Broadband Over Powerlines: The Technology Of The Perpetual Future...

from the just-keep-on-believin' dept

Thu, Nov 30th 2006 5:03pm — Mike Masnick

We've been hearing about the supposed wonders of "broadband over powerlines" (BPL) for many, many years. There were some reports in the mid-nineties about the technology, where it was made pretty clear that powerlines really couldn't handle BPL at any serious scale, but that hasn't stopped plenty of companies from trying over the years -- nearly all of which have received tons of hype from the press and the FCC (who desperately wants another offering to hit the market, so they can claim that there's real competition in broadband). Back in 1999, for example, we wrote about a company that claimed it was ready to offer exobit speeds over powerlines. Where are they now? Wish we knew, as most of us are surfing at megabits or kilobits. 2001 was supposed to be a big year for BPL too. That didn't happen. 2003 saw the story pop up again. In 2004, FCC chair Michael Powell declared it "the great broadband hope," when "great broadband joke" was much more accurate. Various hyped up trials were being shut down as failures. And on, and on and on again. Over at Broadband Reports, they note that every year, we're told it's the "year of BPL" and every year, it seems to go nowhere at all. Yet, each time the press picks up on the story as if it's got a chance, without ever looking at why it's had so many problems. In the meantime, we've recently been hearing about plans for broadband over gas lines. Perhaps that can be the "great broadband hope/joke" for the next decade.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

33 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Spud, 30 Nov 2006 @ 6:07pm

Do we want this?
Do we want Broadband over Power lines? Shouldn’t totally wireless broadband for everyone be the ultimate aim?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wade, 30 Nov 2006 @ 6:11pm

LGW
A great opportunity for light, gas, and water companies to generate revenue. What would the price be after the service is marked and taxed by a local service provider. Would the price ever be competitive? Not that it will ever happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AZ, 30 Nov 2006 @ 6:16pm

wireless internet
Wouldnt building towers for wireless be a cheaper and much more efficient idea? I mean you could get it anywhere like a cell phone. Less lines to run and less hassle. I heard those lines are expensive. Copper is outrageous by the pound. I doubt a cell phone like tower is cheap either but would it be?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RuralHighSpeed, 30 Nov 2006 @ 6:21pm

Re: wireless internet
For the very remote farm and ranch folks, wireless will never get there but power-lines are already there. Let us hope for their sakes, this will work someday
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Aaron, 30 Nov 2006 @ 6:50pm

Farm and Ranch Folks
Earlier this year when I was in the midwest "farm" area, there was cell coverage almost everywhere - the problem is in the rural areas once a technology gets installed it often is many, many, many years until it is upgraded. For example, cell coverage was everywhere, it just wouldn't work with my GSM phone ... ;)

I would agree with AZ in that cell technology is much more practical because of it's mobility factor but more importantly it has dual purpose - both traditional cellular voice communications and data communications with the same base station equipment.

If they can go through and name and post street signs for all those dirt farm roads, I'm sure they can get cellular coverage accomplished as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prabhat, 30 Nov 2006 @ 6:54pm

BPL or PWL???
Instead of BPL, we should now think of WLPT i.e. Wire Less Power Transmission. Though a bigger joke it may look, but if realized it will be advantageous beyond our imagination (and then we can dedidate all existing Power Lines fully to Broad Band !).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Justin Pakosky, 30 Nov 2006 @ 6:56pm

there is one major problem with this i don't know if its true but a friend of mien said that it uses the ham radio frequency's and that would shoot down a lot of hobbyist if its true or false could someone post me a response.
thanks
[ link to this | view in thread ]
b_has_opinions (profile), 30 Nov 2006 @ 6:56pm

RuralHighSpeed,

I have in my possession a WiMax modem which is being offered here in Canada for portable internet service. It gives (initial) speeds of 1.5 Mbit down and 256kbit up, which apparently is scalable to several times that.

The Wimax technology they use is reputed to cover an area 30km wide (18.6 mi) from each tower.

The builders of this network say that is how they will bring broadband to rural areas, and say they will be doing just that in the next 12 months.

We'll see what happens.

Broadband over powerlines will be vaporware for a long time to come. There are technological hurdles to overcome that will cost much more than adding wimax to existing cel towers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
misanthropic humanist, 30 Nov 2006 @ 6:57pm

radio propagation
Copper isn't used for power lines AZ, it's too soft - most power lines are aluminum alloys, but your point stands, the cost is higher.

