Any News on Powerline Broadband?

Paladin

I know its been talked about a lot but has anything significant happened since this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/08/19/ireland_to_trial_broadband_over/

BigEejit

/me waits for the ham radio heads to swoop :ninja:

Rew

Here is what a collegue of mine had to say when he was asked to comment by an EU commsion on the subject:

> Dear Sir,
>
> As a Radio Spectrum user I welcome this opportunity to make a
> submission on the subject of Power Line Communications.
>
> From my own research, it appears that recent measurements made in the
> UK at Creif by the UK radio authority and measurements made by Ofcom
> in Switzerland suggest that the second generation PLC systems DO seem
> to give rise to interference problems.
>
> The Swiss measurements showed that the system measured in Fribourg
> failed to meet the German NB30 limits, which it seems are a compromise
> limit that actually fails to provide reasonable protection for the
> reception of HF broadcast stations indoors
> (http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp063.html).
>
> It must therefore be questioned whether any standard based on NB30
> limits would protect the many diverse applications including
> Broadcasting (DRM has just been launched), Aeronautical, Radio
> Astronomy, Armed Forces and Amateur Radio services, many of which will
> have no alternative if PLC is permitted to create interference. In
> addition, shortwave radio is used for point to point links in many
> poorer developing countries as well as supporting the communications
> effort of the Red Cross as well as other Aid organisations.
>
> Any raising of the noise floor would ensure that only the strongest HF
> radio signals could possibly be heard above the PLC, thus there will
> be significant impact on all but the most powerful HF communications
> services.
>
> When HF signals are injected in electrical conductors, electromagnetic
> radiation results.
>
> Radiation can be limited by:
> a) shielding (as in coaxial cables)
> b) in principle, using balanced lines (telephone, UTP network, antenna
> feeders)
>
> On the other hand, several factors favour radiation:
> a) poor shielding
> b) poor impedance matching
> c) imbalance of open lines.
>
> Cable networks radiate VHF/UHF energy when shielding fails, and also
> because of improper termination (poor impedance matching). Telephone
> lines (unshielded twisted pairs) radiate because of lack of shielding
> and imperfect balance. Power lines are neither shielded nor balanced
> and all kinds of appliances are connected to the mains by the end
> users hence they represent the 'worst case' scenario. Also the gain of
> a power line radiator increases rapidly with frequency - a radiating
> conductor with relatively low emissions as 0.1MHz can have emissions
> tens of dB higher at HF (Calculated Levels from Broadband Over Power
> Line Systems and their Impact on Amateur Radio Communications
> Circuits, Ed Hare, ARRL, July 2003). DSL systems use a twisted
> balanced pair of conductors and as a result create negligible amounts
> of radio interference when operating correctly.
>
> The introduction of PLC systems would make a mockery of existing EMC
> legislation requiring manufacturers of electronic and electrical
> equipment to meet rigid emission limits designed to protect the 'noise
> floor' of the radio spectrum.
>
> The ARRL has clearly demonstrated the interference effects of PLC on
> Amateur Radio communications (it must be assumed that the other
> services mentioned above suffer the same interference), and has also
> demonstrated harmful interference from low power HF transmitters into
> the PLC network using PLC test sites in the US. This has also been
> discussed in Compliance Engineering Magazine
> (http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/03/ARG/hansen2.html).
>
> Interference from PLC is very difficult to trace, when a licensed
> radio service causes interference it can be quickly identified and the
> issue addressed. In the USA, a division of the FAA reported that it
> had to cease operations on one aeronautical band (3013khz) at one of
> its facilities (Half Moon Bay, California) due to interference from
> PLC products and the FCC was unable to resolve the issue.
>
> http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/
> retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6514683399
>
> The BBC is also concerned about interference to it's short wave
> broadcasts, especially as most receivers use inefficient internal
> antennas and are often places close to mains power wiring ("Do EMC
> Limits protect Broadcasting as intended",
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp055.html).
>
> PLC is offered as an alternative 'last mile' technology yet current
> PLC implementations are impractical over roughly 300m, they require
> intrusive work in the customers premises to allow the PLC signals to
> 'avoid' metering and transformer systems, offer limited bandwidth, and
> most likely will not scale well as consumer demand increases.
>
> There are other more practical solutions to the last mile problem. The
> most obvious being unlicensed wireless systems for example 'WiFi', and
> they are relatively easy to deploy.
>
> In conclusion, it seems that Article 4a of the current EMC directive
> may not be respected if PLC is widely deployed and if interference is
> widespread, consumers may resort to litigation in order to return the
> radio spectrum to its 'pre PLC' noise levels, which would be
> unfortunate, and, may I add quite unnecessary.
>
> I would urge that the Commission initiate further studies of recent
> advances in broadband technologies in order that the
> telecommunications infrastructure and information societies in general
> can be extended into the rural regions of the current EU15 and the new
> acceding states.
>
> Best Regards,

BigEejit

Originally posted by Rew
Here is what a collegue of mine had to say when he was asked to comment by an EU commsion on the subject:

Was Mr. Kehoe asked directly? or was it an open invitation from interested parties?

