Re: Powerline modem
From: John Woodgate (jmw_at_jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk)
Date: 02/11/05
- Next message: John Larkin: "Re: OT: reaction to Iraqi elections"
- Previous message: Michael A. Terrell: "Re: Soldering TQFSOPNCD packages ;-)"
- In reply to: John: "Re: Powerline modem"
- Next in thread: Michael: "Re: Powerline modem"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 06:35:19 +0000
I read in sci.electronics.design that John <john_t@no.spam> wrote (in
<420BF787.C5273F15@no.spam>) about 'Powerline modem', on Thu, 10 Feb
2005:
>You forget that the power utilities aren't setting out to do this to
>become Internet companies, they were looking for efficient ways to
>communicate with their meters (and utility controlled thermostats).
This can be done very well using frequencies below 150 kHz which don't
create huge EMI problems.
>
>Being able to offer and sell Internet broadband access is a nice side
>effect of having the infrastructure.
Not at any price; the emission levels 3 to 30 MHz are 60 dB or so above
those currently accepted. It's very far indeed from a marginal increase.
-- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. The good news is that nothing is compulsory. The bad news is that everything is prohibited. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
- Next message: John Larkin: "Re: OT: reaction to Iraqi elections"
- Previous message: Michael A. Terrell: "Re: Soldering TQFSOPNCD packages ;-)"
- In reply to: John: "Re: Powerline modem"
- Next in thread: Michael: "Re: Powerline modem"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]