Another problem not addressed is radiation (electromagnetic). When you start pumpng gigabits of data down a wire at a potential of 200kV it has a habit of radiating everywhere, the power lines become a giant radio antenna.

Of course the data would be encrypted, but the real problem is the nuicance this EMI causes to every other electronic device within range.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ham Radio Operator, 30 Nov 2006 @ 7:16pm

BPL doesn't use ham radio frequencies. It can cause a lot of interference and noise on ham radio frequencies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Charles Griswold, 30 Nov 2006 @ 7:18pm

Hey, I have an idea
Why not just put fiber into everyone's house. IMHO, it's more feasible than some of the other hair-brained schemes that people seem to come up with. And (if my memory serves me correctly) the telcos have promised it and the customers have already paid for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SimplyGimp, 30 Nov 2006 @ 8:04pm

Hrm
I remember back in the early 90s people talking about the possibility of transferring data over voltage lines. And now over 10 years later, someone MIGHT do something about it.

Don't get your hopes up people. This seems pretty useless, especially considering how much the TelCos have spent putting the unused fiber in all these metro areas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DubyaElectric, 30 Nov 2006 @ 8:21pm

Data over Voltage exists
You can set you home up with a relatively slower (IE NOT 10/100) network in your home and its been around for a long time. BPL may never be as fast as having an OC3 pipe into the backyard, but for areas where the usual speed is 56K when the weather is good and the voodoo works, BPL may be an alternative.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Weirdo, 30 Nov 2006 @ 8:47pm

Check this out
I realize that this technology is called by the good people at tech dirt, something akin to vaporware. But they are testing it in Cincinnati Ohio, a city very close to me, I have seen it in action, but it's still pending approval by the FCC, something about it interfering with ham, and short wave radio. Anyway this link shows the best information about it.
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/bpl.htm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt, 30 Nov 2006 @ 9:24pm

Ive got BPL......and its very dissapointing.
I live in Manassas,VA and we've got BPL in here sponsored by Comtek Broadband. Its slower than DSL. And I was greatly dissappointed. Anyone else have BPL? and how is it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jim, 30 Nov 2006 @ 9:42pm

only a matter of time
The big boys...google etc are starting to park themselves next to power dams etc.....it is only a matter of time...wired is faster than wireless...imagine being able to PLUG in anywhere ....oh yeah bring it on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rob, 30 Nov 2006 @ 10:06pm

Better use for PL infrastructure?
Might be a better use of the infrastructure to just use the ubiquitious power line towers for WIMAX (802.16) or something similar if there are not interference problems. According to Wikipedia (I know, check your source) the practical (not touted) performance of line of sight 802.16 in a rural environment is 10Mbps symetrical with about a 10km range, and about the same bandwidth with about a 2km expected range for urban applications. Those towers are way up there so the line of sight should be pretty good for rural areas, and they also do not follow the roads so coverage may be fairly extensive. Just because you CAN scratch your nose with your foot doesn't mean that its the best way to kill an itch. The railroads didn't try to use the rails (as far as I know) to send signals, they just used another resource, their "right of way". Horses for courses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Swiss Cheese Monster, 30 Nov 2006 @ 11:32pm

I was just thinking that we needed another joke.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JPRLK, 1 Dec 2006 @ 7:39am

Re: Rural and Remote Broadband
You should check out the Government of Canada's Communications Research Center's Rural and Remote Broadband initiative.

http://www.crc.ca/en/html/crc/home/research/rrba/rrba
[ link to this | view in thread ]
b_has_opinions (profile), 1 Dec 2006 @ 8:16am

BPL is a useful and viable way, for example, to wire an old hotel for in-room internet without running CAT5. In that situation, the BPL gear is on the 'friendly' side of the transformers.

Trying to route BPL through (or around) huge kilovolt switching stations is another story.

