|
Another BPL?
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 |
Another BPL?
On Jul 24, 1:41 pm, 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. Interesting story but a lot of information you need to determine how much of a problem this would be is missing. As it sits, the use of "unused" spectrum space in the current TV broadcast band seems to be a non-issue to us. Seems that they are at least trying to live within the part 15 rules and are working to detect when other users pop up on the spectrum and they are working in a band that will be open for new use in Feb 09. As long as they keep part 15 power levels, don't try and connect directly to long unshielded wires hung up high and stay out of the ham radio allocations what can we say? However if they are demonstrating something to the FCC, it would seem that they are looking for some kind of operational waver or rules change. Worth keeping an eye on. |
Another BPL?
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:41:36 -0400, 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 Interne t 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 eve n 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. I'm not too worried about interference to/from amateur radio. Users aren't going to recognize overload problems as coming from ham gear .. The things are simply going to intermittently stop operating and they're going to blame it on an outage of the ISP's base station. It won't play your voice out their speakers the way it does with an analog TV set. And they're never going to get FCC approved unless they know how to confine their emissions to the TV channel they determined was unused. They're no t going to spill over into ham bands. (at least not the legal ones. The illegal ones will spill even if the FC C never approves this technology.) I'm a lot more worried about it as a TV engineer and semi-rural over-the-air TV viewer. In early tests these things weren't very good at determining whether a channel was unused. I can see that becoming a big problem in semi-rural areas like this, where people might be using roofto p antennas to get TV but the Internet devices will probably be on makeshift indoor aerials. On the other hand, I'm not holding my breath waiting for someone to build a base station out here. The technology may well never come to places rural enough to be in TV fringe reception. |
Another BPL?
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 05:23:27 -0400, Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
I'm a lot more worried about it as a TV engineer and semi-rural over-the-air TV viewer. In early tests these things weren't very good at determining whether a channel was unused. I can see that becoming a bi g problem in semi-rural areas like this, where people might be using roof to p antennas to get TV but the Internet devices will probably be on makeshi ft indoor aerials. (which may end up being the vector by which this stuff bothers ham radio -- it will interfere with TV reception and the viewers will blame us...) |
Another BPL?
In article ,
Doug Smith W9WI wrote: I'm a lot more worried about it as a TV engineer and semi-rural over-the-air TV viewer. In early tests these things weren't very good at determining whether a channel was unused. I can see that becoming a big problem in semi-rural areas like this, where people might be using rooftop antennas to get TV but the Internet devices will probably be on makeshift indoor aerials. According to an article in Moble Radio Technology magazine recently, there's another issue in some areas (about ten major metro areas) where various public safety agencies have already been authorized to use the white space in the channel 14-20 range for various types of public safety communication. Some of these applications (e.g. video surveillance cameras) are designed to be "indetectable" while in operation... which makes things problematic for the proposed free-white-space-detection devices. The police would be unamused by having their stakeout-surveillance video feed stomped upon by web-browsing passersby! The quick solution to this is to forbid the use of free-white-space devices in this frequency range, in those cities where public safety operations have already been authorized. This won't necessarily solve the problem, if (for example) a user of such a device brings it from a "wide open" city into a city with restrictions, and doesn't realize that s/he has to change the device's mode to stay legal. The pro-audio industry is also up in arms over these whitespace proposals, as they've been depending for years on Part 15 (or similar) wireless microphones which operate in the unused TV channel frequencies. Having to face competition for these frequencies from a whole bunch of non-coordinated new "find a 'free' frequency and camp on it" devices could cause problems for them, to say the least! -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
Another BPL?
Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:41:36 -0400, Steve Bonine wrote: There's an article in today's Washington Post http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ego68 I had to chuckle at the part where she holds the camera on herself at arms length. High budget reportage. I also was in awe of the publc safety aspect touted by the one engineer. First responders, yada yada. Of course they could use it. The manager who is talking about having a product out in less than a year, after tehy know what the "rules" are. Finally the last guy in the red shirt who basically says that what they have doesn't work. Golly, if it doesn't have to work, I could have something on the market in a week or so evil grin I'm not too worried about interference to/from amateur radio. This isn't too likely to interfere with Amateur radio. Of course, I don't think it is too likely to work either. Given the nature of UHF, the system will have to look at the possible occupation of a frequency at both the broadcast site and receiver site. Picket fencing can be an issue. Let's take a look at a potential experience. The home system (digital signal source) and receiver system (laptop) look around for a clear space. Say they find one. I am guessing that there is some sort of Pre-communication going on on some dedicated frequency. So they find a clear frequency. They start exchanging packets. Now the laptop moves and a picketed signal shows up, or say the local church starts it's Saturday evening service. So now the home system and the receiver system have to search around for a new frequency. Maybe they find one, and maybe they don't. Immediate thoughts come to mind: These systems have to be in some kind of communication to begin with. I suppose that the laptop could just start transmitting on different frequencies, hoping to hit the home system, but that would be a long process. Talk about a system ripe for interference. There could be a new game in town, the opposite of Wardriving. If all it takes is another signal on the same frequency to start a search for a clear one, some social misfits might just have fun with a sweep generator. Keep the system hopping, and it will never settle on a frequency. snippage I'm a lot more worried about it as a TV engineer and semi-rural over-the-air TV viewer. In early tests these things weren't very good at determining whether a channel was unused. I can see that becoming a big problem in semi-rural areas like this, where people might be using rooftop antennas to get TV but the Internet devices will probably be on makeshift indoor aerials. Is is possible that this is another setup put together by digital engineers as opposed to RF engineers? So I agree with Steve that it is likely to be another BPL. This one might get a little further before failure though, as I think ARRL's efforts went a long way toward getting BPL marginalized. Obviously we won't be spending our money on a problem that won't directly affect Hams. But it has th esame problems, likely interference, lack of robustness, and probably won't help th epeople touted as the beneficiaries. Just my .$0.02 - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Another BPL?
|
Another BPL?
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:08:32 -0400, Dave Platt wrote:
The quick solution to this is to forbid the use of free-white-space devices in this frequency range, in those cities where public safety operations have already been authorized. This won't necessarily solve the problem, if (for example) a user of such a device brings it from a "wide open" city into a city with restrictions, and doesn't realize that s/he has to change the device's mode to stay legal. They'll probably have to ban them from T-band altogether. But see below. The pro-audio industry is also up in arms over these whitespace proposals, as they've been depending for years on Part 15 (or similar) wireless microphones which operate in the unused TV channel frequencies .. Having to face competition for these frequencies from a whole bunch of non-coordinated new "find a 'free' frequency and camp on it" devices could cause problems for them, to say the least! One proposal I saw would require wireless-microphone users to transmit a "beacon" signal at some predetermined location within the TV channel. Th e white-space devices would monitor for this beacon. (both the DTV and analog TV standards essentially already have beacons) So I suppose you could have the public-safety organizations also transmit the beacons. Yes, sometimes I get the impression the pro-audio folks are more upset about this than the broadcasters. |
Another BPL?
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:00:41 -0400, Phil Kane wrote:
These are one type of systems that our company designs for public-safety clients. Many agencies are asking the FCC to reassign unused commercial channels in the T-Band for Public Safety use. We're in the thick of that. What we are trying to do also is to get the FCC to expand the radius around the authorized cities as urban growth moves outward. I think the problem you're going to have (with both of those projects) is that the compression of the TV band is going to make unused channels in T-band less common. And especially in the areas outside the existing radius where you'd like to expand it. I think the argument you'll get is that 24MHz above channel 51 has alread y been set aside for public-safety, should it really need more below channe l 21? |
Another BPL?
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:06:30 -0400, Michael Coslo wrote:
Is is possible that this is another setup put together by digital engineers as opposed to RF engineers? Like BPL and IBOC I'd suggest it wasn't engineers who came up with this idea... |
Another BPL?
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 |
Another BPL?
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. |
Another BPL?
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 - |
Another BPL?
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 |
Another BPL?
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 |
Another BPL?
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 |
Another BPL?
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 |
Another BPL?
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 |
Another BPL?
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 |
Another BPL?
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:09:58 EDT, John Smith
wrote: 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 ... I do believe that the thrust of this group is to further Amateur Radio, not "the 'net". Then there are those of us who are professionals in spectrum regulatory management who believe that this is a harebrained idea from the get-go that violates good professional practice. My NSHPO. Regards, JS -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Another BPL?
