backtop

Print 41 comment(s) - last by clovell.. on Feb 19 at 12:47 PM
IBM wants a slice of the $2.5B pie Obama set aside for rural broadband access

Part of the new stimulus bill that was signed into law recently by President Obama included provisions to offer money to support the roll out of faster internet connections to consumers in rural areas. In many parts of the country, rural areas only have slow dial-up connections that make it very difficult to access information online and shop.

IBM has announced that it plans to seek a portion of the $2.5 billion set aside to stimulate broadband rollouts for rural America. IBM and International Broadband Electric Communications (IBEC) have a joint venture that provides broadband connectivity over existing power lines.

The service is available in rural Alabama, Indiana, Michigan, and Virginia right now. IBM's CEO Sam Palmisano met with President Obama last month and the CEO of IBEC is set to meet with lawmakers in Washington today to see how much of the funds available could be used for its rural broadband service.

Consumers who subscribe to the IBM/IBEC service get access to the internet by plugging a modem into their power outlet. The technology used for the service uses radio signals to help connect users to the internet. This type of internet connectivity is widely seen as slower and less reliable than traditional internet service, but IBM points out that in the rural areas the service is meant for the only competition is dial-up, which is slower than the power line-based web access.

IBM doesn't know how much, if any, of the funds that are available its venture can receive from the government. IBM does say that the roll out of the service will continue with or without government assistance.

IBM's Raymond Blair said in a statement, "In the long-term, the effort will lead to the expansion of small businesses and creation of new industries, bringing new jobs to rural Americans and driving net new economic growth."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
well
By yacoub on 2/18/2009 11:11:37 AM , Rating: 2
Funding Broadband over Power Lines would be more enticing if it also meant they'd be upgrading our aged, fragile electrical grid that needs a major technical/hardware overhaul and security upgrade to begin with.




RE: well
By KC7SWH on 2/18/2009 11:22:52 AM , Rating: 3
NO, NO, NO!
No more BPL just let it die.
There has yet to be a BPL system that didn't cause at least some interference with Amateur Radio no matter how well they tried to filter it.


RE: well
By MadMan007 on 2/18/2009 1:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
Amateur Radio is supposed to not cause interference in other devices, not the other way around.


RE: well
By KC7SWH on 2/18/2009 3:15:19 PM , Rating: 2
"A BPL modem is considered an unlicensed device, like a cordless phone or garage door opener. All unlicensed devices are governed by the FCC's Part 15 rules. Part 15 mandates that all electronic devices sold in the United States must meet FCC radio-frequency emissions limits. These limits are in place to secure against interference with important transmissions like CB communications, air-traffic control and government channels."
Sorry but with BPL falling under part 15 rules BPL is not to cause interference on frequencies that Amateur Radio has been assigned primary status.


RE: well
RE: well
By AntiM on 2/18/2009 2:35:04 PM , Rating: 2
The funds should be used where they do the most good for the most people. This proposal will benefit only a few, mainly IBM. BPL is at best flakey. REJECTED. REQUEST DENIED. NEXT!
If they want to improve the broadband infrastructure, they should start laying some fiber. Give the stimulus funds to Verizon and clear the way to break up the regional monopolies.


RE: well
By kkwst2 on 2/18/2009 3:38:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, because Verizon has clearly shown the willingness to lay fiber in underserved areas. They're only laying fiber in areas that they'll get a huge ROI. And I don't blame them, except that they haven't made it to my neighborhood yet! And I live in a pretty dense, affluent area.

The idea that Verizon is going to put fiber in rural areas is silly. 2.5 billion would not lay that much fiber anyway. Verizon has already spent billions and have only reached a small number of households percentage-wise.

There are lots of people that don't have any option other than dialup. The idea is to support a technology that would allow broadband to most of the country and be financially viable. Maybe BPL isn't the answer, but saying "Let's lay more fiber" certainly isn't constructive.

So in your own words...REJECTED. REQUEST DENIED. NEXT!


RE: well
By AntiM on 2/18/2009 4:12:49 PM , Rating: 2
No, I'm saying that money should NOT be spent to provide broadband to rual areas. My point was that letting IBM have stimulus funds would only benefit a few people, and mostly benefit IBM.


