[John Smith]

Steve Bonine wrote:
There's an article in today's Washington Post

http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ego68

that describes a technology that's under development to provide Internet
access using spectrum in the TV channel range. Apparently this scheme
checks for a signal before it uses a specific frequency and switches to
a different one if it detects that the frequency is in use.

I wonder how this will work and play with amateur radio. I remember
when TV channel 2 was established in my home town, effectively shutting
down six meter ham operation because the TV signal was so weak that even
a correctly-operating six-meter rig would create serious TVI for the
fringe reception of channel 2. Decades have passed and this new
technology surely is much less sensitive to adjacent signals than the
TVs of my childhood, but the analogy persists.

73, Steve KB9X


These freqs, being opened up for the net, is a very exciting development
.... I believe the opportunities and access provided will greatly expand
the availability to the net under adverse circumstances, and make
greater speeds available to those who were lacking the same ...

Regards,
JS

[Doug Smith W9WI[_2_]]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:09:58 -0400, John Smith wrote:
These freqs, being opened up for the net, is a very exciting developmen
t
... I believe the opportunities and access provided will greatly expand
the availability to the net under adverse circumstances, and make
greater speeds available to those who were lacking the same ...

Believe it when you see it...

BPL was promised as the way to get broadband to rural residents. Never
saw any of it deployed in rural areas - all the test systems ended up in
suburbia.

[Mike Coslo]

John Smith wrote in
:
These freqs, being opened up for the net, is a very exciting
development ... I believe the opportunities and access provided will
greatly expand the availability to the net under adverse
circumstances, and make greater speeds available to those who were
lacking the same ...


Hi John. What are the technical aspects of these systems that will do
this? I read what they are doing, and what they have done so far to be
technically not so good. It appears that the concept is flawed.

From what I can piece together, it looks as if the main concept treats the
RF spectrum as if it were wired for digital. That will not work.

Simple Wi-Fi and other digital transmission setups in use now are not close
to the same. The system that comes closest in likely performance is
cellular net access. That uses compression rather than frequency agility of
course.


This is a presumed frequency agile system that won't interfere with other
signals already on the band. If it works, one possible outcome is that no
available frequency will be found, and no connection made. Failure is a
built in option!

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

[[email protected]]

On Jul 26, 11:32�am, Doug Smith W9WI wrote:

BPL was promised as the way to get broadband to rural
residents. �Never saw any of it deployed in rural areas -
all the test systems ended up in suburbia.

AFAIK, the reason for that is the classic rural-utilities problem: how
to get a usable return on investment from a low-density customer base.
Given a reasonable rate structure, often there simply aren't enough
revenue dollars to justify the expense of installation and
maintenance.

Note that the last parts of the USA to get electricity were the rural
ones, and it took government programs like the REA and TVA to make it
happen. (See windmill/farm radio story below).

Access-BPL isn't a way to get broadband to cover more than a mile or
two; that's a job for fiber optics. Access-BPL is all about the "last
mile": getting the broadband signal into the customer's neighborhood
and premises without new wires by using the power lines. It sounds
like a good idea until the downsides are considered. Besides the
obvious interference issues, there's the need to install devices to
permit the BPL signal to bypass the distribution transformers (which
raises a whole bunch of safety concerns) and how lossy the power lines
are to the BPL signal (because it's radiating!).

Economics alone may be the doom of BPL.

---

And now the farm radio story:

Years after electric lighting and radio broadcasting were common in
the USA, many farms and rural areas did not have electricity. In some
areas, small local cooperative power systems were built, with varying
degrees of success. But in many areas the distances were so great that
such systems did not happen.

One solution that had a fair following was the windmill generator.
Windmills had long been used for pumping water - in fact the artesian
well and the water-pumping windmill were major factors in the
cultivation of the Great Plains. Companies like Wincharger produced
wind-powered electric systems for lighting. Typically these were ~32
volt DC systems with storage batteries for windless nights.

The farm folks wanted radio, too, but usually the cost of an electric
system just to power a receiver was prohibitive.

