robert casey wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

Frank Dresser wrote:

"David Stinson" wrote in message
news:C8gEd.965$SS6.207@trnddc07...

Nope. As soon as the HF users reach a certain level of decline,
the FCC will auction-off the HF band for use in WI-FI local
broadband networking, telling the hams to enjoy "2 meters and down."
Count on it.



Parts of the HF spectrum will always be protected for military and
emergency
communications.

The remainder isn't very much spectrum for broadband purposes, especially
considering the high noise levels and possibility of interference
from just
about anywhere in the world.

Building compact, efficent antennas is a real problem at HF, and using
higher power with inefficent antennas hardly seems like a good
solution for
a battery powered portable..



Indeed, Frank. I wonder if many of those people who would propose
to use HF as if was the new frontier of digital communications know
exactly what they are dealing with.


About the only feature of HF vs UHF or microwave is that distant
nodes or stations can directly talk to each other without
supporting infrastructure (phone lines or Internet). Same
thing that attracts ham radio operators. Though the fact that
a pair of users will hog the same bandwidth world-wide is not
such a hot feature.... Unless digital shortwave broadcasting
is desired, forget it. And how well will digital handle QSB
and QRM and QRN? Assuming the modulation method is designed
to cope with such...

Well, digital error checking can take care of that..... again and again
and again and again, until it works, or more likely, times out.

Great, as long as you don't mind a slow connection. Of course, maybe
that is why BPL is at DSL speeds instead of cable modem speeds.

- Mike KB3EIA -