Talk:Power-line communication

message: ===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)
thread_title: Discussion by sections

message: ====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)
thread_title: Overall

message: 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)
thread_title: What's wrong with this page

message: The introduction is now very clearly disambiguating DC from AC, smart grid applicable from broadband standards, but this does require a separate HomePlug Green PHY article and probably more redirects like IEEE 1905.1 and IEEE 1905 (both of which should currently redirect to IEEE P1905 as the standard is still in the process).
Perhaps two different articles should describe PLC for short haul which is what the IEEE 1901 standard covers, and the longer haul technologies still in R&D like E-line from corridor.biz which supposedly compete with fibre over 1km and between transformers?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.143 (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: *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)
thread_title: Glossary

message: 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)
thread_title: Technology

message: 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)
thread_title: Standards

message: 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)
thread_title: Deployments

message: === 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)
thread_title: Issues not necessarily covered by the current article

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ham radio 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Not ALL BPL causes interference or fails on long haul --Microwave BPL 

message: 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.
*Such analysis should focus on the actual proposed standards such as the SAE J1772 electric vehicle charger.  It's absurd to engage in general criticism of de facto and de jure standards without a clear standard and an alternative to compare it to.  It's hard to imagine guaranteeing any other bandwidth necessarily will be there when one starts to put a massive charge into a 500V car battery - and do you really want it starting to charge, or not charging, without the charging circuit itself being aware of what it's charging ?   That kind of voltage amounts to a death penalty for any serious safety error.  So I sure do not want to trust this to some telco or cableco consumer grade router or proprietary flakeware it runs! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.143 (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: PLC, Automotive

message: Doesn't this technology make AC power "dirty" for sensitive electronic devices? -- Beland 21:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dirty power 

message: *WRT fiber competitiveness, please see additions to microwave-BPL below.--N6gn 03:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: advantages of power line communication

message: 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)
thread_title:  Home Control 

message: Feel free to add a PLC column to the OFDM#OFDM system comparison table. Mange01 11:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OFDM system comparison table 

message: Anyone else getting a corrupt page for this article? 206.45.125.208 17:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corruption 

message: 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)
thread_title:  combining power and data 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Potential for interference section may not be neutral 

message: 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)
replies: text: Well it certainly would have been less lazy to use citations yourself instead of assuming others will do your work for you. I do think this is undue weight right now to mention it twice and near the front. I will re-org to go in more historical order of bands, e.g. low bandwidth first and then highest last. W Nowicki (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultra-High-frequency communication (≥100 MHz) 

message: Lots of material in this, but much is overlapping and confusing. One problem is that broadband has lost its technical meaning. I think often it means Internet access, and it seems in theory possible to use power lines for Internet access (although one would need citations for actual providers). I think that is what most politicians mean when they say "Broadband"? Then there is using power lines as a LAN within a home. Might be called "Broadband" too if video is sent for example. These both seem different than the "Smart Grid" idea, which might include the power companies to send data on the lines themselves. These seem all mixed together. W Nowicki (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also a recent edit added more confusion by taking out some citations and adding inline links instead. Please do not do this. Read how to use the  tags first before adding more inline links. The confusion is even worse due to the changing acronyms thrown around. In the subsection on PLC for example the text uses PLT instead, and this is within the section labeled BLP! Please clarify the TLAs. W Nowicki (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I care about how experts use the word "broadband", not uneducated politicians.162.246.139.210 (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usual "Broadband" confusion 

