overview
business
operation
Australia
overseas
recent
related
Guides:
Networks
& GII
Economy
related
Profiles
& Notes:
utilicoms
wireless
access
utilicoms
Aust & NZ
telecoms
digital
radio
|
operation
This page considers some questions about the operation
of access BPL.
It covers -
The
following pages discuss trials and regulatory exploration
of broadband powerline communication in Australia, New
Zealand and overseas.
introduction
Much of the enthusiasm about BPL is predicated on misconceptions
that it is a cheap and robust 'plug & play' technology,
particularly a technology that will encourage utilities
or their partners to provide free connectivity.
Some people thus assume that there will be no substantial
investment in hardware (or in network management software
and personnel) and that maintenance costs will be lower
than those experienced by PSTN or wireless network operators.
One fan thus blithely assured us that
the
electricity lines are already there - you don't need
to do anything to them. People in Africa and Tasmania
will all get the net without having to bend over for
the phone company.
Providing connectivity is alas more complicated. Access
BPL requires investment in equipment at either end of
the power grid, for example as a bridge between the internet
backbone and the utility's network. It also requires equipment
along the length of that network, with in some instances
'notching' at short intervals.
Much of that equipment operates in hostile environments,
for example high temperatures, electromagnetic noise and
occasional spikes through lightning strikes. As noted
in the preceding page, there are uncertainties about the
lifespan of equipment in urban and regional Australia
but replacement and ongoing maintenance costs are an issue.
Ken Tipping of the Canadian National Research Research
Council commented (PDF)
Technical
studies of test links have been carried out in Canada
and elsewhere. However, these have been based upon much
simpler networks that are envisaged in practice, and
over relatively short timescales, which are in general
insufficient for the assessment of the effects upon
unwanted emissions of component degradation and damage
either of the BPL hardware, or more importantly, of
insulator degradation, joint corrosion and other problems
with the power line infrastructure being used.
Networks of course do not manage themselves. BPL providers
accordingly need to address issues such as billing, customer
help, traffic management and compliance.
Some utilities have decided that their existing skill
sets and customer relationship databases can be used or
extended. They have thus sought to position themselves
as 'utilicoms', although
as we note elsewhere on this site most have become disillusioned
with the vision of combining connectivity with provision
of gas, electricity, water, heating or sewerage services.
Others, as discussed below, have essentially licensed
use of their grid to a partner in the expectation that
they can thereby gain a share of revenue without major
investment, liability or operational expenditure.
logistics
Most have grappled with logistics challenges in rebuilding
existing grids to accommodate connectivity along with
the transmission of power. Experience in using the grid
for controlling meters appears to have been substantially
different from what is required for delivering internet
traffic (including voice services).
Utilities have thus highlighted issues such as
- the
compactness of equipment to be located on poles, within
existing substations or in new kerbside sites
- the
amount of equipment to be installed and its cost, of
particular interest to utilities and partners that have
accepted claims that a new BPL solution is a major leap
forward" and competitive
- ease
of installation
- the
ability to readily identify and replace defective equipment
(eg a single 'notch' among many on a long line), given
concerns about the reliability of service and about
labour costs in network maintenance
- safety
for utility employees, contractors and the general public
- potential
degradation of reliable power supply, eg parts of the
grid having to be turned off while equipment is replaced
- high
data transfer rates
- the
reliability of equipment, given investment in equipment
and potential problems in 'retrieving' equipment that
has been placed underground to minimise interference.
One
US critic commented
People
are mistaken in thinking that BPL providers are going
to go out of their way to deliver BPL to country folk,
as if this is some kind of humanitarian effort to get
the country on the 'net. It's not. Companies are in
business to make a profit, plain and simple. Being a
good corporate citizen in a community makes great press
releases, but such efforts stop when the bottom line
is affected.
and
went on to note
...
the upstream Internet network must be backhauled to
each BPL feed point via telco facilities such as fiber
or copper. So to deploy BPL an up front investment must
be made in BPL headend/feed point equipment and repeaters.
There's going to be significant recurring costs in backhauling
the IP traffic from the numerous BPL feedpoints serving
an area. Neither DSL or Cable has this recurring cost
or need for multiple network origination points. These
costs unique to BPL make it even less attractive for
deployment in rural areas that Cable or DSL as customer
densities and revenue potential is lower. While it may
be stated by BPL providers that initial metropolitan
buildouts are needed to subsidize rural deployments,
why would any for-profit company expand into rural areas
when it's a losing proposition?
In
Australia the CEO of startup Silk indicated in March 2006
that Access BPL was not currently competitive, commenting
that it was cheaper to lease Telstra's copper network.
whose network?
Much of the enthusiasm for access BPL among consumers
reflects perceptions that a delivery of broadband by their
power utility will
- provide
meaningful competition for incumbent telecommunication
operators
-
be cheaper than the incumbent, as the utility has infrastructure
in place and supposedly will not charge 'line rental'
(or even other fees)
- efficiencies
are so great that utilities can cut charges to consumers
while sharing revenue with service providers.
That is not necessarily the case. Some observers have
accordingly asked 'whose network?'. Should there be a
'must carry' or 'open access' requirement that is similar
to unbundling of the PSTN local loop. Others have doubted
that utilities will forgo revenue opportunities.
We can broadly identify three models.
In the first, the utility operates as a full service provider.
It builds/owns and operates the electricity network. It
also serves as a telecommunications provider, becoming
a 'utilicom', offering
'last mile' access to the internet and the PSTN. It does
not allow competitors to use its network.
In the second model the utility builds/owns the infrastructure,
allowing access to that network by one or more service
providers and using the connectivity services of those
providers.
In the third model, often labelled the 'dark cable' model,
the utility licences to a service provider the responsibility
for funding and deploying BPL hardware on its electricity
network. The service provider is also responsible for
connectivity services and has essentially leased a 'right
of way'.
Mechanisms for funding upgrade of networks are contentious,
with some US consumer advocacy groups for example expressing
concern
that all customers of a particular utility will be forced
to subsidise investment in a service that they do not
want.
next page
(Australia)
|
|
blaw