Rew

Im assuming you mean Brendan Kehoe from Irishwan? Wasn't him that wrote it. I work in telecoms research and I dont remember if it was an open invite or not to be honest but I can check. Didnt post his name because I havent asked him if he wants me to or not. Waht I will say is he is more then qualified to comment.

I notice you havent given any opnion?

BigEejit

My opinion is that the sooner its rolled out the better and hope the lawmakers dont get taken in by the alarmist propaganda being peddled by "the enthusiasts"

[edit] apologies to bkehoe for mistaking the propaganda above as being his [/edit]

Rew

LOL id be intrested to the author versus you as a head to head.

Im curious what makes you qualified to call it "alarmist propaganda being peddled by the enthusiasts"?? (Obviously I havent given his qualifactions but lets assume they are very good)

bkehoe

I most certainly didnt write that. BPL will be great when/if they get the technology to work properly. The technology which causes massive interference on the HF bands is unacceptable, and shouldnt be let out into the open market. That report on bpl was one of the best I've seen in one piece, and is very clear of the destructive effects BPL has. There are various primary users of the hf bands - something like bpl is not permitted to interfere with primary users. Some day I hope to make use of the HF bands, and I just hope that the powers that be see sense and there's still a usable band there by that time.

BigEejit

Originally posted by Rew
LOL id be intrested to the author versus you as a head to head.

There would be a head to head alright ... commonly referred to as a nutting .... :P

You want to know why I look forward to it? its an alternative to the other copper pair coming into everyones house. Dont give me the guff about wireless all over the country, we all know that that will never happen in the extremities and there will be wireless dead spots anywhere there are hills or obstacles. The other reason is that any time I see a special interest group screeching and roaring about the bad things that could happen because of something that is to their detriment when it is for the greater good I'd like to stick my oar in for the silent majority...

iwb

Opinions are like arses, everyone has one. Here's mine.
As a technology, it has been coming for years and still isn't here. I can't profess to know much about it at all except what I have read.
While there may be a way for it to coexist with existing radio frequency users, there are other considerations.
First of all, it doesn't cross transformers, so in Ireland, how many premises will it serve per transformer? I think it is going to be a significant extra cost for it to cross the transformer.
Second, you are working now with HT on the primary side which absolutely means ESB involvement. (probably means that anyway, at any voltage). That means buy in form them. I haven't seen any indication that they are willing to do it. In fact, both ESB and Bord Gais have shown hesitation in getting into retailing broadband at all.
Finally, on the technology side, I think the maximum bandwidth currently available is less than 30Mbps. Yeah, sure that might be great for rural areas but does it have a maximum range? How costly is it to repeat it and cross more transformers? What about maintenance?
Overall, it will probably never become very popular. Why did Nortel quit the market a while back? I read about it in 1998 as the next big thing while working at Nortel. They really hyped it up internally.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by BigEejit
Dont give me the guff about wireless all over the country, we all know that that will never happen in the extremities

No, we don't all know that. Some of us know exactly the opposite.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by BigEejit
You want to know why I look forward to it? its an alternative to the other copper pair coming into everyones house.

So are water pipes. Let's campaign for broadband over water lines. What's that you say? It won't work? Bloody naysayers.

BPL isn't a rural solution. It won't work in Ireland. This has been discussed to death. Move on.

Cuauhtemoc

Just out of curiosity whatever happened to the trial the ESB were doing?

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc
Just out of curiosity whatever happened to the trial the ESB were doing?

The only thing I heard about it was from an amateur radio friend who made recordings of the RF noise floor before and during the trial - the noise went through the roof while the trial was on.

BigEejit

Originally posted by oscarBravo
No, we don't all know that. Some of us know exactly the opposite.

Here we go again:rolleyes:
The coverage map for the last tranche of wireless licenses does not cover the extremities .... for instance a rural town like Caherciveen in Co. Kerry is not covered by it iirc and with just less than the trigger level for DSL could make use of BPL.
(and yes I know a government sponsored scheme for satellite broadband is available in Caherciveen .... but its satellite, nuff said)

So are water pipes. Let's campaign for broadband over water lines. What's that you say? It won't work? Bloody naysayers.
BPL isn't a rural solution. It won't work in Ireland. This has been discussed to death. Move on.

WTF are you wittering on about ... I was talking about a well known technology that has been seen working and you start about water pipes .....
As mentioned above, there are rural towns that are not likely to get their exchange DSL enabled, and are unlikely to get wireless either but this would work quite well with enough of a population density to have plenty of subscribers per transformer.

The only thing I heard about it was from an amateur radio friend who made recordings of the RF noise floor before and during the trial - the noise went through the roof while the trial was on.

Right .... and that purely circumstantial evidence proved what?