Phil Kane wrote:
... I do believe that the thrust of this group is to further Amateur Radio, not "the 'net". Then there are those of us who are professionals in spectrum regulatory management who believe that this is a harebrained idea from the get-go that violates good professional practice. My NSHPO. Regards, JS -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net Phil: Interesting point ... the not-too-distant-future (year? two? few years?) should either prove you right, or wrong ... "harebrained idea", huh, we'll see ... professional? Huh, I am one myself--does that mean "I am never wrong?" -- NO! (I find crystal balls are that way.) Professional means I must revise my facts constantly to keep up with new developments and be ready to revise "accepted notions" at any moment -- i.e., stand corrected! I am sure you are prepared to do the same -- being a "professional" and all ... However, there are those who are like me, basically, we envision communication for what it is--freqs, protocols, purposes, reasons, traditional-justifications/historical-justifications, equipment, firmware, software, etc. be damned ... we/I see amateur radio simply interfacing to the net as seamlessly as the other forms of communications are/have done ... I frequently use magicjack/voip--I am certain this worries AT&T ... the possibilities with amateur radio are mind boggling -- and YET to be developed. This means, your amateur broadcast may begin on your xmitter, transverse a cell tower, a hard phone-line, a trans-atlantic cable, satellite, etc. before it arrives at the fellow amateurs' shack--in Australia!--and the packets decoded to voice/video/data. Regards, JS |
Another BPL?
On Jul 28, 2:35�am, John Smith wrote:
However, there are those who are like me, basically, we envision communication for what it is--freqs, protocols, purposes, reasons, traditional-justifications/historical-justifications, equipment, firmware, software, etc. be damned ... There's a fundamental problem with that viewpoint - see below. we/I see amateur radio simply interfacing to the net as seamlessly as the other forms of communications are/have done ... I frequently use magicjack/voip--I am certain this worries AT&T ... the possibilities with amateur radio are mind boggling -- and YET to be developed. There's a difference between what can be done and what should be done. This means, your amateur broadcast may begin on your xmitter, transverse a cell tower, a hard phone-line, a trans-atlantic cable, satellite, etc. before it arrives at the fellow amateurs' shack--in Australia!--and the packets decoded to voice/video/data. The problem is that such a mindset as you describe misses a fundamental point about what amateur radio is all about. Indeed, it misses a fundamental point about what *life* is all about. What you describe is what could be described as "the mindset of the destination" or "the mindset of the message". Meaning all that matters is getting there, not the method or the journey. And for a lot of things, that's perfectly OK; I don't really care what exact path or technology routes my phone call or my email as long as it gets there reliably and at low cost. Most people don't care if the TV show they watch is delivered by magnetic tape, optical disc, RF in the air, RF in a cable, or light in a fiber, it's the program content that matters to them. But there's another mindset to consider as well, which can be described as "the mindset of the method" or "the mindset of the journey". It's the mindset where the route, the technology, the experience, etc., *do* make a difference to the person. In many cases the journey is more important than the destination. And it's a big part of what Amateur Radio is all about. Because one of the main reason for Amateur Radio to exist is that it is "radio for its own sake". A thing done for its own intrinsic value to the doer, not just for the final result. It's like asking why anyone goes fishing non-professionally when they can buy fish cheaper at the market. Or why anyone rides a bike, walks or runs when they have a perfectly good car, or cooks when they can go to a restaurant. Why anyone would paint or draw when there are perfectly good cameras of many types. The answer is that they are doing those things for the doing, not just for the end result. A QSO from my radio to another ham's, direct by ionosphere, troposphere, aurora, etc., is not the same journey as a net-simulation, just as my homemade bread is not the same as a loaf bought in a store. More than ten years ago, I saw discussions about how practically all that we radio amateurs do on HF from fixed points could be done on the net using various forms of simulation/emulation. And I'm sure it could be done. The folks who proposed this simply didn't understand the difference between the journey and the destination. That difference is very important. --- There's another factor: Having an alternate system. Too much dependence on a single system is not always a good thing, because when (not if) that system fails there's no alternative - no backup. Too much dependence on a single system also stifles creativity because all thought tends to be conditioned to that system. -- None of this means Amateur Radio must never ever connect to the 'net or to other communications systems. What it does mean is that such connections are an enhancement and/or interface, not a replacement for "A Boy And His Radio" (to use K0HB's phrase). 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Another BPL?
|
Another BPL?
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 02:35:49 EDT, John Smith
wrote: This means, your amateur broadcast may begin on your xmitter, transverse a cell tower, a hard phone-line, a trans-atlantic cable, satellite, etc. before it arrives at the fellow amateurs' shack--in Australia!--and the packets decoded to voice/video/data. There are still some of us who cling to the motto "When all else fails...amateur radio". My concept of ham radio is to be free from any non-ham intermediary transmission systems. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Another BPL?
A bit of history may be in order.
