Talk:Power-line communication
 | Computing: Networking Unassessed | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Discussion by sections
Overall
What's wrong with this page
Overall it seems to be well formated. The external links are well structured and huge. Their may be minor problems, but is the editing banner really needed? Indolering
- I agree Jacoplane 20:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- The Internet Access section is pretty long. It also as some repetition about differences between Europe and North America (pars. 4 and 6). Parksy 14:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand why there is a table of DSL technologies at the start of the article. I think instead, the passing reference to DSL with a link is all that is needed. PLC doesn't use DSL. If there are no objections, I plan to delete the table but leave the link. --DavidDHaynes 19:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK, hearing no objections, I have moved the DSL table into the "See Also" section. (DSL is a telephone technology -- not as far as I'm aware, a powerline technology.)--DavidDHaynes 14:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Also on the subject of "what's wrong with the page", it doesn't recognize the many other well established technologies. I'm adding material to represent the other technologies and re-organizing the page to be a bit more fair. The content otherwise completely intermingles discussions regarding different technlogoies and probably leaves the reader confused.--DavidDHaynes 14:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting slides:
http://www.homeplug.com/en/news/japanexec_2005/presentations.asp 28 Nov 2005
- The speeds don't seem right and shoulg be listed in either Kb or Mb (or Gb/Tb, but i dont thing they can compete with fiber) per secondShawnlandden (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The [hrase "The most robust low-speed powerline technology uses DCSK technology available from Yitran Communications" is untrue thhis is old technology surpassed by EU initiatives such as PRIME. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.64.5 (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Frankly, such statements should not be appearing in Wikipedia in the first place. The only suitable similiar statement I would should be things such as "this [reliable independant survey] judged this [make and model] to provide best speed, reliability etc". Statements such as the above are stating as fact things will always be open to argument, and frankly, come over as something which has been written by a biast author. Jatos (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Glossary
- Okay, whoever put the glossary in: that's what wikilinks are for, and in any case the server smashed your formatting. It had to go; please do not restore it. If you wish to add information to the article, please please please learn how to do it right. Haikupoet 03:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Technology
I think the technology section should describe "what" the technology is rather than "who" makes it. We can refer the reader to the PLC manufacturer's page for this type of information. --DavidDHaynes 17:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Standards
An effort needs to be made to sort out the standards and organize them by the technology they attempt to address. Perhaps we should combine the Technology and Standards sections into a single section. Thoughts? --DavidDHaynes 18:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Deployments
It may be unreasonable to attempt to list all of the deployments. Many of the BPL citations in the current article were perhaps newsworthy at one time, but not of much interest today. To balance it out and attempt to cite every deployment for the other technologies would swamp the article, since they continue at a pace of about one a week. BPL deployments are newsworthy because they are new, novel, and rare. Does anyone have an idea on what to do about the growing list of deployments?--DavidDHaynes 17:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
"all BPL deployments in the US."
The link "all BPL deployments in the US" only includes a few implementations, notably not the large (though still piloting) Cincinnati implementation.
Issues not necessarily covered by the current article
Ham radio
What are the dangers of BPL to the ham radio comunites?
- If it is implemented properly, then the effects can be minimized, but the most common complaint is basically taking up bandwidth. If you have what are effectively giant antennas strung across neighborhoods broadcasting carrier waves, you get a giant CW transmitter with the key down. The Motarola system is probably the best performer in this catagory, but time will tell if the technology even gains wide acceptance at all. JVkamp 04:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Not ALL BPL causes interference or fails on long haul --Microwave BPL
While the above comments are appropriate to HF-BPL, microwave-BPL known as E-Line has been shown not to have these problems. It has multi-Gbps capacity and doesn't cause the interference devastation of previous methods. In addition, by using existing infrastructure, the powerline, it circumvents the expense and delays of stringing ariel fiber and the attendant pole "make-ready" fees. Even with periodic amplification, very high capacity installations can be achieved at approximately one-tenth the cost of aeriel fiber. Furthermore, each amplification site is potentially a location for placement of a user-access antenna as part of a large distributed antenna system. Expensive optical/electrical & electro/optical conversion equipment is not required at each drop point. Such a system, composed of line mounted antennas, ~15 meters above ground, can effectively provide extremely high capacity services for mobile as well as fixed end users, even those in rural environments.
added E-Line link N6gn 22:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
PLC, Automotive
since this is an encyclopedia article, wouldn´t it be reasonable to expose not only benefits but also potential problems? This may include a possible bigger cost, and a littler SNR.
Dirty power
Doesn't this technology make AC power "dirty" for sensitive electronic devices? -- Beland 21:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The 50 or 60 Hz power is not a pure sinewave anyway. Many applications contribute some noise to the powerline -- its just in this case the contribution is intentional. There are FCC and IEC regulations to limit the emissions at the important parts of the spectrum. As long as the electronic device has a proper power supply, it shouldn't be affected. In fact, most of our PC's have switch mode power supplies. An office building full of PC's can contribute significant noise to the powerline. (Ironical isn't it!)--DavidDHaynes 19:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
advantages of power line communication
- WRT fiber competitiveness, please see additions to microwave-BPL below.--N6gn 03:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- PLC per se has some advantages -- it allows power companies to automate switching tasks that would otherwise have to be handled by hand, and it also allows networking to be spread within a location by running powerline Ethernet in locations where standard Ethernet or 802.11x won't work as well (there's an interesting combination of powerline Ethernet and 802.11b in Rob Flickenger's book Wireless Hacks from O'Reilly that demonstrates an impressive use of PLC). It fails miserably when used for long-haul broadband use (i.e. BPL) though -- the spectrum devastation it causes, one can argue, just aren't worth the benefits, and special precautions need to be made to bypass transformers. For the level of effort needed to make BPL work, the power companies may as well string up fiber everywhere and call it a day. Haikupoet 05:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Home Control
The Main article link for the Home Control section should link to Home automation article instead of X10. If there are no objections I'll make the change. Kinema 06:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
OFDM system comparison table
Feel free to add a PLC column to the OFDM#OFDM system comparison table. Mange01 11:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Corruption
Anyone else getting a corrupt page for this article? 206.45.125.208 17:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)SomeX
combining power and data
This article does a good job discussing systems that send data over conductors originally intended to carry power.
However, it fails to mention systems that send power over conductors originally intended to carry data (such as Power over Ethernet, AS-Interface, telephone line, etc.). Such systems run at less than 50 V, because various organizations have ruled that 50 V is a "safe" voltage (extra-low voltage).
Should another section be added to this article discussing such systems? Or am I overlooking some other article that already discusses such systems? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Recommendation
I enjoyed reading this article. My understanding is that it's possible to have a network of various home attached by PLC. Is anyone interested in making a diagram? How about one for North America? Here's my attempt for my neighborhood.
_ _ _ █
/║ ▓█
_ __ / ║ ↑
/ \ || / ║ power
/ \││ Light _/_ plant
/ │ ð──┐ High /║
/_______\ / \ │ ______ ______ ______ Voltage / ║
│┌┬┐ ┌┬┐│ │ / \ / \ / \ / ║
│└┴┘ └┴┘│ │ /________\ /________\ /________\ _______¥/ ║
│CYCLE'S│ │ │┌┬┐ ┌─┐ │ │┌┬┐ ┌─┐ │ │┌┬┐ ┌─┐ │ ┌¥-----¥┐ ║
│ ┌─┐ │ __ │ │└┴┘ │¡│ │ │└┴┘ │¡│ │ │└┴┘ │¡│ │ ______│_______│__________
│_│_│___│___|¥ |___________│_____┌┴────┴─┴─┴┐________┌┴────┴─┴─┴┐______┌┴────┴─┴─┴┐________/ ║
┴-----+╬------------┴---------┴-------------------┴-----------------┴ ║ Transformer
Meter ║ main box Smart meter Meter Meter ║
╚═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝
Underground Medium/High Voltage
--CyclePat (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Potential for interference section may not be neutral
The Checksection template has been inserted into this section as the last sentence of the last paragraph contains a word implying NPOV violation. PatrickDunfordNZ (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hopefully this neutrality problem will be resolved soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.237.146 (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- If all the problem was the last sentence with the "blow" comment, then simply remove it, it isn't worth the not neutral sign... So.. I have just removed it. Regards! --Alchaemist (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Resolved, the US administrative law issue has been more clearly explained and the pre-EIST disputes separated from the current ones. Unless someone has a complaint with G.hn the various complaints about pre-G.hn powerline networking in the home are moot, and unless someone believes the IEEE really can't solve this problem for good, the amateur radio dispute already got far too much coverage. As for the stupid statement about fibre resolving this, it was clarified because there is no way that a pre-existing-wiring solution like G.hn can be in any way compared to anything that requires new provision of fibre optic cable. It's something like an order of magnitude in cost difference, BPL will certainly still be used at the edges of the new AU national fibre network backbone, even if it's not used to carry the aggregation.
- It would be interesting to ask how much interference the wireless spectrum gets from all the wall warts, and from dirty generation processes to provide vampire power, due to all these wireless users using dumb power ports. ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.12.18 (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Ultra-High-frequency communication (≥100 MHz)
I moved the previous E-Line information out of the High-Frequency section, the previous upper limit, and added a new section for Power line communication above 100 MHz. As the characteristics, technology and applications are completely different from the other types, this seems warranted. It still needs cleanup (citations converted to references etc). N6gn (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)