[Antennas] BPL

Sat Oct 16 09:33:52 EDT 2004

Elk Rapids, Michigan (population roughly 4,000) is hardly metropolis, yet
they have wireless.
Downtown Midland, Michigan, population under 32,000 has wireless.
I am confident wireless is the answer, not BPL. Wireless is too convenient.
With BPL, you still must be plugged in.
Sean
W8OKN
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Boone" <CBoone at earthlink.net>
To: <antennas at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 8:33 AM
Subject: RE: [Antennas] BPL
> (Playing the devil's advocate here.......)
> BUT do you fly into rural areas? No, you fly into major
> airports.....then travel to a metro area....
>>> Big difference IF BPL was used as it was to be intended....but since the
> idea of rural users was a farce to justify its planning and
> rollout/testing, you're right on it not being worth the
> investment....HAD BPL been used AS intended, rural America would be
> static city soon! (But then the cost of putting it in out in the
> "boonies" (no pun intended!) will make it not worth the effort
> there....EVERYONE in telecom knows wireless for the last mile or so from
> a FIBER connection is the cheapest and fastest way to go in rural AND
> metro areas ;)
>> Chris
> WB5ITT
>> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: antennas-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> > [mailto:antennas-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of W8OKN
> > Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 6:42 AM
> > To: Jay Eimer; antennas at mailman.qth.net
> > Subject: Re: [Antennas] BPL
> >
> >
> > I fly around the country for a living. As I travel, I am
> > finding more and
> > more wireless networks. They are convenient, fast and safe.
> > I am CERTAIN that BPL will not last nor be worth the
> > investment. Wireless networks make so much more sense.
> >
> > Sean
> > W8OKN
> >
>> ______________________________________________________________
> Antennas mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/antennas
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> Post: mailto:Antennas at mailman.qth.net