Going back many decades, international radio spectrum managers (ITU/IFRB) designated several slices of spectrum for Industrial, Scientific, and Medical uses on a regulated-but-non-licensed basis. The most famous of these was the former 11-meter Amateur Radio band, centered around 27.12 MHz (Mc/s in those days) and the 960 MHz and the 2450 MHz bands where the "WiFi" stuff eventually landed. These bands were and to most of us still are considered "electronic garbage cans" and Administrations could allocate uses of those spectrum slices on the basis that the users had to accept any interference from ISM operations. The FCC decided to establish a class of non-licensed low-power operations regulated under what is now Part 15 which could operate in those spectrum spaces. The 11-meter band was allocated to the Citizens Band Radio Service, which at first was a licensed service but became "blanket authorization" when the renegade violators decided to ignore the law and the FCC caved in (if you can't beat 'em, join 'em). At the same time, ISM operations - which in general were high power with lots of harmonics) moved to screen rooms or elsewhere in the spectrum because their harmonics were causing interference in the VHF Aviation band. leaving that portion of the spectrum to the CBers. This more-or-less orderly Part 15 operation lasted for a while until the FCC, in a stroke of lightheadedness, no doubt prodded by equipment manufacturers with product to sell, decided to allow Part 15 operations on other portions of the spectrum allocated to licensing users. There was quite an uproar while that was being proposed, and the objectors were told to "sit down and be quiet". In other words, it was a done deal where politics or ideology overruled competent spectrum management. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Another BPL?
Phil Kane wrote:
There are still some of us who cling to the motto "When all else fails...amateur radio". My concept of ham radio is to be free from any non-ham intermediary transmission systems. As a person who works with computers every day, I have to say that trusting one's well being would not be the wisest of moves. I would rather trust that there is some way of getting an rf signal through. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Another BPL?
In article ,
Phil Kane wrote: A bit of history may be in order. Going back many decades, international radio spectrum managers (ITU/IFRB) designated several slices of spectrum for Industrial, Scientific, and Medical uses on a regulated-but-non-licensed basis. The most famous of these was the former 11-meter Amateur Radio band, centered around 27.12 MHz (Mc/s in those days) and the 960 MHz and the 2450 MHz bands where the "WiFi" stuff eventually landed. These bands were and to most of us still are considered "electronic garbage cans" and Administrations could allocate uses of those spectrum slices on the basis that the users had to accept any interference from ISM operations. The FCC decided to establish a class of non-licensed low-power operations regulated under what is now Part 15 which could operate in those spectrum spaces. The 11-meter band was allocated to the Citizens Band Radio Service, which at first was a licensed service but became "blanket authorization" when the renegade violators decided to ignore the law and the FCC caved in (if you can't beat 'em, join 'em). At the same time, ISM operations - which in general were high power with lots of harmonics) moved to screen rooms or elsewhere in the spectrum because their harmonics were causing interference in the VHF Aviation band. leaving that portion of the spectrum to the CBers. This more-or-less orderly Part 15 operation lasted for a while until the FCC, in a stroke of lightheadedness, no doubt prodded by equipment manufacturers with product to sell, decided to allow Part 15 operations on other portions of the spectrum allocated to licensing users. There was quite an uproar while that was being proposed, and the objectors were told to "sit down and be quiet". In other words, it was a done deal where politics or ideology overruled competent spectrum management. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net I remember as a Kid, my doctor had a "Dyeathermy?" Machine on 27.255 Mhz that had an 833 in it as a Self-excited Osc. I often wondered if it took out all the CB Receivers in 20 miles when he fired it up. Had to plugged into 220 Vac. -- Bruce in alaska add path after fast to reply |
Another BPL?
Bruce in alaska wrote:
I remember as a Kid, my doctor had a "Dyeathermy?" Machine on 27.255 Mhz that had an 833 in it as a Self-excited Osc. I often wondered if it took out all the CB Receivers in 20 miles when he fired it up. Had to plugged into 220 Vac. One of the true pleasures of (a) self employment and (b) a niche market is I get some really odd service requests in the shop. About a month ago a doctor calls about his diathermy machines. 4 new sweep tubes and a couple of oscillator doubler tubes and we're back in business with 1600 Watts Peak pulse on 27 MHz. It really did look like some Flash Gordon death ray machine. What I found amusing was when I took it back to his office, his method of testing it was to light it up with the antenna against the small of his back, then hold up the light socket with the coil of wire on it to his stomach and twiddle the knob for maximum brightness. Yehaw! Jeff-1.0 wa6fwi |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com