So AM BC radios were developed to run from the windmill power systems.
They used ordinary receiving tubes with the heaters in series and the
plate supply direct from the 32 volts, for economy. The resulting low
gain was dealt with by an additional stage or two and paralleled audio
output tubes. Still cheaper and less trouble than a dynamotor or
vibrator supply, and used less energy. These wind-powered radios are
rare now because they were only sold in rural areas and became
obsolete when rural electrification came through. Plus one more
factor:

One unusual feature of the 32 volt systems was that they used the same
hardware (lamp sockets, outlets, switches, wiring) as 110 volt AC
systems. This seemed like a good idea at the time because it
eliminated future re-work. But it was risky because if someone plugged
the wrong-voltage device in, there could be a lot of smoke released.
More than a few 32 volt radios met an untimely demise from such
mistakes.

Another approach stemmed from the development of low-drain 1.4 volt
filament receiving tubes. "Farm radios" designed around these tubes
and powered by dry cell batteries were developed for the rural market.
Special combination-block dry cell batteries were developed where the
cells were sized for a particular set design so that the A and B
sections wore out together. They were a staple of rural-area radio-
sales-and-repair shops until the electrification came through.

Now, 60-odd years later, we are seeing a resurgence in wind power and
off-the-grid technology. Everything old is new again.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[John Smith]

Mike Coslo wrote:

...
Hi John. What are the technical aspects of these systems that will do
this? I read what they are doing, and what they have done so far to be
technically not so good. It appears that the concept is flawed.

From what I can piece together, it looks as if the main concept treats the
RF spectrum as if it were wired for digital. That will not work.

Simple Wi-Fi and other digital transmission setups in use now are not close
to the same. The system that comes closest in likely performance is
cellular net access. That uses compression rather than frequency agility of
course.


This is a presumed frequency agile system that won't interfere with other
signals already on the band. If it works, one possible outcome is that no
available frequency will be found, and no connection made. Failure is a
built in option!

- 73 de Mike N3LI -


Only compression working in conjunction with spread spectrum or other
frequency-skipping/efficiency techniques makes any sense what-so-ever
.... if the implemented systems do not include state-of-the-art
techniques in these areas--they will eventually be forced too, as
traffic climbs ...

Although it has been months since I have viewed the available/proposed
plans, the best plans called for the freqs to be open to all--i.e.,
rented/leased, etc. from successful bidder(s), and at fair rates. And,
included free and open wifi access from points along major traffic
routes, cities, etc. through constructive funding methods (ads,
city/town/county/state/federal participations, etc.)

However, you know as well as I, in this day-and-age--especially, what
the pubic wants and sees benefits in are NOT always given major priority.

Or simply, we live in a world which maximizes profits for some at the
expense of the majority. While this does what it intends and very
efficiently at that, the quality-of-living/services for the multitudes
suffers greatly ... but then, you have already seen that. (example: my
city just ear marked 1,500,000 for "the arts"--and, LARGE holes in the
roads are tearing chunks off car tires! Our water system needs a
billion+ dollar upgrade ... etc.

If you don't believe our politicians, even down to the minor ones in
your/my town, are "owned", just where in the heck have you been taking
that "Rip Van Winkle Nap" at?

Regards,
JS

[John Smith]

Mike Coslo wrote:

...
This is a presumed frequency agile system that won't interfere with other
signals already on the band. If it works, one possible outcome is that no
available frequency will be found, and no connection made. Failure is a
built in option!

- 73 de Mike N3LI -


Sorry, in my haste I missed making a suitable response to this part of
your post.

I never see a "failure", so to speak, occurring (other than catastrophic
failure and requiring repair of hardware/firmware/software.) And, under
peak-loads/hardware-failure/etc., slowdowns may occur. However, this
would happen to any/all net traffic under adverse condition. Indeed,
you really don't know how the net gets to you,
satellite/hard-line/cell-tower/etc. are all being implemented behind the
curtains and simply ends up looking seamless to us, the users.

The net should not be viewed as a long winded amateur who abuses "key
down" time. The net is in packets, these packets are of a sensible size
and sent "in turn." There are rules to prevent one or more "glutton(s)"
from being able to adversely affect net traffic.