Ripwave

Originally posted by BigEejit
Here we go again:rolleyes:
The coverage map for the last tranche of wireless licenses does not cover the extremities .... for instance a rural town like Caherciveen in Co. Kerry is not covered by it iirc and with just less than the trigger level for DSL could make use of BPL.

You don't need to use licenced spectrum to provide Wireless Broadband - indeed, in rural areas interference on the 2.4GHz spectrum is probably a lot less trouble than it is in a built up area. (Not to mention that BPL equipment, because it's a timy market, is far more expensive than DSL equipment. Therefor any vuable "trigger" for BPL would be far higher than it would be for DSL).

(and yes I know a government sponsored scheme for satellite broadband is available in Caherciveen .... but its satellite, nuff said)

Just think about that for a minute - if they have to use satellite to get data into Caherciveen in the first place, then what good would BPL do you? What the hell would it distribute to the last mile?

WTF are you wittering on about ... I was talking about a well known technology that has been seen working and you start about water pipes .....

Except that it hasn't been seen working on a commercial basis - it's been trialled a number of times, and every single time, it's been dumped as just not feasible. (As far as I know - are there any commercial deployments of BPL anywhere?)

As mentioned above, there are rural towns that are not likely to get their exchange DSL enabled, and are unlikely to get wireless either but this would work quite well with enough of a population density to have plenty of subscribers per transformer.

"Unlikely to get wireless"? If they aren't likely to get wireless, it must be because nobody thinks it's worth their while providing it - what makes you think that the ESB would be a better choice, given that wireless gear is far cheaper than BPL, and has a longer reach?

iwb

This is the closest to a commercial implementation that I am aware of. It is still a trial but has been for quite some time. The caveat is 'The eventual launch of this service will, however, depend on the technology meeting regulations set out by the Radio Communications Agency and European Commission.'

spongebob

Powerline is a holy grail like Nuclear Fusion, it will be fabulous when it works but realistic only if it works without intefering with radio spectrum.

This has proved in experiments over the past 10 years to be an impossible hurdle to surmount without spending a fortune. Arguably it could possibly be cheaper to wrap lines in fibre instead out to the home than to isolate PL tech in order that it not interfere with the RF bands long used by experimenters (40Mhz ish IIRC ) . That will simply not happen in our lifetime.

We are really left with Wireless and ONLY Wireless as a feasible economic technology to deliver BB outside Urban areas.

Those who have long been Wireless Experimenters have the right to usage of the airwaves ...... a long established right of way ........ and probably won the argument about it before the trial in Tuam went live.

It will erupt again but in the absence of a huge qualitative leap in filtering and interference suppression (100x better) it is a dead duck in this country ...... IMO

I speak as a holy grailer who has seen the light

M

BigEejit

Originally posted by Ripwave
You don't need to use licenced spectrum to provide Wireless Broadband - indeed, in rural areas interference on the 2.4GHz spectrum is probably a lot less trouble than it is in a built up area. (Not to mention that BPL equipment, because it's a timy market, is far more expensive than DSL equipment. Therefor any vuable "trigger" for BPL would be far higher than it would be for DSL).

Look, WISPs arent even in towns with more than 20,000 people, what WISP is going to go after smaller markets, its not that its not viable for them .... it looks like they couldnt be arsed ..... as for cost, have you a pricelist there with you?

Just think about that for a minute - if they have to use satellite to get data into Caherciveen in the first place, then what good would BPL do you? What the hell would it distribute to the last mile?

There is fibre laid to (not through) smaller towns all over ... and anyway, microwave is a viable data transmission medium that is currently in use all over the country.

Except that it hasn't been seen working on a commercial basis - it's been trialled a number of times, and every single time, it's been dumped as just not feasible. (As far as I know - are there any commercial deployments of BPL anywhere?)

Didnt I read somewhere (possibly here) that there is a business doing it in Germany

"Unlikely to get wireless"? If they aren't likely to get wireless, it must be because nobody thinks it's worth their while providing it - what makes you think that the ESB would be a better choice, given that wireless gear is far cheaper than BPL, and has a longer reach?

See above ... there are towns with large populations up and down the country that dont have WISPs ..... and wrapping a fibre around some of their overhead wires is a hell of a lot cheaper than putting it in a hole in the ground....

BigEejit

Originally posted by Muck

I speak as a holy grailer who has seen the light

M

Or gone to the dark side :ninja:

spongebob

It is cheaper by a factor of 5-10 to wrap fibre rather than bury it, especiallly on the west coast where you get that granite schtuff lying around.

Wireless is cheaper by a factor of 5 to 10 than fibre wrapping ........and looks likely to get cheaper again .

I refer to UNIVERSAL Provisioning here.

M

spongebob

Originally posted by BigEejit
Or gone to the dark side :ninja:

No ! My holy grail is 5mbits to anywhere in the country that wants it, Universal BB availability. That can only be done with Wireless . Read up on Wimax .

The assistance of those who are already proficent in the use of wireless , the experimenters, is vital in order that the Holy Grail be reached in this decade. Call me an ultra pragmatist :ninja: if you must :ninja: !