RE: well
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/19/2009 9:25:56 AM , Rating: 3
Verizon is rolling it out based on demand and cost benefit analysis. You want your most lucrative areas on fiber first, and work your way down the list. This is business 101.


BPL sucks
By bldckstark on 2/18/2009 12:40:41 PM , Rating: 3
I'm sitting next to a guy right now who has BPL. It rocks the rooftop at 256k, for $30 a month. He thinks he is getting a deal, since he can now use his phone while his kids surf "that interweb".




RE: BPL sucks
By icanhascpu on 2/19/2009 11:14:46 AM , Rating: 2
Stupid kid.

256k is a HUGE HUGE upgrade over dialup. HUGE. The only shit some of us have to choose from in 60$ a month cell access thats severely limited or the risk of some BS fine print screwing us. Or the same BS from sat for around 50$ a month. Both with long ass contracts and sat with a huge instalation fee or hidden fees.

And you think simple 30$ a month for 256 unlimited and he is somehow being fooled? Youre the fool. Always on net is so much better, even if it were the same speed, but this is easily 10x most dialup connections in rural areas.

What a horrible deal right.


Broadband over power lines = A proven fruad?
By MrJustin5 on 2/18/2009 2:46:53 PM , Rating: 2
In the early 2000's, I read an article by Wired Magazine about having Magical Broadband at every single power outlet, wherever you are, using only 2 wires.

According to the article: As it turned out, the guy who "invented" it is just some big scam artist taking 10's of millions of dollars of investment money, creating Cardboard cut-out companies that did nothing but spend money and going to expensive $15,000 a night dinner parties for him and his close friends. He NEVER gives an actual answer on HOW it works, he said that the signal will be carried within the " Electromagnetic field AROUND the wires and it will NOT be an actual signal inside the wires ". And it uses these magical, undeveloped, non-existent "EMF Lasers" that blast the signal AROUND the wires (not INSIDE them along with the electricity) around the power lines.

The "Technology" is a big scam, a lie, a fraud, a swindle.

The only benefit using this technology is not to lay down more wires, RJ45, fiber optic, or some other type of wire. The BIG problem is that every transformer, every equipment that the electricity runs through before it actually goes to your house (let alone the problems once it reaches your house) is completely lost.

Again, the signal is destroyed once it reaches relay stations, power transformers, etc. The electrical grid in the USA is so shabby, it will NEVER be able to support broadband. Let alone when it gets to your house the multitude of problems from other devices plugged in causing interference.

Yeah, so, whatever, if we spend a 1960's NASA space budget on this SCAM, we COULD get it to work, but why not invest into something that has PROVEN returns and will actually run FASTER and BETTER, huh?




By geddarkstorm on 2/18/2009 3:29:29 PM , Rating: 2
There's no problem using internet over powerlines once it's in your house. I have my modem in one room (due to where the cable line is), and my router has to be in another room. The only way the two can talk to each other is by using powerline ethernet adapters. It works perfectly, with no problems what so ever, and I get my full speed (7mbps) no different than directly connecting to the modem (no extra lag either). The technology is great, and keeps wifi channels from getting cluttered (that and wifi is /far/ less reliable in my experience).

You can check out the same devices I use (Actiontec megaplug ethernet bridge) here: http://reviews.cnet.com/bridges/actiontec-megaplug...


What about 3G
By Jeffk464 on 2/18/2009 3:31:32 PM , Rating: 2
Why should the government pay to provide all these rural areas with broadband internet when 3G is almost everywhere. I drive a truck and have been all over the country and even in rural areas hardly ever find a place without 3G.




RE: What about 3G
By taber on 2/19/2009 12:05:39 AM , Rating: 2
I agree it looks like wireless looks like it may be the next form of broadband, but many rural areas don't get coverage of the latest networks for years. Look at the latest coverage map for data on At&t if you want to see how much of their network is still EDGE or below.

I'm curious where you drive your truck? Good cell phone coverage tends to follow interstates. I might be wrong, but I'm guessing you must not be driving loads to farmers in Kansas.