message: DLC uses existing electrical distribution network in the medium voltage (MV) — i.e., 11 kV, Low Voltage (LV) as well as building voltages.  It is very similar to the powerline carrier.  DLC uses narrowband powerline communication frequency range of 9 to 500 kHz with data rate up to 576 kbit/s. DLC is suitable (even in very large networks) for multiple realtime energy management applications.  It can be implemented under REMPLI System as well as SCADA, AMR and Power Quality Monitoring System. DLC complies with the following standards: EN 50065 (CENELEC), IEC 61000-3 and FCC Part 15 Subpart B.
Radio users may experience some interference to their systems when in the near proximity of overhead power lines. For two way radio
systems utilizing digital schemas, such as the P25 systems, this may appear as loss of received signal caused by the radio's front end
(desensitising the receiver). For analog radios the interference appears as a buzzing sound eminating from the radio's speaker. With
external inductive or capacitive coupling, a distance more than 15 km can be achieved over a medium voltage network. On low
voltage networks, a direct connection can be made since the DLC has a built-in capacitive coupler.  This allows end-end
communications from substation to the customer premises without repeaters.
The latest DLC systems significantly improve upon and differ from other powerline communication segments. DLC is mainly useful for last-mile and backhaul instrastucture that can be integrated with corporate wide area networks (WANs) via TCP/IP, serial communication or leased-line modem to cater for multi-services realtime energy management systems.
More recently, narrowband PLC communications techniques have also started to include implementations of more sophisticated communication technologies like OFDM, that were till date used in broadband domain. PRIME is one such system that operates within CENELEC A band and uses OFDM as the technology at physical layer to provide data rates of up to 128 kbit/s. The PRIME Alliance is an industrial consortium that is putting forth this open specifications of physical and MAC layers and allowing for utilities to pick solutions from different vendors.
:This entire section had no citations, just inline links to mostly defunct web sites. Will try to summarize with citations. W Nowicki (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: DLC

message: As per WP:ENGVAR, we should stick to one variety of English per article. It seems to use British style dates and some words, but "power line" seems more American than "the mains" would be. Does anyone have any strong thoughts either way? W Nowicki (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's call it Canadian English and move on to more relevant problems with the article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  British or American English? 

message: I suggest we split the broadband-over-power-line material out to its own article; it's notable in its own right and gets into details that bog down this overview. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose see above. The word broadband has a technical meaning that encompasses most of the variants in this article. My guess is that you mean Internet access over power lines? I do agree that it needs to be clearly distinguished with other applications, especially communication within a single building, for example, or power companies themselves sending internal communication. The verbage now that talks about "indoor" and "outdoor" is very bad. Electricity behaves exactly the same indoors and outdoors. My guess is again the intra-building vs. wide area distinction is meant. Another big gap is discussing how power companies (at least in the US?) have generally given up on using the wires for communication and are using wireless technology for example in smart meters. All sorts of red wikilinks and inline web links also appeared again. Sigh. I vote we clean up this article first before spinning off multiple ones. No need to have two bad articles if we cannot maintain one well-cited one. W Nowicki (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I mean broadband over poower line, which is distinct from power line carrier communications, X10, and broadcasting over the powerline. BPL has its own set of issues that don't apply to the other narrow band modes. "Indoor" and "outdoor" is a short hand for "intrabuilding" and "interbuilding". Getting all that internet crap out of here would help focus this article, and a Broadband over power line article could then just talk about that topic instead of line couplers to 230 kV transmission systems. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Of course shorthand should not be used in the article but precise language. We engineers might understand, but the article is going to be read by people who do not know the subject; that is a good reason why they are reading it. Thanks for taking those details out of the lead; I was doing it at the same time and got an edit conflict. Still much more to do. It would seem that issues like interference depend on power and frequency, not if the waves happen to be Internet access or teleohone calls or whatever. And of course in the technical sense, home LANs can have higher data rates and perhaps broader bandwidth than Internet access technologies. So I am still not sure how to organize, but maybe you have a point that readers use "broadband" in its marketing sense as "Internet access". Maybe we can start with getting information sourced by citations. W Nowicki (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

text: It appears from the sources that HomePlug and IEEE 1901 both use the term "broadband" to refer to their home LAN variants too. Do you have sources that make a clean distinction? Also it looks like the E-Line stuff is a single person pushing this in general, no indication it was ever used for Internet access, so no clear where it belongs. W Nowicki (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to split BPL?

message: PLC carrier repeating station is a very small stub on a topic with little independant notability; it should be merged to this article to give it context. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see this was merged.  I changed the redirect to make it more relevant.Timtempleton (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggest merge

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Power-line communication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110718042743/http://www.pulseworx.com/UPB_.htm to http://pulseworx.com/UPB_.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Some context about the adoption rate of this technology would be extremely helpful. -- Beland (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market share