M

oscarBravo

Originally posted by BigEejit
The coverage map for the last tranche of wireless licenses does not cover the extremities .... for instance a rural town like Caherciveen in Co. Kerry is not covered by it iirc and with just less than the trigger level for DSL could make use of BPL.

...or it could stick up a couple of access points and cover the whole town without destroying the HF radio spectrum, and at a fraction of the cost.

Knockmore isn't covered by any of the recent wireless licences either, but oh look: I've got broadband. I know of what I speak.

(and yes I know a government sponsored scheme for satellite broadband is available in Caherciveen .... but its satellite, nuff said)

More than 'nuff.

WTF are you wittering on about ... I was talking about a well known technology that has been seen working and you start about water pipes

Where has it been seen working? Post me a link to a successful commercial deployment of BPL in a rural environment.

As mentioned above, there are rural towns that are not likely to get their exchange DSL enabled, and are unlikely to get wireless either but this would work quite well with enough of a population density to have plenty of subscribers per transformer.

Given an effective range of 300m, the population density would need to be pretty high before the costs spiral out of control. Wireless can cover kilometres at extremely low cost.

Right .... and that purely circumstantial evidence proved what?

A hell of a lot more than your vague reference to "technology that has been seen working."

The funny thing is, you're not even being consistent:

microwave is a viable data transmission medium that is currently in use all over the country.

So, which is it? Can wireless cover the country or not?

Ripwave

Originally posted by BigEejit
Look, WISPs arent even in towns with more than 20,000 people, what WISP is going to go after smaller markets, its not that its not viable for them .... it looks like they couldnt be arsed ..... as for cost, have you a pricelist there with you?

You really aren't very good at putting 2 and 2 together and getting 4 are you?

The reason that there aren't WISPs in every little town and village is because not many people are convinced that there's a viable market worth serving. Is that hard to understand? And if there aren't enough people interested to make Wireless commercially viable, there sure as hell won't be enough to make BPL commercially viable. Or did you expect someone else to subsidise it for you?

Of course, the situation is slowly changing - the companies that are beginning to show up to deliver Wireless broadband outside the cities (lastmile, digiweb, KCS, to name 3 off the top off my head) are making steady progress, building up their experience, and their coverage. But they still need to know that there is an audience for their service before they will invest in an area. The Group Data Schemes have also demonstrated that Wireless delivery of Broadband can and does work in rural areas - and at an affordable price (but you won't get a GDS unless the end users put their money where their mouths are _before_ they get the service, which makes the success of Knockmore all the more encouraging!)

There is fibre laid to (not through) smaller towns all over ... and anyway, microwave is a viable data transmission medium that is currently in use all over the country.

That's exactly my point! The "South West Broadband Initiative" is using Satellite to deliver data into Cahirciveen, and it is then distributed using a WLAN in the town. In other owrds, they're using Wireless for the bit that BPL would deliver, the last mile, and have decided to get their backhaul via Satellite. Even if they used BPL instead, they'd still have to get their backhaul from somewhere, and BPL wouldn't make any difference to that.

Didnt I read somewhere (possibly here) that there is a business doing it in Germany

God only knows what you read. It's not going to provide much support for your argument if you can't find the reference yourself, though, is it?

See above ... there are towns with large populations up and down the country that dont have WISPs

And how many of them have BPL?

Ripwave

Originally posted by iwb
This is the closest to a commercial implementation that I am aware of. It is still a trial but has been for quite some time. The caveat is 'The eventual launch of this service will, however, depend on the technology meeting regulations set out by the Radio Communications Agency and European Commission.'

The FAQ still says
"Do you have any future rollout plans for other customers in your area?
We are in advanced stages of our trials on a technical level and early stages on a commercial level. The results of the pilots in Stonehaven, Crieff and Winchester will shape our future rollout plans. The Stonehaven trial started in July of last year, so that sort of puts the Scottish-Hydro site in the same league as NTL "Get broadband from us!!!" (if you live in a few selected areas....)

BigEejit

Originally posted by oscarBravo
...or it could stick up a couple of access points and cover the whole town without destroying the HF radio spectrum, and at a fraction of the cost. ... .... ....
Knockmore isn't covered by any of the recent wireless licences either, but oh look: I've got broadband. I know of what I speak.

Correct me if I'm wrong but arent you getting you backhaul from DSL? its not an option in outlying areas...

More than 'nuff.

Satellite broadband = no IP telephony, no online games, and much more low latency applications, in other words its cack

Where has it been seen working?

not too far from you... Tuam I believe

Post me a link to a successful commercial deployment of BPL in a rural environment.

Maybe I overstated a little here, I remember a discussion here before and someone provided a link to a german company offering BPL on a larger scale than normally associated with "a trial."

Given an effective range of 300m, the population density would need to be pretty high before the costs spiral out of control. Wireless can cover kilometres at extremely low cost.

OK ...enough of the anecdotal "BPL is really expensive" ... show me a price list (/me waits for the zealots to find the most expensive BPL cost possible compared to the cheapest wireless cost)

A hell of a lot more than your vague reference to "technology that has been seen working."