From my home wifi router/switch to the data streams off a major
backbone, packets are handled this way. Usually some type of
First-In-First-Out (or, FIFO) queue is implemented (packets may not
always be transmitted "in order", however, they will always carry an id
which allows the logical data stream to reconstructed.) Your packet is
never "lost" or "ignored", it is simply "waiting in line", like a busy
supermarket--your "shopping time" may vary.

Regards,
JS

[[email protected]]

On Jul 27, 2:37�am, Mike Coslo wrote:

This is a presumed frequency agile system that won't
interfere with other
signals already on the band. If it works, one possible
outcome is that no
available frequency will be found, and no connection
made. Failure is a built in option!

IMHO:

I think this whole business of "overlays", unlicensed users, and such,
is not the way to go. I think we (and more important, the FCC)
need to step back and get some basic concepts re-established.

The whole basis of licensing and regulation is to get the most and
best use of a limited resource (the RF spectrum) with minimum
interference. That's what started licensing in 1912, and is the whole
reason for the radio part of FCC.

And for a long time, if you wanted to intentionally radiate RF, you
needed at least one FCC license, and had to abide by the rules of that
license. If you unintentionally radiated enough RF, FCC would not let
you continue doing so.

Different parts of the RF spectrum were allocated for different uses.
Sharing of the same spectrum between licensed services worked with
varying degrees of success.

The idea of allowing unlicensed intentional RF emitters to share RF
spectrum with licensed ones probably dates back to the first "phono
oscillators" that used the AM BC band to let you play records through
a radio. That was a marginal idea in its time, but it's turned into a
very bad idea today.

The big problem of BPL isn't that it could interfere with us hams -
lots of things can do that. The big problem was that an unintentional
(and effectively unlicensed) RF emitter was and is being given
priority over and above licensed users. (See many reports of hams who
report interference from BPL, yet the BPL system is allowed to
continue operating).

The idea that various unlicensed users can "overlay" on top of
licensed ones, and that the whole business of licensing and regulation
can be relaxed, sounds pretty good at first. But in reality, problems
do arise, and then the unlicensed users don't want to shut down. Often
they are unaware of the interference.

It's just bad engineering and bad planning. If RF spectrum is needed
for new technologies, allocate it! License the new technologies to use
their own allocations, rather than stepping all over other folks'.

And stop permitting so much RF pollution from unintentional emitters.
It's just not necessary; the technology exists to do things right.

Old-fashioned ideas? Maybe, but that doesn't mean they are bad ideas.

I am reminded of the old story of the hobo who was discovered by the
train conductor, and who ordered the hobo off the train because he
didn't have a ticket.

The hobo argued that the train was going to go where it was going
anyway, that there was plenty of unused space in the baggage car and
plenty of seats with no one in them, so why should he have to buy a
ticket? The hobo promised that if the train got crowded he would get
off. But barring such crowding, he argued, his presence on the train
would cost the railroad nothing. So why throw him off? Why not let him
ride free?


73 de Jim, N2EY

[Mike Coslo]

wrote in news:d7e2966c-1f78-4b35-9a0f-
:

On Jul 27, 2:37�am, Mike Coslo wrote:

This is a presumed frequency agile system that won't
interfere with other
signals already on the band. If it works, one possible
outcome is that no
available frequency will be found, and no connection
made. Failure is a built in option!

IMHO:

I think this whole business of "overlays", unlicensed users, and such,
is not the way to go. I think we (and more important, the FCC)
need to step back and get some basic concepts re-established.

I couldn't agree with you more, Jim!


The whole basis of licensing and regulation is to get the most and
best use of a limited resource (the RF spectrum) with minimum
interference. That's what started licensing in 1912, and is the whole
reason for the radio part of FCC.

And for a long time, if you wanted to intentionally radiate RF, you
needed at least one FCC license, and had to abide by the rules of that
license. If you unintentionally radiated enough RF, FCC would not let
you continue doing so.

Different parts of the RF spectrum were allocated for different uses.
Sharing of the same spectrum between licensed services worked with
varying degrees of success.

The idea of allowing unlicensed intentional RF emitters to share RF
spectrum with licensed ones probably dates back to the first "phono
oscillators" that used the AM BC band to let you play records through
a radio. That was a marginal idea in its time, but it's turned into a
very bad idea today.