So... not vaporware, but also not the best way to scratch an itch. (Thanks Rob :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Lewis, 1 Dec 2006 @ 8:16am

Re: BPL and Ham Radio
It's not just hams...BPL uses EVERYBODY'S frequencies, and does so without a license. The potential for BPL to interfere with licensed services, including Amateur (Ham) Radio, Public Service (Police, Fire, rescue, etc.) Aircraft, Shortwave broadcast, and others is real and has been evident in tests on deployed systems. That's why so many BPL efforts have folded: FCC regulations clearly allow BPL as an unlicensed service ONLY if it does not interfere with licensed services; but most BPL implementations have been unable to prevent "leakage" of their signals from interfering. There is at least one developer's BPL technology, however, that seems to have solved the interference issue. Even the hams are happy with it. The problem now is that so many of the existing or planned BPL trials have jumped in too soon and are locked in to using the "bad" approach. The hams have said that they're not against BPL; just against BPL that fails to meet the FCC requirements.

Now, given that, an issue that remains is whether or not BPL in any form is a profitable approach. There is a lot of doubt at this point!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Parthian Macgregor, 1 Dec 2006 @ 8:43am

Re: BPL using ham radio frequencies
Hi Justin,

It's not that all of these BPL systems use the actual ham frequencies, but that their systems radiate so much spurious emmissions that the multiple harmonics of their transmissions wipe out many of the ham radio frequencies many megahertz away. These emissions clearly violate FCC regulations.

One of the most notorious is the system run by the City of Manassas, Virginia. If you were to cause this same level of radio interference you would likely be arrested. But somehow the FCC seems to be letting the city get away with it despite a number of highly technically-sound observations performed by the ham radio community and the American Radio Relay League, indicating that the system is wildly out of compliance.

Of course, the slack the city is getting from the F.C.C. may be more due to the city's slick propaganda campaign rather than complacency on the part of the FCC enforcement division. But they are not likely be allowed to continue for much longer. This particular story continues to evolve.

What makes the Manassas case look even worse is that there are a number of systems around the country that seem to work just fine without causing harmful interference to other radio services (including ham radio). The reluctance of Manassas to redeploy a better technology is a mystery.

And just as an aside for those who might think that the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", it is worth considering the fact that ham radio operators regularly swing into action in the midst of disasters for our mutual benefit, and do so for long periods of time, and without remuneration of any kind. And just recently amateur radio was recognized as an integral part of Homeland Security.

The truth is, hams have been protecting us for years, sending and recieving emergency and health-and-welfare "traffic" when no other form or system of communication was capable of getting through. Katrina is a recent example of their skill and dedication to our country. They have provided at their own expense and expertise thousands of overseas phone-patch connections so that deployed military could talk with their familes back home. They are always practicing their art, testing their capabilities, and upgrading their equipment. And above all, they remain vigilant.

Next time you see a car license plate that reads "Amateur Radio" on it, roll down your window and yell "Seventy Three!", which means 'Best Regards' in ham parlance. You're likely to get a big grin from a guy who would never feel like it's owed him, but might like a high-five once in a while for his effort.

73!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tottenham 5 Arsenal 0, 1 Dec 2006 @ 11:47am

BPL driver
Anyone who is playing close attention to BPL deployments will notice that utility applications such as advanced metering and smart grid application are a major driver for BPL. Can is deliver retail broadband access? Yes. But the real driver for the utilities will be business applications to improve grid management.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fred, 1 Dec 2006 @ 11:57am

BPL
The "Get broadband to the rural areas that don't have cable, DSL, or wireless" argument is attractive, but won't happen. BPL is in the HF spectrum (2-40 MHz or so) and the powerlines are pretty good antennas. Energy radiated will 1) Interfere with other licensed users of that spectrum; and 2) not arrive at the distant end of the power line.

This requires multiple repeaters to regenerate the signals along the way. The low density of subscribers, the long distances involved, and the high number of repeaters make BPL quite uneconomic for rural broadband delivery.

The FCC often proves the old adage:

"anything is possible if you don't know what you're doing"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
5280Angel, 1 Dec 2006 @ 11:58am

I for one am hoping for the gas-line technology to really come through. I know Nethercomm made an announcement in early 2005 about their breakthrough discovery. My vote is that we call it GASBAND.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ed Leczek, 1 Dec 2006 @ 3:10pm

BPL
Another compelling argument for not letting politicians dictate to technicians how to do their jobs!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Garry Shapiro, 1 Dec 2006 @ 8:26pm

Re: Justin Pakosky
BPL starts out using ALL frequencies from 2 to 80 MHz, including all ham bands from 80 through 6 meters. Thus it poses an interference threat to ALL services in that range, including SW broadcast, government and commercial in addition to amateur radio.