Right, noise floor increases (alarmingly so according to some interested parties) and this is immediately pinned on something that said interested parties believe to be a threat to their spectrum ...hmmmm bit of a coincidence that...
You compare this to trials that do actually what they were designed to do ..i.e. provide broadband to customers and call the technology vague ..... I dont follow you there

The funny thing is, you're not even being consistent: So, which is it? Can wireless cover the country or not?

I was referring to the point to point wireless links put in place by Eircom .... when eircom removed the multiple phone lines linking exchanges all over the country they sometimes put in microwave links (called microwave, but I think they use a much higher frequency) for a lot of the links between exchanges and got an external company to reclaim the copper hanging off the poles.

BigEejit

Originally posted by Ripwave
You really aren't very good at putting 2 and 2 together and getting 4 are you?

... awww ... we can always count on you for trying to belittle people .... here, let me massage your ego ...... er nah, its big enough already...

The reason that there aren't WISPs in every little town and village is because not many people are convinced that there's a viable market worth serving. Is that hard to understand? ooohhhhhh ... a double helping of belittlement, I feel loved And if there aren't enough people interested to make Wireless commercially viable, there sure as hell won't be enough to make BPL commercially viable. Or did you expect someone else to subsidise it for you?

Where do you get your facts and figures that you make these broad generalisations about? ... as for subsidies for delivering broadband by a state owned company ... it was not really going to happen was it?, there would be uproar. And do you claim to understand the ESB's business plans, and what they think is viable and what isnt? ... enough conjecture please, ESB may or may not extend their trial and if they find that there is good uptake and more importantly, if they find there is lots of money in it they will push for it with the government.

Of course, the situation is slowly changing - the companies that are beginning to show up to deliver Wireless broadband outside the cities (lastmile, digiweb, KCS, to name 3 off the top off my head) are making steady progress, building up their experience, and their coverage. But they still need to know that there is an audience for their service before they will invest in an area. The Group Data Schemes have also demonstrated that Wireless delivery of Broadband can and does work in rural areas - and at an affordable price (but you won't get a GDS unless the end users put their money where their mouths are _before_ they get the service, which makes the success of Knockmore all the more encouraging!)

OK, its not viable for BPL and it is for wireless, not the only one with 2+2 problems ..... why are there places where the arguably more expensive DSL is implemented and its well subscribed and wireless isnt available at all? ... I think its all about cost, DSL ISP's companies are eating the cost of connecting customers but WISP's arent ... if the ESB took over the costs of installation they would be a serious contender for most people who want broadband. How many people would avail of broadband per 1000 is not something easily found out and varies from area to area, what makes sense in Leitrim may not be true for Wexford ... broadband in every primary school will be a big driver for broadband uptake I think, more potential customers may get the WISPs to get the finger out, but I'm not holding my breath...

That's exactly my point! The "South West Broadband Initiative" is using Satellite to deliver data into Cahirciveen, and it is then distributed using a WLAN in the town. In other owrds, they're using Wireless for the bit that BPL would deliver, the last mile, and have decided to get their backhaul via Satellite. Even if they used BPL instead, they'd still have to get their backhaul from somewhere, and BPL wouldn't make any difference to that.

Indeed, WLAN to distribute the satellite feed is a good plan and easy to implement ... but if the ESB were going to offer bpl they would wrap some fibre around their cables and bring bandwidth to where it could be distributed ... I really dont envisage any company using bpl to redistribute a crappy satellite connection

God only knows what you read. It's not going to provide much support for your argument if you can't find the reference yourself, though, is it?

couldnt be arsed spending ages trying to find it ....but it was definitely mentioned in a post on boards.ie .... just because I dont link to it does not mean it doesnt exist

And jebus, would people stop with the wireless will sort out everything .... it is _A_ possible way of getting decent low latency bandwidth into peoples homes ...


Right ...I'm off to bed .... just cant wait for some more good vibes in this thread ... makes me feel all warm inside.

BPL is coming hip hip horray ..... (just to annoy the zealots)

Just cant help thinking how different this 'discussion' would be if 802.11b was a threat to the ham radio frequencys and bpl wasnt ....

Ripwave

Originally posted by BigEejit
... awww ... we can always count on you for trying to belittle people

There's a good one! Someone calls himself "BigEejit", lives up to his own name, and then gets all huffy when people try to explain things in very simple terms because he's repeated demonstrated that he doesn't have a terribly firm grasp of the bleedin' obvious.

Where do you get your facts and figures that you make these broad generalisations about?

Right here on boards.

And do you claim to understand the ESB's business plans, and what they think is viable and what isnt? ... enough conjecture please, ESB may or may not extend their trial and if they find that there is good uptake and more importantly, if they find there is lots of money in it they will push for it with the government.

Hey, if you want a moratorium on any discussion of BPL until the ESB make their mind up, then go ahead and shut up, nobody is stopping you. Or do you want every one else to stop, while you continue with your fact free ramblings?

