more on Plug-In Internet Connection to Get Test on Long Island]

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bob Frankston <Bob2-19-0501 () bobf frankston com>
Date: February 27, 2006 2:14:04 PM EST
To: dave () farber net, ip () v2 listbox com
Cc: "'Dave Goldblatt'" <daveg () psyton com>
Subject: RE: [IP] mo Plug-In Internet Connection to Get Test on Long  
Island]

In trying to look at the RFP and the Intelligrid proposals I'm even  
more confused. (As an aside, I wish we could get past the faux paper  
of PDF and use HTML).

I notice that http://www.lipower.org/papers/rfp/bpl/bpl.pdf is titled  
" REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS BROADBAND OVER POWER LINE And WIRELESS  
COMMUNICATIONS Demonstration Project".  Wireless?

There is so much mind-numbing over-specification that it is difficult  
to figure out exactly what is going on. The document goes into  
painful detail about specific applications, marketplace and revenue  
models, functions and whatever. This is why took the approach I did  
in http://www.frankston.com/?name=GettingConnectivity – we have to  
start from the edge and view any of these paths as opportunistic (IP)  
transports rather than each one as a delivery system.

The basic assumption that these are each viable pay-as-you go  
operations is as bad as charging you for leaving your driveway to  
cover the cost of a trip across the country.

Trying to separate out the issues:

è                 If we look generally at the various EPRI projects  
are they all purely over the power line or is the more general  
approach to use whatever transport works. In the case of LIPA is it  
required that all data be over the power lines or is that just an  
option?

è                 Are the in-home and the external data distribution  
coupled or is there a device between the two. Is there any reason why  
the distribution within a home need use Homeplug? If so why and what  
does that mean anyway? One problem with home plug is that as I  
understand it it’s less capable of being shared among competing  
protocols than the wireless space simply because the latter has no  
choice but to share.

è                 There is a lot of detail about automatic meter  
reading. Why is it at all tied to BPL? Why isn’t meter reading done  
over any available IP transport? Is this a misunderstanding? The  
Intelligrid documents (http://www.intelligrid.info) seem to be  
transport agnostic even if the site is more a tutorial about all the  
different aspects of the Internet and networks. What I find most  
telling is http://www.intelligrid.info/IntelliGrid_Architecture/ 
Overview_Guidelines/Ovr_IECSA_Vision.htm that tries to silo energy  
distribution and information. The meter reading issue came up when I  
was looking at a PG&E project about 10 years ago as part of demand  
side management. It’s a very low bit rate application that hardly  
justifies it’s own infrastructure yet I still see how much it seems  
to be driving a special Internet.

è                 What are the capacity and performance numbers for  
this specific implementation and other BPLs?

è                 Can we just decouple the IP transport part from the  
myriad stifling agendas?

o        Is meter reading already being done over generic IP?

o        Why so much attention to revenue models – OK, I know why but  
see the comments below.

o        Why so much attention to application protocols? (Again, I  
know but have to ask)

o        To put it another way – where is the simple proposal buried  
in here



Again, I like the idea of additional transports but this is all about  
which railroads will run tracks to your house. Or to use another  
metaphor, if we view this all as bit paths what’s the difference  
between running multiple bit paths to my house and running multiple  
power grids? Perhaps the power DISTRIBUTION companies are right –  
since their (one) transport is necessary for power then why not use  
it for IP. If so, then what is the purpose of the cable and phone  
company infrastructure that don't have a reason to exist other than  
as a redundant IP transport.

The basic requirement that the funding model suck the value out of  
the economy into the silos is a consequence of the fundamental  
misunderstanding that connectivity is not just another service but is  
part of the basic infrastructure like the roads. Until we get past  
that we’ll continue to tax the present and starve the future.



-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 06:35
To: ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: [IP] mo Plug-In Internet Connection to Get Test on Long Island]







-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Re: [IP] mo Plug-In Internet Connection to Get Test on Long  
Island

Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:51:32 -0500

From: Dave Goldblatt <daveg () psyton com>

To: dave () farber net

References: <4401F532.2060801 () farber net>





> -------- Original Message --------

> Subject: RE: [IP] Plug-In Internet Connection to Get Test on Long  
Island]

> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 13:08:29 -0500

> From: Bob Frankston <Bob2-19-0501 () bobf frankston com>

> To: dave () farber net, ip () v2 listbox com

> CC: 'Dewayne Hendricks' <dewayne () warpspeed com>

>

> This snippet (or LIPA) seems to confuse connectivity via the power  
lines to

> the house and the technologies for the power lines within the  
house. They

> are very different and essentially unrelated.

>

> BPL is about using the long runs of the power lines and getting past

> transformers but sometimes it's just about rights of way and the  
use of

> fiber or other technology.

>

No, "Broadband over Power Lines", aka PLC (Power Line Communication)

does indeed refer to using medium- and low-voltage power lines for

providing a data path.   There are various mechanisms of using those

lines; some versions are power line end-to-end from the substation to

the customer's outlet, others use medium voltage for the backbone and

WiFi for end-user access, and another uses licensed radio spectrum for

the backbone and low-voltage lines for the end-user.



LIPA is not confusing the technology - you can read the RFP at

http://www.lipower.org/papers/rfp/bpl.html - it's quite specific as to

what they want.

> Power line within the house is something entirely different and  
there are

> some competing technologies including one going 200mbps. One can  
use BPL to

> the home and the wireless within or FTTH and then power line  
within the

> home. So far the within home power line products have not fared well

> against 802.11.

>

>

Again, I'm not sure why you believe that communication within the house

(aka in-home BPL) and access BPL (that using the utility's medium- and

low-voltage lines) are entirely different - they can use different

protocols, but not necessarily.   For example, DS2 provides a 200Mb

solution which is used for both types of deployment.  HomePlug is

developing a similar product.



BPL has a different set of issues than 802.11 - some better, some worse,

but definitely different.



There are several standardization efforts underway - UPA, OPERA,

HomePlug, and IEEE to name a few.  What was it Andy Tanenbaum said about

standards... ?



ObDisclaimer: My employer manufactures access BPL equipment.



-dg-







-------------------------------------

You are subscribed as BobIP () Bobf Frankston com

To manage your subscription, go to

  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip



Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
people/



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/