Proponents have attempted to mitigate interference by notching out sensitive areas of spectrum, e.g. ham bands, but have generally failed at this.

Recently, Motorola demonstrated a system that was much more successful at excluding sensitive spectrum, and even impressed testers at ARRL. But most ongoing tests continue to use prior, failed approaches, and beat heads fruitlessly against the same walls.

If the technology equaled the hype from FCC, vendors and power companies, there might be something to it, but it does not.

This is definitely an idea whose time has not come, and probably never will. The inherent incompatibility between RF transmission and the power distribution system is a tough nut.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Garry Shapiro, 1 Dec 2006 @ 8:30pm

As we used to say about ISDN, BPL is the techology of the future---and it always will be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh, 3 Dec 2006 @ 2:18am

BPL is a joke and probably the worst idea of the 2
BPL is a joke and probably the worst idea of the 21st century. Everyone should have free $G satellite NOW. It's possible but people have to get paid I guess.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Om Bhandari, 3 Dec 2006 @ 4:07am

What if the ground wire has fibre optic cores (FOGW)? We have fibre optic ground wire in some of our transmission lines in Bhutan. Our internet company at one time was talking about using them for broadband. I wonder what's going on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Frank Coluccio, 4 Dec 2006 @ 12:20am

Powerless Over Powerline
The exobit powerline company referenced in the article is (was?) Media Fusion. It was the object of much derision for a while, and with reason. Its board on the Silicon Investor Forum is at: http://tinyurl.com/v2lmc . It's Web site has become somewhat of an oddity, too: http://tinyurl.com/y3rad2 ; see the chairman of the company testifying before Congress in 2000, explaining its "breakthough" technology and its promise, while also using a scare tactic that suggested that foreign entities could beat the US to the punch: http://tinyurl.com/ygsmsp Embarrassing. And so it was. Frank
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gary Yantis, 4 Dec 2006 @ 6:15pm

BPL radio noise suppression - "guaranteed"
"Guaranteed" BPL radio noise suppression will be brought to you by the same politicians who dictated low flush toilets two years before the technology existed. They passed the law and toilet companies did their best but failed. I own a house built that year with four toilets that stop up daily.

Bill Clinton had all the toilets in the White House replaced with low flush toilets to great media applause. Then had them all quietly replaced with the old ones a few months later after Hillary had one too many bad experiences with the executive "throne" flooding the bedroom (true story). It took an executive order to get around the law. I've read it even though it is REALLY buried in the Clinton archives. The private living quarters of the White House were changed to public use (regular toilets allowed in commercial buildings) then changed back after the old toilets were replaced. One of the many things most people aren't aware the Clintons did to keep busy during their eight years in the White House.

Or the congressional committee who suggested to Internet satellite providers that the transmission delay caused by signals being sent many thousands of miles back and forth to the satellite could be easily corrected by just setting the receiver so that it receives a signal before it is sent. Also a true story. The companies receiving this suggestion from elected officials had great difficulty writing answers that didn't hint at the committee being dumber than a post. BPL is like a elephant designed by a committee. Except, in this case, it's many politicians who have vested interests either of a political or of a financial nature.

Common sense and the laws of physics and professional engineering have nothing to do with BPL. It's a way for politicians to gain votes from the ignorant and a way for others to extract "investment" money from (also) ignorant people. W.C. Fields continues to be proven right except it's now about one every three seconds -- not one every minute.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FemtoBeam, 9 May 2008 @ 12:01am

Re: radio propagation
The electromagnetic radiation from wireless communications, particularly some high powered WiMax and cell phone towers concentrate heavy metals and trap them inside of brain cells. This causes toxins to be released and can cause cancers. The studies done concerning autism being caused by the concentration of these heavy metals, such as mercury and uranium in the brains of children are being covered up and sabotaged. As these antennas proliferate and screen sizes increase, thereby edging out cable television due to the signal to noise ratios and needs for increased bandwidths, perhaps we will finally see the fiber to the home we have all been waiting for. Of course, which HDTV electronic manufacturer will you be indebted to? Who owns the rights of way leaseback agreements (usually 100 years) in your town? Will you still be able to think straight by then?
[ link to this | view in thread ]