OK, its not viable for BPL and it is for wireless, not the only one with 2+2 problems ..... why are there places where the arguably more expensive DSL is implemented and its well subscribed and wireless isnt available at all?

DSL isn't expensive to implement!!!!! Eircom can hardly keep up with the demand in the areas that they have implemented it, so they have no need to accelerate their rollout program. And the companies that are rolling out Wireless are actually making faster progress than eircom did with DSL, but those that are servicing areas outside the cities are focussing their resources on the areas that they can properly support. They're not rolling out wirleless broadband out of some sort of mission to bring broadband to the masses, the're commercial enterprises, out to sell a service. They won't do themselves, or their paying customers any favours by over extending themselves.

Indeed, WLAN to distribute the satellite feed is a good plan and easy to implement ... but if the ESB were going to offer bpl they would wrap some fibre around their cables and bring bandwidth to where it could be distributed

'sfunny, I could have sworn that someone with a name very similiar to yours said something about "There is fibre laid to (not through) smaller towns all over " - there is no need for the ESB to bring any more fibre to these places, it's already there! If wrapping fibre would be cheaper than buying their backhaul from someone else, why aren't they wrapping fibre today, and selling that backhaul themselves? (Yes, I know about the figure-of-8 networks).

And jebus, would people stop with the wireless will sort out everything .... it is _A_ possible way of getting decent low latency bandwidth into peoples homes ...

Personally, I'd chose a wired link over a wireless link in most cases - but BPL is a dodo that doesn't have _any_ advantages over wireless in rural areas, and only makes sense in reasonably built up areas, where DSL is already likely to be an option.

Just cant help thinking how different this 'discussion' would be if 802.11b was a threat to the ham radio frequencys and bpl wasnt ....

FFS - did you bother to stop and think _WHY_ 802.11b isn't, and couldn't possibly be a threat to ham radio frequencies?

oscarBravo

Originally posted by BigEejit
Correct me if I'm wrong but arent you getting you backhaul from DSL? its not an option in outlying areas...

Yup - for now. But remember - you're the one that pointed out that microwaves are really, really good at getting bandwidth to remote places. Watch this space.

Satellite broadband = no IP telephony, no online games, and much more low latency applications, in other words its cack

I agreed with you. Pay attention.

not too far from you... Tuam I believe

Woo, BPL works in an environment where (a) DSL would have worked just as well, and (b) WiFi could have achieved the same thing at a fraction of the cost and without making **** of the HF spectrum. Excuse me while I'm underwhelmed.

Maybe I overstated a little here, I remember a discussion here before and someone provided a link to a german company offering BPL on a larger scale than normally associated with "a trial."

Go get a link.

OK ...enough of the anecdotal "BPL is really expensive" ... show me a price list (/me waits for the zealots to find the most expensive BPL cost possible compared to the cheapest wireless cost)

I think you're mistaking me for someone who gives a rat's ass what BPL costs: it won't work for the bulk of the geographical area of the country, so it's not interesting. BTW, I know exactly what it costs to provide wireless coverage to a rural community. I haven't seen any figures for BPL yet. I'm willing to bet my solution is cheaper though.

Right, noise floor increases (alarmingly so according to some interested parties) and this is immediately pinned on something that said interested parties believe to be a threat to their spectrum ...hmmmm bit of a coincidence that...

It's not a coincidence. BPL raises the noise floor. Everyone knows this. If you have evidence that it doesn't, please post it.

You compare this to trials that do actually what they were designed to do ..i.e. provide broadband to customers and call the technology vague ..... I dont follow you there

Actually, I called you vague. Pay attention, please.

I was referring to the point to point wireless links put in place by Eircom .... when eircom removed the multiple phone lines linking exchanges all over the country they sometimes put in microwave links (called microwave, but I think they use a much higher frequency) for a lot of the links between exchanges and got an external company to reclaim the copper hanging off the poles.

You can wave your arms until the cows come home, but you're just proving my point. Wireless provides a cheap way of getting bandwidth to where it's needed.

Just so we're clear, I'm with Ripwave: I'd rather a wired connection any day. But until some kind soul decides it's a worthwhile exercise pulling a fibre to my doorstep, I'll continue to explore the capabilities of wireless.

Moriarty

I'd like everyone to just take a step back for a moment. Breath in through the nose slowly, and out through the mouth. Repeat a few times. There now, don't you feel much more relaxed? Good.

There's no need for the aggresive tone from either 'side' here, so let's not have handbags at five paces unnecessarly.

That is all, carry on.

BigEejit

Originally posted by Moriarty
I'd like everyone to just take a step back for a moment. Breath in through the nose slowly, and out through the mouth. Repeat a few times. There now, don't you feel much more relaxed? Good.

There's no need for the aggresive tone from either 'side' here, so let's not have handbags at five paces unnecessarly.

That is all, carry on.

