RadioBanter - BPL Video On-Line

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)

- - BPL Video On-Line (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/26755-re-bpl-video-line.html)

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

First thing I noticed late that day was the slowdown in my dialup,
which I figured was some unrelated local glitch. But it never did seem
to speed up on netwide ccnnects, though I get 42 to 44kbs connects.
Makes me wonder what got damaged and where, to cause that.

Your brain, and it's called imagination.

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

Don't look now, but you replied to Jim Hampton's post, not Dick's!

Of course, you were probably just being "imaginative."

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Scott Unit 69
writes:

Frankly, I don't trust Republicans or
Democrats; both have to serve special interest groups before the common
good.

*GASP* There *are* still people out there who can reason and think!! Thank
goodness!

Jim Hampton for President!

Jim Weir, WX6RST for Governor of California!!!

I am NOT kidding! :-)

LHA

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
Brian,

I did make a minor mistake. BPL is cut off at 1.8 MHz, thus avoiding the
deep pocket broadcasters. I'm still not sure how well the cheap Chinese
radios will work with BPL being fed right into the power lines.

Then there are HF aeronautical frequencies. I forgot there are HF radio
astronomy listening posts. I wonder how well folks will hear WWV at any
HF
frequency. SWLs will love BPL; forget hearing a lot of foreign
broadcasters. This thing is looking very ugly, indeed. BTW, don't blame
the Democrats; it is usually the big-money backed Republicans that will
sell
their own mother to make money for someone who lined their pockets. I
noticed that in Japan, they blame the liberal Democrats for running huge
deficits and keeping interest rates at near zero. Sounds like what our
Republicans are doing, doesn't it? Frankly, I don't trust Republicans or
Democrats; both have to serve special interest groups before the common
good.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
Keith,

As soon as you can figure out what BPL is going to do to hi-fidelity
stereo
am broadcast

What will it do to lo-fidelity AM?

This must be the Dem's answer to silencing Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck,
Mike Reagan, Ollie North, Neal Bortz, Gordon Liddy, Mike Savage, Sean
Hannity...

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/4/03

When you consider the FCC Chairman was raised by Colin....you figure it out.

Dan/W4NTI

In article , Jim Hampton
wrote:

A couple of other questions for you Keith.
BPL uses frequencies between 1.8 and 80 MHz.

Question #1: Does 27 MHz CB fall between 1.8 and 80 MHz?

Question #2: Do HF radio astronomy posts use frequencies between 1.8 and 80
MHz?

Question #3: Does WWV use frequencies between 1.8 and 80 MHz?

Question #4: Do HF aeronautical frequencies lie between 1.8 and 80 MHz?

Question #5: Do HF foreign broadcasters use frequencies between 1.8 and 80
MHz?

Question #6: Will SWLs be impacted by the answer to question #5?

Question #7: I see you provide a link to short wave. Just what do you
think short wave is? (BIG hint: HF; 3 to 30 MHz, just what is being
impacted).

Question #8: I see you provide a link to scanners. You are aware that many
scanners go down to 30 MHz or so (some lower) and even VHF frequencies to 80
MHz are affected.

Question #9: What are the frequencies occupied by the lowest channels of
television in the United States? (Hint, channel two runs between 54 MHz and
60 MHz). Do these frequencies lie between 1.8 and 80 MHz?

Now think about those questions for a while.

These are just simple starter questions; it gets worse the deeper you dig.
Now go back to your room and shut the padded door :)

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

Jim, to add a few to your list........

Question #10 Do TV Channels 2 through 5 use spectrum in this range?

Question #11 Do you know that even with Digital TV that broadcasters
will still have to broadcast on the old frequencies until about 80% of
the households in their class A & B coverage areas upgrade to digital?
This means that VHF over the air brodcast will likely go on well past
1996.

Question #12 Do you know that RC aircraft use spectrum in the 70 MHz
range for control?

Question #13 Did you know that there are literally millions of RC
flyers out ther and some of these aircraft tip the scales at over 30
pounds, are powered by actual tubojet engines and can approach 300 MPH?

Question #14 Do you really believe that the cutoff frequency will be
sharp enough to stop interference to at least the upper part of AM
broadcast and the lower part of FM broadcast?

73
George
K3UD

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,

(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

Of course, you were probably just being "imaginative."

YOU do that all the time...

Ahh, Ahh, Len! Please remember that you enjoy hanging out here with the
hams, fantasizing that you are somehow a part of amateur radio.

I've NEVER been a "part" of ham radio according to YOUR OWN
DEFINITION.

YOUR fantasy seems to be stuck in the rut that whatever YOU like
"defines" what ALL other radio amateurs do, think, and must act
like in some rigid set of rules of YOUR imagination.

YOU are NOT an authority or an official anything in US ham radio.
YOU are NOT an official in the FCC, federal government, or even
that pseudo-governmental organization called ARRL.

YOU have NO authority to call anyone anything, demean them,
make fun of them, or anything else...yet YOU continue to do so.
That indicates the perversity of your control-freak psychosis.

I've been a professional in radio-electronics since 1952...51 years.
I've also been a radio-electronics HOBBYIST since 1947. Hobby
activities not for pecuniary interest are AMATEUR activites. If they
involved making money at it they would be professional activities.

YOU keep insisting one MUST be "licensed" to be an AMATEUR.

