involved with the project but I get to sit in on a lot of meetings. What follows is my general understanding of how it works.
Currently the power companies have no way of monitoring their grid except for watching for major drops in consumption. Basically, they don't know your power is out until someone from your neighborhood calls them and lets them know.
We install what is basically a low end PC at each transformer which is used to inject the signal for the area covered by that transformer. There are additional apps running on the PC that are constantly communicating back to the power company about the state of the transformer, load, etc. If the node reports a problem or if communication to the node is lost they know there's a problem and can send someone right out. Should result in much higher response times.
MG