Theyre zealots, cant help themselves ..... oh the warm fuzzy feeling you get when being personally attacked by a bunch of ..... ....... ok, I wont classify them/him, taking Moriartys advice ... breathing deep ..

Rew

Interesting that you would call anyone a zealot, a defiant case of hypocrisy. Personally id think of you more as an extremist driven by a lack of broadband you don’t really care what happens to anyone else once you get what you want. Feel free to correct me on that opinion of you but you explicitly don’t care if parts of the radio spectrum become unusable to others as long as you get broadband, yeah?

The noise problems would effect a lot more the radio hams it would potentially interfere with military, marine and aviation radio as well. Others here back up their zealously with explicit fact and links you just rant on at everyone with groundless rubbish.

Plenty of evidence that BPL causes problems. (isnt google great )

http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/

http://www.wave-report.com/tutorials/bpl.htm (basicly says BPL is fine if its underground but overhead may be a problem)

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/broadband/0,39020342,39160545,00.htm (quotes problems with BPL and one trial haveing to be abandoned)

etc...

(http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=broadband+power+line+communications&spell=1)

sceptre

Originally posted by BigEejit
Theyre zealots, cant help themselves ..... oh the warm fuzzy feeling you get when being personally attacked by a bunch of ..... ....... ok, I wont classify them/him, taking Moriartys advice ... breathing deep ..

Thin ice BigEejit - as Moriarty said, stick to the issues and only the issues. I'll happily ban anyone on either side of the argument for getting (unduly) personal without having to breathe myself.

BigEejit

I've hooked three of them now .... cool

Originally posted by Rew
Interesting that you would call anyone a zealot, a defiant case of hypocrisy. Personally id think of you more as an extremist driven by a lack of broadband you don’t really care what happens to anyone else once you get what you want. Feel free to correct me on that opinion of you but you explicitly don’t care if parts of the radio spectrum become unusable to others as long as you get broadband, yeah?

No actually, I live in Cork and have DSL there.... try again
And no - I dont give a toss about a small group denying access to broadband to large groups of people because it (may or may not) impinge on their spectrum...

The noise problems would effect a lot more the radio hams it would potentially interfere with military, marine and aviation radio as well. Others here back up their zealously with explicit fact and links you just rant on at everyone with groundless rubbish.

Dont you mean the alleged noise problems that may affect them ... saying that bpl causes all the RF noise seen by ham radio 'experts' is at best a dodgy theory .... there are more electronic devices in the world every day, any of which could cause noise in ham raido frequencies (talking about cheap crap from the far east here rather than EMC tested gear from the EU/US/Japan)

Plenty of evidence that BPL causes problems. (isnt google great )
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/
http://www.wave-report.com/tutorials/bpl.htm (basicly says BPL is fine if its underground but overhead may be a problem)
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/broadband/0,39020342,39160545,00.htm (quotes problems with BPL and one trial haveing to be abandoned)

Plenty of propaganda from ham radio organisations and ham radio users you mean


I havent forgot the others either .... will answer their poor arguments and personal attacks later because I am in work

bkehoe

Just because you dont have dsl on your doorstep doesnt mean you cant avail of it from another location. Get out there and do something - find someone in your nearest dsl enabled town willing to let you get a connection in, get a few people in your local community interested, a build a wireless link from there to your village. BPL isnt the answer - wireless or satellite are the only options for rural communities, and you'll be waiting almost indefinatly for broadband if you're not prepared to do anything about it.

bkehoe

How would you like to be flying over to america, and there's an emergency onboard and the flight crew cant contact anyone because BPL is causing interference on the HF airband at the other end?

maxheadroom

Hmm, was going to stay out of this, mainly because I'm almost convinced that BigEejit is trolling at this point but...

BigEejit. Can you explain to me why BPL is a more attractive last mile solution than wireless. Especially when considering that the ESB is one of the largest owners of high sites in the country. If the ESB did want to get into end user broadband provision, why would they use BPL over 802.11x or Wimax? Especially considering either last mile solution is going to need a bandwidth feed (either fibre, high capacity microwave point to point, or satelite).

Secondly, the "allegations" of niose floor increase have been proved by people taking measurements before, during and after BPL trials worldwide. If you wish to dispute this, you must provide evidence that contradicts theirs (the anit-BPL lobby). Its not good enough to say "they're anti-BPL, so their evidence can't be trusted at all".

And finally, the water pipes thing mightn't have been such a bad idea, I remember reading about some utility in the states installing "fiber" through their sewers...

Rew

Originally posted by maxheadroom
Hmm, was going to stay out of this, mainly because I'm almost convinced that BigEejit is trolling at this point but...