The big problem of BPL isn't that it could interfere with us hams -
lots of things can do that. The big problem was that an unintentional
(and effectively unlicensed) RF emitter was and is being given
priority over and above licensed users. (See many reports of hams who
report interference from BPL, yet the BPL system is allowed to
continue operating).

Somehow, somewhere, the concept of "the greater good" came into play.
When coupled with the "regulation is bad" idea, it took on a new and dare
I say evil life of its own. Normally the greater good is a buzzword for
rwgulation fans. Here it was turned on it's head - since more people
were/are unlicensed, their greater good could overwhelm the licensed
users, who were part of the old, regulated paradigm.

The idea that various unlicensed users can "overlay" on top of
licensed ones, and that the whole business of licensing and regulation
can be relaxed, sounds pretty good at first.

It only sounds good to those who believe in ideology based physics.

But in reality, problems
do arise, and then the unlicensed users don't want to shut down. Often
they are unaware of the interference.

It is also very likely that they just don't care.


It's just bad engineering and bad planning. If RF spectrum is needed
for new technologies, allocate it! License the new technologies to use
their own allocations, rather than stepping all over other folks'.

I think that steps on the toes of ideology though. Keep in mind that I
think you are 100 percent correct.

And stop permitting so much RF pollution from unintentional emitters.
It's just not necessary; the technology exists to do things right.

Old-fashioned ideas? Maybe, but that doesn't mean they are bad ideas.

Might it be that the new fashioned ideas are just plain wrong? There
are some things that do not need regulation. If everyone were to get a
very good education, most things would not need regulation. However, our
society (in the US at least) tends toward specialization. Without a very
liberal education (whoee, now that's PI!) people are dependent on other
specialists to make policy for anything outside their own narrow
specialty. This naturally tends toward regulation. I don't like it. I
wish everyone was educated enough to make rational decisions on their
own. Unless I misunderestimate people.

- 73 d eMike N3LI -

[KØHB]

wrote in message
...

If RF spectrum is needed for new technologies, allocate
it! License the new technologies to use their own allocations,
rather than stepping all over other folks'.

[TIC]

Makes a lot of sense Jim. After all, there are huge expanses of fallow
un-allocated spectrum out there, waiting to be exploited.

Or maybe not.

[/TIC]

Be careful what you wish for. If FCC agrees with you (every intentional
radiator should be licensed to their own allocation), then I predict that
spectrum currently allocated to hobbyists will be among the first to be
harvested and re-assigned.

(Whoops!)

73, de Hans, K0HB

[Phil Kane]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:01:43 EDT, Doug Smith W9WI
wrote:

I think the argument you'll get is that 24MHz above channel 51 has already
been set aside for public-safety, should it really need more below channel 21?

Now you have me talking about my business but here I go anyway:

Every petition that we have submitted for our Public Safety clients
who need expansion into non-Public Safety Pool frequencies in T-Band
has been met with what I consider a boiler-plate query from the FCC
that has to be answered formally on the record about whether our
client has considered a 700 MHz system. What we say is this:

1. This is an expansion of existing system which already operates in
T-Band and there are no more Public Safety Pool T-Band channels
available that would not result in harmful interference to another
user of that band.

2. The characteristics of 700 MHz propagation and building
penetration are such that it would require anywhere from five to ten
times as many repeater sites as a T-band system, each one costing
three to five times as much as a T-Band site costs.

3. It is dangerous and unsafe to require a public safety officer
(police or fire) to carry two radios where the possibility exists that
the "wrong" radio would be used in a life-and-death situation.

4. There is no usable 700 MHz equipment on the market at the present
time. Existing 800 MHz equipment is not compatible with the operating
schemes proposed for the 700 MHz band.

5. The systems under consideration are taxpayer funded, and it is
egregious to abandon an existing system and procure a new system just
because the 700 MHz spectrum has been designated for future use. The
taxpayers won't stand for it, even in the name of "homeland security",
the magic words du jour, and obtaining additional sites is a
protracted and expensive procedure in today's environmental-conscious
urban and suburban environment (can you say NIMBY ?).

The documentation to support all the above literally runs into the
thousands of pages - all at the taxpayers' expense.

I'd say more but it would disparage a major manufacturer of equipment.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net