YOU keep holding up having a license grant is somehow making
YOU "better" than anyone not having an amateur license. YOU
seem to think that amateur radio is some event of epiphany, of glory
and greatness in radio, some kind of nebulous "service" to the
nation, transcending anything done in any other radio service.

Feel free to indulge in your fantasy. Just remember that your output
of constant personal attack of others not accepting your views makes
YOU the perverse individual here.

I'm just arguing against a morse code test for any US radio license
but there is this constant barrage of Personal Attack filth from the
fantasyland control freaks diverting everyone from the subjects to
the usual flame fest flings that must make your warped mind happy.

So far, you haven't "won" anything. Why do you keep on with the
same old flame trash?

LHA

In article , Floyd Davidson
writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote:
In article ,

(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

Of course, you were probably just being "imaginative."

YOU do that all the time...

That's some of his *real experience*, not none of that empirical
theory stuff!

Larrah the Lip should have gotten a job with a fertilizer company,
advertising over the Internet...instead of becoming a bus driver
with a "Summa Cum Laude BA degree in 'Human Resources'"
who had any number of terrific job opportunities waiting for him
in personnel departments!

THEN I would believe him. :-)

LHA

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,

(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

Of course, you were probably just being "imaginative."

YOU do that all the time...

Ahh, Ahh, Len! Please remember that you enjoy hanging out here with the
hams, fantasizing that you are somehow a part of amateur radio.

I've NEVER been a "part" of ham radio according to YOUR OWN
DEFINITION.

That's RIGHT. You've NEVER been a part of ham radio. But you can
dream.

YOUR fantasy seems to be stuck in the rut that whatever YOU like
"defines" what ALL other radio amateurs do, think, and must act
like in some rigid set of rules of YOUR imagination.

Not all all, Len old boy. I realize that others have different fields
of interest within amateur radio and they might have different levels of
interest in the game. You however, aren't a part of amateur radio.

YOU are NOT an authority or an official anything in US ham radio.

No I'm not. I'm a participant, a license radio amateur. I have been
for decades.

YOU are NOT an official in the FCC, federal government, or even
that pseudo-governmental organization called ARRL.

No, and I don't need to be employed by the FCC. The ARRL is not a
pseudo-governmental organization. I am a life member of the ARRL and
have been for over 25 years. With small lapses prior to my life
membership, I've been a League member for nearly four decades.

YOU have NO authority to call anyone anything, demean them,
make fun of them, or anything else...yet YOU continue to do so.
That indicates the perversity of your control-freak psychosis.

It is clear that I have as much "authority" to do those things as you.
You do them frequently. Are you a control freak?

I've been a professional in radio-electronics since 1952...51 years.

Bully for you. This group doesn't have anything to do with being a
professional in radio or electronics.

I've also been a radio-electronics HOBBYIST since 1947. Hobby
activities not for pecuniary interest are AMATEUR activites.

Part of your radio amateur fantasy? You can claim all the hobbyist
time-in-grade you like. Those might be AMATEUR but that doesn't make
you a radio amateur.

If they
involved making money at it they would be professional activities.

Maybe you'd like to tell us about your Citizens Band activities having
to do with the fact that you are a citizen and that you once played in a
band.

YOU keep insisting one MUST be "licensed" to be an AMATEUR.

YOU keep getting it wrong. For you to be a radio amateur, you must pass
a license exam. You haven't.

YOU keep holding up having a license grant is somehow making
YOU "better" than anyone not having an amateur license.

No, YOU keep interpreting my words in that manner. Passing a license
exam makes you a radio amateur, a part of ham radio. You haven't passed
such an exam and are not a part of amateur radio.

YOU seem to think that amateur radio is some event of epiphany, of glory
and greatness in radio, some kind of nebulous "service" to the
nation, transcending anything done in any other radio service.

That is incorrect. It doesn't matter what you've done in any other
radio service. If you want to participate in amateur radio, you'll pass
a license exam. You haven't done so.

Feel free to indulge in your fantasy. Just remember that your output
of constant personal attack of others not accepting your views makes
YOU the perverse individual here.

You're a million laughs, Leonard old chap (or chapped). You're the king
of personal attacks and the grand poobah of rejected views. To top it
all off, you aren't involved in amateur radio whatsoever.

I'm just arguing against a morse code test for any US radio license
but there is this constant barrage of Personal Attack filth from the
fantasyland control freaks diverting everyone from the subjects to
the usual flame fest flings that must make your warped mind happy.

Filth? You must have come across some of Roger Wiseman's material.
You've never "just argued" nor have you limited your agenda to removal
of the morse test.

So far, you haven't "won" anything. Why do you keep on with the
same old flame trash?

I thought you were supposed to be eating me for breakfast. Aren't you a
little touchy for one who uses those who disagree with him as
playthings? Floyd must have gotten it wrong.

Dave K8MN

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Floyd Davidson
writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote:
In article ,

(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

Of course, you were probably just being "imaginative."

YOU do that all the time...

That's some of his *real experience*, not none of that empirical
theory stuff!

Larrah the Lip should have gotten a job with a fertilizer company,
advertising over the Internet...instead of becoming a bus driver
with a "Summa Cum Laude BA degree in 'Human Resources'"
who had any number of terrific job opportunities waiting for him
in personnel departments!

THEN I would believe him. :-)

Did you check to see whether you have authority for name-calling,
insulting and demeaning those who disagree with you?

Dave K8MN