I'm tired of government handouts anyway, I've yet to see one that helps me directly. Now they're going to help homeowners that overextended themselves? It sounds like because I don't pay more than 31% of my monthly income to my mortgage I can't get a free refinance to a lower rate. Way to reward the ones who contributed more to the problem.


not gonna happen!!
By HighWing on 2/18/2009 1:24:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but IBM points out that in the rural areas the service is meant for the only competition is dial-up, which is slower than the power line-based web access.


Sorry but I'm guessing IBM has either forgot, or is ignoring another competitor. Satellite internet!! It is available just about everywhere in the US and is a much faster speed than their proposed use of the power lines for about the same price too.
A few years back it was the only option I had. And I have to say I was quite surprised by the speed of it. I went from not being able to watch YouTube video's, to being able to watch them in real time with no lag. I could even play World of Warcraft on it... though not doing any raid's or playing Halo. But point being even with the whole earth-space lag delay, it was pretty much on par with having a broadband connection. And this was a few years ago. It is my understanding that they have since increased the download speed, and even reduced the price.

Honestly I would recommend using the satellite over power lines. Granted I don't like Hughes.net's customer service, but bottom line is the service is faster, better, and cheaper than IBM's proposal. And it already is available everywhere!!




Cost of Sat Internet
By BoomerUNI on 2/18/2009 1:42:38 PM , Rating: 2
I know last time I looked at sat internet it wasn't so much the monthly cost or the fact that is had rather poor lag it was the intial cost that was so high that turned me off from it.




Rural
By icanhascpu on 2/19/2009 11:09:30 AM , Rating: 1
I live in a rural area. The best net connection I can get is 28.8 dialup unless I want to be bent over my a sattalight company.

Maybe im bitter, but I highly doubt the I will ever see fast net in my area because this country is just fucking itself when it comes to this type of technology. Always getting in our own way.




ya right!
By ashegam on 2/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: ya right!
By Whaaambulance on 2/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: ya right!
By Dreifort on 2/18/2009 12:08:53 PM , Rating: 2
hate do we have, yes.

there is such a thing as WiMax? no wires needed.
currently you can get broadband over....wires. It's just not the electrical wires.

if you live in a rual area without cable run, use telephone lines for broadband. if the telephone wires do not support broadband, get 3G broadband. If you can't get a cell phone signal in your neighborhood, wait for Clear (WiMax) to reach your area. If you can't afford any broadband access and complain your dial-up (over a wire) is too slow.... then either adjust your finances to afford broadband or stop complaining.

nothing is free (even if our curr gov't says wifi should be free).

either you pay for it with your taxes.
and if you don't make enough $ to pay taxes, then you'll be owned by the gov't offering you free services by the mere fact they will dictate what you can or cannot view on the internet, what you can or cannot eat in public schools, what you can or cannot buy with gov't funds at the grocery store....welcome to socialsim (if you expect things for free).


RE: ya right!
By kkwst2 on 2/18/2009 3:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, Yoda. That little rant completely missed the mark. You're saying that people who can't even get DSL should wait until an even newer, more limited technology reach them?

The whole point of the money is to get broadband access to more rural areas. You may not agree with the initiative, but saying "Wait for WiMax" is ridiculous. The people who are targeted by this initiative are never going to have 3G or WiMax availability in their lifetime.

And who said anything about free? I didn't see anything about free. One of the legitimate roles of the government is to support infrastructure and has little to do with socialism. That doesn't mean it's going to be free.


RE: ya right!
By Dreifort on 2/18/2009 4:20:14 PM , Rating: 2
bailout = free.

so instead of waiting for newer, so called "limited" technology to get users on the internet -- we should spend taxpayer money to develop "new" technology that WILL BE "limited" over electrical wires.

hmmmmm


RE: ya right!
By rs1 on 2/18/2009 4:30:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
if you live in a rual area without cable run, use telephone lines for broadband. if the telephone wires do not support broadband, get 3G broadband. If you can't get a cell phone signal in your neighborhood, wait for Clear (WiMax) to reach your area.


