Re:What? (Score 3, Interesting)

When I was younger and electricity was still being installed in homes, it was necessary to run wire in existing walls. This was a challenge because the lath and mortar walls had little room to get the wire through them (dry wall had not yet been invented). We figured out how to wire the homes using drop chains and fish tape to get the wires to where they needed to be. I drilled a lot of holes by hand. Now that people are faced with running CAT5E through walls, they are stymied and instead are trying to figure out ways around it by superimposing high frequency networking signals on to existing copper (like phone or power wire). Even worse, they decide to pollute the RF spectrum by using wireless networking to interface fixed equipment. Wireless networking should be used for mobile, battery-powered equipment, and nothing else. But I digress...

I experimented with HPNA in the 2.0 era (around 2001) and found that it over delivered as far as throughput. Its throughput buried the equivalent Wifi and it was rock solid even during simultaneous use of the copper with analog phone calls and DSL connections. But then the HPNA manufacturers abandoned the market. I don't have faith that anyone credible will come in to implement the HPNA 3.0 spec.

I've since given up on the mis-application of copper media and have instead gotten out my drill, drop chain, and fish tape and recommend you do the same. Gbit over CAT5E is cheap and reliable and will be around for many years whereas the non-standard interfaces will fall by the wayside.

-Lee
http://www.k0lee.com/