Im pretty convinced my self after reading his last follow up...

dahamsta

I don't think some people will ever get it, and I'm not just talking about BE (who doesn't want to get it, and who should really be on your ignore lists). Here's the deal guys, pay attention. Repeat after me:

There Is No Golden Goose
There Is No Golden Goose

It's Not BPL (BigEejit)
It's Not Wireless (oscarBravo)
It's Not WiMax (Muck)
It's Not FTT(H|C) (dahamsta)

All of these technologies - except perhaps, ironically enough, BPL - have their own place and application. For example, in extremely remote areas with extremely low populations, satellite connectivity is absolutely the best people can do. Yes, it's far too expensive, and yes it's a massive kludge, but it gets the job done. On the flipside, in an extremely large urban area, with extremely high populations, FTTC is absolutely the best people can do, distributed internally via Gigabit Ethernet. And there's lots in between, all suited to different solutions.

So could we get a bit of balance please? Could people, just for a minute, consider opposing views? Because responding to someone like BigEejit with an extremist binary "BPL BAD" response is exactly what he wants. You're just giving a twit jollies and annoying everyone else, in a sitation where you could in fact have quite a nice chat and maybe even resolve something occasionally.

adam

Rew

The thread is about BPL hence the discussion is centered on BPL, solving the rural BB problem is a side issue and basily OT.

oscarBravo

/paul apologises to the group for being disruptive.

Adam, you're absolutely right - there is no one-size-fits-all solution to universal broadband in Ireland.

Why did I participate in feeding this particular troll? Because of the adage that a lie repeated long enough and loud enough becomes perceived as truth. A snake-oil peddler can actually do harm if he distracts people from the efforts they should be putting into the solutions that actually do work.

dahamsta

If snake oil merchants like BigEejit and BrianD weren't given legitimacy in threads like this, no-one would care.

adam

Rew

Originally posted by dahamsta
If snake oil merchants like BigEejit and BrianD weren't given legitimacy in threads like this, no-one would care.

adam

I agree there alright

BigEejit

lovely .... if you have the temerity to stand up for your convictions you get branded a twit, a troll, a snake oil salesman and referred to like I was an object by the acting chairman of irelandoffline no less .... nice to see that he is taking an even handed approach to this ....

I'll keep it short, some of the dimwits here cant seem to keep on subject if there are long posts.

I _always_ treat with the utmost suspicion findings made by interested groups, in this case ham radio groups and their individuals .... the FCC on the other hand would have a much higher standing in my estimation and they havent been vocal about getting it stopped ... in fact quite the opposite, they want more of it apparently link .... it is mostly politically driven, but they could have stopped it dead IMO if it was a serious enough hazard for commercial users of that spectrum....

As for the german company offering bpl on a commercial basis it is http://www.piper-net.de/ .... site is all in German....

as for this comment:

A snake-oil peddler can actually do harm if he distracts people from the efforts they should be putting into the solutions that actually do work.

er ... I distract people from using wireless, satellite or DSL?? ... HTF do I manage to do that?? ... you come out with some beauties

About noise floor increases: it could be BPL, but I fear that the interested groups are blowing the effect of it out of all proportion .... there have been plenty of trials (new one started in China I've learned today ... and you can be sure that a ham radio lobby group wont go far there .... will be interesting) and at least one commercial implementation ... I dont see planes falling out of the sky willy nilly.. do you?, it should have, according to arrl it causes so much short wave noise its effects can be seen hundreds of kilometers away!!..

As for the muppets replying to my answers completely out of context .... you are both thick, nuff said ... but I do enjoy your off topic "attack the poster not the post" method of making yourselves look stupid .....
And Ripwave,

Someone calls himself "BigEejit", lives up to his own name

..do you live up to your name? crap wireless product?

Moriarty

BigEejit is banned for a week. He can come back and post to this thread again after he's had some time to cool down if he behaves himself.

Paladin

Though things went a little off topic....

I mailed ESB and asked them what the deal is atm (pretended I was a manager at a big multinational ) and I got this reply:

****,

Many thanks for your enquiry about ESB Telecoms.

We are carrying out a technical trial of Power Line Carrier (PLC) in Tuam, Co. Galway at present.

This trial is to assess the suitability of various types of PLC equipment to the ESB electricity network.

The trial will conclude later this summer, but it is unlikely to proceed as a full commercial trial or a commercial offering to commercial/residential customers.

In relation to your requirements, perhaps you could contact the wireless Internet Service Providers such as Irish Broadband, Digiweb and Leap who offer this type of service to both commercial and residential customers.

Their websites are:

www.irishbroadband.ie

www.digiweb.ie

www.leap.ie

Thanks again for your enquiry and if there is any more information you need, please let me know.

Best regards,

Peter Kelly,

Marketing Manager,

ESB Telecoms

MarVeL

Just had a look at the piper site and, from what my poor online german translation says, it does seem worth looking at. It ain't cheap though €65 per month with a 3Gb cap and 2c per Mb over the cap. They seem to be focussed very much on the small user.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by MarVeL
Just had a look at the piper site and, from what my poor online german translation says, it does seem worth looking at. It ain't cheap though �65 per month with a 3Gb cap and 2c per Mb over the cap. They seem to be focussed very much on the small user.

It also doesn't seem all that quick, based on my limited German:

Die vom Kunden nutzbare typische Bandbreite liegt zwischen 180 und 480 kbit/s