That's stupid. Most WiMax networks are still only deployed in/near major urban areas. There's no telling if/when they will expand to rural areas. 3G "broadband" shouldn't even be labeled as such, as it is simply not competitive with a real broadband connection in terms of performance, reliability, and cost. And the only way telephone wires are going to support broadband is if they are DSL (or FiOS) lines, which they aren't going to be in rural areas.

None of your suggestions are useful, or even realistic solutions for people living in rural areas.


RE: ya right!
By Reclaimer77 on 2/18/2009 5:02:38 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
None of your suggestions are useful, or even realistic solutions for people living in rural areas.


Ok I keep hearing about these poor "rural people" without Broadband, and frankly I'm getting pissed.

Do I have to be the only voice of common sense here and bring up the fact that these people KNEW that broadband wasn't readily available when they moved there ? Did the broadband Grinch suddenly show up and take away their broadband or something ? Is this a national level crisis that we NEED to add to the economic downturn by resolving it RIGHT NOW at THIS MOMENT by more bailout money !!??

To quote Will Farrel " Am I the only one seeing this, it feels like I'm taking crazy pills !!! "


RE: ya right!
By rs1 on 2/18/2009 5:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do I have to be the only voice of common sense here and bring up the fact that these people KNEW that broadband wasn't readily available when they moved there ?


While you can certainly argue that anyone planning to move to a rural location today should be willing to accept limited Internet access as a consequence, what about the ones who moved there before broadband even existed/became widespread? Keep in mind that Internet access didn't start become really popular until 15 years ago at most, and widespread broadband adoption didn't start until about 5 years after that.

Are you really suggesting faulting those people who moved to rural areas more than 10 years ago for wanting to get access to a new technology that the rest of us have already started to take for granted? And what about the individuals who were born there and lack the means to relocate to a more urban area due to the increased cost of living associated with such a move? They aren't there by choice, but they deserve to be looked down upon as spoiled brats for wanting an improvement in their living conditions?

Granted, there are probably some people who chose to move to a rural area knowing full well that broadband Internet access wouldn't be available, and maybe they do deserve to be characterized as spoiled brats. But I don't think that's the typical case.


RE: ya right!
By Jeffk464 on 2/18/2009 10:43:28 PM , Rating: 2
I have to disagree, I have found verizon 3G to be very comparable to dsl. Its actually faster then basic dsl, but of coarse nothing compares to FiOS.


RE: ya right!
By ice456789 on 2/18/2009 3:31:43 PM , Rating: 2
This has NO BUSINESS as part of the economic bailout/stimulus package. IBM needs to sniff somewhere else for their venture capital, because that's exactly what this project is.

IBM has been bleeding companies dry with their 'consulting' services for years. It seems now they have set their sights on the government. How about instead of funding IBM's desire to control the broadband market, we invest in some body armor and armor plating for our troops that are in harms way.


RE: ya right!
By Reclaimer77 on 2/18/2009 4:57:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're an idiot. How is it not a benefit to supply broadband to places all over America that would otherwise not be able to get Internet?


Benefit to who ? Those few who need it, or the rest of us who will subsidize this ?

I'm all for "rural broadband", fine. I draw the line at throwing this and every other pet project into NObama's PORKulus bill to the tune of trillions of dollars that we don't have and future Americans will be saddled with.

This is America isn't it ? If Rural Broadband was in demand, profitable, and viable then there would be no NEED for a bailout. Do you not get how this works ?


RE: ya right!
By MadMan007 on 2/18/2009 11:22:03 AM , Rating: 2
Kind of, but this isn't 'bailout' stimulus it's infrastructure investment. We all know broadband in the US continues to lag other coutries and this is a way to bring something better than dial-up to the rural areas which are often cited by the 'Its ok broadband sucks in the US' people who say it's because of geography. One other advantage is that the expensiv part of the physical infrastructure would be public and therefore more open to the possiblity of actual competition.


RE: ya right!
By KC7SWH on 2/18/2009 11:25:38 AM , Rating: 2
It's a bad investment.
I'm all for upgrading the infrastructure but BPL is NOT the way to do it.


