Comments on: Another $130 Million for Current Comm http://gigaom.com/2006/07/27/another-130-million-for-current-comm/ Tracking the Internet Evolution Sun, 06 Jul 2008 22:30:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU By: BPL Goes Green - GigaOM http://gigaom.com/2006/07/27/another-130-million-for-current-comm/#comment-858308 BPL Goes Green - GigaOM Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:00:42 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/07/27/another-130-million-for-current-comm/#comment-858308 <p>[...] at 1:00 PM PT Comments (0) Broadband over power lines (BPL) came roaring into view, backed by lots of venture money, in 2004 after the FCC pushed the approach as a viable competitor to cable and [...]</p> [...] at 1:00 PM PT Comments (0) Broadband over power lines (BPL) came roaring into view, backed by lots of venture money, in 2004 after the FCC pushed the approach as a viable competitor to cable and [...]

]]> By: Jesse Kopelman http://gigaom.com/2006/07/27/another-130-million-for-current-comm/#comment-55807 Jesse Kopelman Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:51:25 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/07/27/another-130-million-for-current-comm/#comment-55807 <p>I'm pretty familiar with this stuff and agree 100% with Jay. As for the control network stuff, that is not BPL. Remember the B stands for broadband. You don't need broadband speeds for control networks -- 1 kbps is plenty. Current BPL technology can deliver 1 kbps, but can it even do that economically? Even if it can, it has a long way to go before the B is justified. Now Cincinnati is working fine and all and at broadband speeds, but I don't think anybody is bold enough to claim that network was built at anywhere near the price of anyother established technology or that it has the headroom to be competative with ADSL2.</p> <p>BPL is like LEO satellite service -- I wouldn't say there is no hope that it will become economically viable, but it is still likely decades away.</p> I’m pretty familiar with this stuff and agree 100% with Jay. As for the control network stuff, that is not BPL. Remember the B stands for broadband. You don’t need broadband speeds for control networks — 1 kbps is plenty. Current BPL technology can deliver 1 kbps, but can it even do that economically? Even if it can, it has a long way to go before the B is justified. Now Cincinnati is working fine and all and at broadband speeds, but I don’t think anybody is bold enough to claim that network was built at anywhere near the price of anyother established technology or that it has the headroom to be competative with ADSL2.

BPL is like LEO satellite service — I wouldn’t say there is no hope that it will become economically viable, but it is still likely decades away.

]]> By: Jay http://gigaom.com/2006/07/27/another-130-million-for-current-comm/#comment-55806 Jay Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:42:04 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/07/27/another-130-million-for-current-comm/#comment-55806 <p>Hey Daniel, </p> <p>You're right that dedicated (often proprietary) networks can be very pricey. But BPL is still more expensive. The Great Hope is that utilities and SPs can squeeze more value out of a broadband network - enabling applications beyond automated meter reading that require more bandwidth. Residential Internet access is just one of those applications, and one that has diminishing value over time. </p> <p>Reliability of BPL, even at small scale, is questionable. Things like better AFEs, fine-grained adaptive power controls and software defined RF filters are parts of the potential solution, but so far no one is building reliable solutions that both perform and comply with FCC part 15(g), which went into full effect earlier this month. </p> <p>This is first hand knowledge, BTW :-).</p> Hey Daniel,

You’re right that dedicated (often proprietary) networks can be very pricey. But BPL is still more expensive. The Great Hope is that utilities and SPs can squeeze more value out of a broadband network - enabling applications beyond automated meter reading that require more bandwidth. Residential Internet access is just one of those applications, and one that has diminishing value over time.

Reliability of BPL, even at small scale, is questionable. Things like better AFEs, fine-grained adaptive power controls and software defined RF filters are parts of the potential solution, but so far no one is building reliable solutions that both perform and comply with FCC part 15(g), which went into full effect earlier this month.

This is first hand knowledge, BTW :-).

]]> By: Daniel Golding http://gigaom.com/2006/07/27/another-130-million-for-current-comm/#comment-55805 Daniel Golding Fri, 28 Jul 2006 03:17:19 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/07/27/another-130-million-for-current-comm/#comment-55805 <p>Om, one important thing has changed about Current's strategy - they are now selling the product as much as a process control network as a broadband service. All of those who have ever worked for an electrical utility know how much effort goes into a seemingly simple task: meter reading. With BPL, things like meter reading and monitoring of remote substations become much easier. While its easy to assume that a solution like BPL would be more expensive than other methods, that is likely incorrect - dedicated process control and monitoring networks are very pricy. For a utility to be able to do BPL to a wireless box on a pole, then wirelessly read meters is like nervana. This is the TXU value proposition. The broadband side is just a nice benefit and, as mentioned above, will be run in parallel.</p> Om, one important thing has changed about Current’s strategy - they are now selling the product as much as a process control network as a broadband service. All of those who have ever worked for an electrical utility know how much effort goes into a seemingly simple task: meter reading. With BPL, things like meter reading and monitoring of remote substations become much easier. While its easy to assume that a solution like BPL would be more expensive than other methods, that is likely incorrect - dedicated process control and monitoring networks are very pricy. For a utility to be able to do BPL to a wireless box on a pole, then wirelessly read meters is like nervana. This is the TXU value proposition. The broadband side is just a nice benefit and, as mentioned above, will be run in parallel.

]]> By: Om Malik http://gigaom.com/2006/07/27/another-130-million-for-current-comm/#comment-55804 Om Malik Fri, 28 Jul 2006 00:12:09 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/07/27/another-130-million-for-current-comm/#comment-55804 <p>hey jay, </p> <p>thanks for pointing that out. i might have to dig a little deeper. i need to have a chat with current.</p> hey jay,

thanks for pointing that out. i might have to dig a little deeper. i need to have a chat with current.

]]> By: It looks obvious http://gigaom.com/2006/07/27/another-130-million-for-current-comm/#comment-55802 It looks obvious Thu, 27 Jul 2006 23:33:11 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/07/27/another-130-million-for-current-comm/#comment-55802 <p><strong>New investments in BPL…</strong></p> <pre><code>Despite the general skepticism I developed a lot of hopes for the success of BPL . I believe that the real answer to the risks to Net Neutrality &nbsp; is in development of options that will break the control of the Baby Bells on the broadband connec… </code></pre> New investments in BPL…

Despite the general skepticism I developed a lot of hopes  for the success of BPL . I believe that the real answer to the risks to Net Neutrality &nbsp; is in development of options that will break the control of the Baby Bells on the broadband connec…
]]> By: It looks obvious http://gigaom.com/2006/07/27/another-130-million-for-current-comm/#comment-55803 It looks obvious Thu, 27 Jul 2006 23:33:11 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/07/27/another-130-million-for-current-comm/#comment-55803 <p><strong>New investments in BPL…</strong></p> <pre><code>Despite the general skepticism I developed a lot of hopes for the success of BPL . I believe that the real answer to the risks to Net Neutrality &nbsp; is in development of options that will break the control of the Baby Bells on the broadband connec… </code></pre> New investments in BPL…

Despite the general skepticism I developed a lot of hopes  for the success of BPL . I believe that the real answer to the risks to Net Neutrality &nbsp; is in development of options that will break the control of the Baby Bells on the broadband connec…
]]> By: Jay http://gigaom.com/2006/07/27/another-130-million-for-current-comm/#comment-55801 Jay Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:27:17 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/07/27/another-130-million-for-current-comm/#comment-55801 <p>Hey Om-</p> <p>Traffic on access BPL networks won't necessarily (should they ever actually happen) be part of a power company's IP network. </p> <p>In Current's case, for instance, they're essentially leasing the wires and selling application services back to the power company. Earthlink is going to provide retail ISP services through some sort of wholesale agreement. The power company becomes a lessor and a customer of the lessee.</p> <p>I remember all sorts of companies from a few years ago whose true talents were in raising capital, rather than innovation and execution. Apparently that trend continues.</p> Hey Om-

Traffic on access BPL networks won’t necessarily (should they ever actually happen) be part of a power company’s IP network.

In Current’s case, for instance, they’re essentially leasing the wires and selling application services back to the power company. Earthlink is going to provide retail ISP services through some sort of wholesale agreement. The power company becomes a lessor and a customer of the lessee.

I remember all sorts of companies from a few years ago whose true talents were in raising capital, rather than innovation and execution. Apparently that trend continues.

]]>