Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Any News on Powerline Broadband?
Options
-
21-07-2004 12:24pmI 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/0
Comments
-
/me waits for the ham radio heads to swoop :ninja:0
-
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,0 -
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?0 -
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?0 -
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]0 -
Advertisement
-
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)0 -
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.0
-
Originally posted by Rew
LOL id be intrested to the author versus you as a head to head.
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...0 -
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.0 -
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 extremities0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
BPL isn't a rural solution. It won't work in Ireland. This has been discussed to death. Move on.0 -
Just out of curiosity whatever happened to the trial the ESB were doing?0
-
Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc
Just out of curiosity whatever happened to the trial the ESB were doing?0 -
Originally posted by oscarBravo
No, we don't all know that. Some of us know exactly the opposite.
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.
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.0 -
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.(and yes I know a government sponsored scheme for satellite broadband is available in Caherciveen .... but its satellite, nuff said)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.0 -
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.'0
-
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
M0 -
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).
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?
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?)"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?0 -
Originally posted by Muck
I speak as a holy grailer who has seen the light
M
Or gone to the dark side :ninja:0 -
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.
M0 -
Advertisement
-
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: !
M0 -
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.
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)WTF are you wittering on about ... I was talking about a well known technology that has been seen working and you start about water pipesAs 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.Right .... and that purely circumstantial evidence proved what?
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.0 -
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?
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.Didnt I read somewhere (possibly here) that there is a business doing it in GermanySee above ... there are towns with large populations up and down the country that dont have WISPs0 -
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.'
"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....)0 -
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.
More than 'nuff.Where has it been seen working?Post me a link to a successful commercial deployment of BPL in a rural environment.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.A hell of a lot more than your vague reference to "technology that has been seen working."
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?0 -
Originally posted by Ripwave
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? 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?
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!)
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.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?
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 ....0 -
Originally posted by BigEejit
... awww ... we can always count on you for trying to belittle peopleWhere do you get your facts and figures that you make these broad generalisations about?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.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?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 distributedAnd 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 ...Just cant help thinking how different this 'discussion' would be if 802.11b was a threat to the ham radio frequencys and bpl wasnt ....0 -
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...Satellite broadband = no IP telephony, no online games, and much more low latency applications, in other words its cacknot too far from you... Tuam I believeMaybe 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."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)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 thereI 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.
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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0
Advertisement