RE: ya right!
By clovell on 2/18/2009 11:36:41 AM , Rating: 5
I mean - it'll get there on its own one day. This isn't a bad project, but it is a bad time for this project. We're in a recession, folks - we're running a trillion dollar deficit. It's time to scale this sort of stuff back, not ramp it up.

For the life of me, I don't understand why some folks don't understand it (not you personally, I'm just going off on a general rant here). Have we lost all sense of personal responsibility for our country? Or do we grow apathetic from the droning screams of polarized broadcasts and articles of infotainment?


RE: ya right!
By dalingrin on 2/18/2009 12:40:29 PM , Rating: 2
The answer to the recession isn't "stop spending."
No one spending money = no jobs.

Now I'm not saying we should be spending like crazy but something should be done to jump start the economy.

To make this easier for a conservative to swallow:
Rural broadband = potential for more commerce.

So, government gives money to businesses which enables them to extend their business ventures, which in turn either saves jobs or creates additional jobs.
Assuming that money is for something like our countries infrastructure then we all get a return on that in the long run.

Whether or not broadband over power lines in particular is the best appropriation for the money is questionable. I do think something should be done for rural broadband.


RE: ya right!
By tastyratz on 2/18/2009 12:54:57 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed,

Countrywide internet access will expand the united states E-commerce position. Even if you are not directly impacted you are indirectly impacted.

This might not be the most favorable technology choice(especially when rural areas are most likely to have poorly maintained power lines)
BUT
I have seen no mention of ROI for something like this. What does it cost to expand in comparison to other viable technologies competing for our tax dollars.
How much coverage can we gain for our dollar with this versus wireless and other solutions? I think until we know that most comments relative to this here are underqualified and full of FUD.

If its expensive to roll out with minimal coverage then obviously its a poor choice, but if its half the cost and twice the coverage of other propositions it might be worth looking at.


RE: ya right!
By clovell on 2/18/2009 2:09:14 PM , Rating: 2
So, what - you propose we do an economic impact study?


RE: ya right!
By tastyratz on 2/19/2009 9:00:11 AM , Rating: 2
Nope,
but without any glance at a portfolio showing how many homes would be rolled out for that sum of money we are purely speculating and discriminating against the technology without critical valuable information. Nobody is arguing that its the faster and better high speed alternative... but if its dirt cheap and fast to roll out then that counterbalances some negatives.


RE: ya right!
By clovell on 2/19/2009 12:47:45 PM , Rating: 2
That's one way to look at it, I suppose. Personally, though, I don't see it as discriminating against the technology if we decide not to fund it with our tax dollars.


RE: ya right!
By clovell on 2/18/2009 2:15:37 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I said 'scale back', not 'stop'. We've already pumped $700 billion into the economy with the last stimulus plan - I mean, we're not priming the pump here anymore - we're just trucking in water.


RE: ya right!
By ThisSpaceForRent on 2/18/2009 2:23:43 PM , Rating: 1
The best way to stimulate the American people is to take your index and middle fingers and put them together. Then, curl your remaining fingers, and extend your index and middle fingers while keeping them together (think of a pointing action with the two fingers together). Next, insert the two fingers into the orifice of your choice (preferably not the mouth). Congratulations you've been stimulated.


RE: ya right!
By bighairycamel on 2/18/2009 11:27:57 AM , Rating: 1
I think you need to take a large step back, reread the article, then come back when you've finished. We are talking about STIMULUS money, NOT bailout money. The package is already in place to give money to provide access to rural areas, IBM is just hoping to use some it for their net-over-power venture.

IBM is not asking for any additional money to help them survive (ex- GM).


RE: ya right!
By jimbojimbo on 2/18/2009 5:11:16 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone's forgetting the biggest factor here. People in rural areas already HAVE access to the internet, just only via dial-up. They can still shop and everything else, just not stream videos. Is everyone telling me that back when everyone used dial-up nobody shopped online? They have access why should we pay for their broadband? Maybe the bill could make housing costs in the city go down to match rural areas since housing there is so much cheaper. There are pros and cons with where you live and if you choose to live somehwere, you've made your choice of what's important.


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki