|
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote: My job is like that. The building is really well shielded and I wanted to run an inconspicuous 30/40m SW+ QRP rig from my desk. We took this apartment (paid for by the VA) to allow my wife to easily attend school just down the street. Sadly, there is enough metal in this building to build a few dozen Army tanks. Even worse, the apartment is directly above the owner's apartment and he likes to spend a great amount of time outdoors on the patios out back (the front is directly above the office entrance). I've tried several homebrew internal antennas, but none of them would allow me to consistently hit a repeater just a few miles away. We're hoping that, once the owner gets used to us, he'll eventually allow a small antenna. But, as it is now, the only way to talk on the radio at home is to walk out onto the balcony (and the metal in the building even effects that). Well, from the information you've provided, I can safely assume that your apartment is at least on the second floor. (Unless your landlord lives in the basement.) You can probably get away with operating at night with a wire hung from the balcony with a tuner. 40m is hoppin' at night and you certainly don't need much power to work distant stations reliably. I fired up my 40m Small Wonders SW+ QRP rig for the first time yesterday and promptly worked a chap in Rochester, NY. I received a RST report of 459 with only 2.5 Watts, simply amazing! Of course, these are just helpful suggestions...YMMV. -- 73 de Bert WA2SI |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message hlink.net...
We took this apartment (paid for by the VA) to allow my wife to easily attend school just down the street. Sadly, there is enough metal in this building to build a few dozen Army tanks. Even worse, the apartment is directly above the owner's apartment and he likes to spend a great amount of time outdoors on the patios out back (the front is directly above the office entrance). I've tried several homebrew internal antennas, but none of them would allow me to consistently hit a repeater just a few miles away. We're hoping that, once the owner gets used to us, he'll eventually allow a small antenna. But, as it is now, the only way to talk on the radio at home is to walk out onto the balcony (and the metal in the building even effects that). Here ya go, Dwight. Came across this and thought about your situation. This one's already built and for the Novice portion of 40. (Add Element 1 to your Tech ticket and viola.) Good luck in any case. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ategory=46 74 -- 73 de Bert WA2SI |
"Bert Craig" wrote: Well, from the information you've provided, I can safely assume that your apartment is at least on the second floor. (Unless your landlord lives in the basement.) You can probably get away with operating at night with a wire hung from the balcony with a tuner. (snip) I've given up on this place. There is simply no hope of getting a decent signal out of here. My wife finishes school next year. Until then, I'm prety much stuck with mobile operation. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote: Well, from the information you've provided, I can safely assume that your apartment is at least on the second floor. (Unless your landlord lives in the basement.) You can probably get away with operating at night with a wire hung from the balcony with a tuner. (snip) I've given up on this place. There is simply no hope of getting a decent signal out of here. My wife finishes school next year. Until then, I'm pretty much stuck with mobile operation. No way! Don't give up and lose a whole year of desktop operating. Check this out: This: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ategory=46 74 ....plus this: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ategory=46 72 ....& maybe this: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tegory=48 711 Equals worldwide DX. Approx. 2 bills all said and done. 73 de Bert WA2SI |
In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: Incorrect. The Technician class license infers that knowledge of Morse code isn't required to be an *entry-level* amateur radio operator. There are two higher classes which require a code test. Are those "*entry-level* amateur radio operators" something other than Amateur Radio Operators, Larry? If not, my statement is correct - Morse code is not required to be an Amateur Radio Operator. Dwight: I didn't deny that they were "amateur radio operators," I just clarified the fact that they are *entry-level* amateur radio operators. If and when the Element 1(a) code test is abolished, that will simply prove that the FCC has a low opinion of the ARS as a whole, and that it responds to political pressure -- i.e. petitions to remove code testing, and the comments which support them. No, it simply means the FCC is responding properly to the realities of the world around us. Larry. "We are persuaded that because the amateur service is fundamentally a technical service, the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service. We note, moreover, that the design of modern communications systems, including personal communication services, satellite, fiber optic, and high definition television systems, are based on digital communication technologies. We also note that no communication system has been designed in many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to receive messages in Morse code by ear. In contrast, modern communication systems are designed to be automated systems. Given the changes that have occurred in communications in the last fifty years, we believe that reducing the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement will allow the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise." - FCC WT Docket No. 98-143 RM-9148 RM-9150 RM-9196 I am quite familiar with the text of the Restructuring R&O, Dwight. The FCC's language seems to be geared mainly to pander to those commentors who favored the reduction/elimination of code testing, and for good reason. The FCC, if they can get the code testing requirement lifted, faces a smaller administrative burden in running the ARS licensing system, an important consideration since the ARS is an economically irrelevant communications service. For this reason, I fully expect code testing to be abolished. I am certain that it *will* happen. The exact same arguments could be made when talking about the elimination of the Element 1(a) code test. And undoubtedly will. Nothing less than I would expect from people who don't understand or appreciate the nature of the ARS, and view it as an administrative burden which deflects valuable resources away from much more economically pertinent issues. As I've said many times before, follow the money, and you learn the truth. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article .net, "Dwight Stewart" writes: Incorrect. The Technician class license infers that knowledge of Morse code isn't required to be an *entry-level* amateur radio operator. There are two higher classes which require a code test. Are those "*entry-level* amateur radio operators" something other than Amateur Radio Operators, Larry? If not, my statement is correct - Morse code is not required to be an Amateur Radio Operator. Dwight: I didn't deny that they were "amateur radio operators," I just clarified the fact that they are *entry-level* amateur radio operators. If and when the Element 1(a) code test is abolished, that will simply prove that the FCC has a low opinion of the ARS as a whole, and that it responds to political pressure -- i.e. petitions to remove code testing, and the comments which support them. No, it simply means the FCC is responding properly to the realities of the world around us. Larry. "We are persuaded that because the amateur service is fundamentally a technical service, the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service. We note, moreover, that the design of modern communications systems, including personal communication services, satellite, fiber optic, and high definition television systems, are based on digital communication technologies. We also note that no communication system has been designed in many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to receive messages in Morse code by ear. In contrast, modern communication systems are designed to be automated systems. Given the changes that have occurred in communications in the last fifty years, we believe that reducing the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement will allow the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise." - FCC WT Docket No. 98-143 RM-9148 RM-9150 RM-9196 I am quite familiar with the text of the Restructuring R&O, Dwight. The FCC's language seems to be geared mainly to pander to those commentors who favored the reduction/elimination of code testing, and for good reason. Translation: "Because Larry doesn't agree with the FCC's determinations, it's "pandering" ..." And undoubtedly will. Nothing less than I would expect from people who don't understand or appreciate the nature of the ARS, and view it as an administrative burden which deflects valuable resources away from much more economically pertinent issues. As I've said many times before, follow the money, and you learn the truth. What money Larry? The ARS is non-commercial. NCI doesn't even have mandatory dues and has lived on voluntary donations its whole life. What money are you talking about? (If you say "the manufacturers" that's baloney. I haven't seen a SINGLE comment filed on the current round of petitions by any manufacturer ...) Carl - wk3c |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... (If you say "the manufacturers" that's baloney. I haven't seen a SINGLE comment filed on the current round of petitions by any manufacturer ...) Carl - wk3c Whether or not they're being honest or just spiteful, there's a lot of hams that accuse the largest ham radio equipment producers of financing the "beat the morse code" campaign (as they see it)... the implied reasoning is that the producers & manufacturers stand to gain more profit if the code testing is dropped and more hams flood the market and buy thier products. A little too conspiratorial for me but there's many who buy it. Clint |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: And undoubtedly will. Nothing less than I would expect from people who don't understand or appreciate the nature of the ARS, and view it as an administrative burden which deflects valuable resources away from much more economically pertinent issues. As I've said many times before, follow the money, and you learn the truth. What money Larry? The ARS is non-commercial. Carl: Yup. That's correct. The ARS is non-commercial, and therefore is an unproductive drain on the FCC's administrative resources. NCI doesn't even have mandatory dues and has lived on voluntary donations its whole life. That's just swell, Carl, but I don't recall this being about NCI and it's funding sources. What money are you talking about? (If you say "the manufacturers" that's baloney. I haven't seen a SINGLE comment filed on the current round of petitions by any manufacturer ...) Carl - wk3c The "money" I'm talking about is that represented by all the OTHER commercial radio services administered by the FCC. This is where the FCC's true mission exists, and to a far greater extent than in what is now primarily a hobbyist service (amateur radio). Even the "money" you allude to, represented in the business done between radio amateurs and the manufacturers of our radio equipment and accessories, is a spit in the ocean compared to that represented by the commercial broadcasting and communications services. So little, in fact, that the FCC obviously needs to direct it's administrative resources away from amateur radio and toward the commercial services to the greatest extent possible. The best way for them to achieve this is to reduce licensing standards to the greatest extent possible, in order to keep from repeatedly dealing with the same issues. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: And undoubtedly will. Nothing less than I would expect from people who don't understand or appreciate the nature of the ARS, and view it as an administrative burden which deflects valuable resources away from much more economically pertinent issues. As I've said many times before, follow the money, and you learn the truth. What money Larry? The ARS is non-commercial. Carl: Yup. That's correct. The ARS is non-commercial, and therefore is an unproductive drain on the FCC's administrative resources. The FCC and Congress see the ARS as a valuable national resource. NCI doesn't even have mandatory dues and has lived on voluntary donations its whole life. That's just swell, Carl, but I don't recall this being about NCI and it's funding sources. I was just trying to address what appeared to be a "someone's going to make money off of this" scenario ... your text came across that way. What money are you talking about? (If you say "the manufacturers" that's baloney. I haven't seen a SINGLE comment filed on the current round of petitions by any manufacturer ...) Carl - wk3c The "money" I'm talking about is that represented by all the OTHER commercial radio services administered by the FCC. Oh ... why didn't you say that? This is where the FCC's true mission exists, The FCC has a Congressional mandate to regulate all of the radio spectrum "in the public interest, convenience, and necessity" - that includes the ARS. and to a far greater extent than in what is now primarily a hobbyist service (amateur radio). YOU view it as primarily a hobby ... and it is a hobby, but the FCC and Congress look at it as a public service *provided for free to society* by folks who do it as a hobby. They also value the educational opportunities it presents in a society that increasingly requires people who are trained in radio/electronics. Even the "money" you allude to, represented in the business done between radio amateurs and the manufacturers of our radio equipment and accessories, is a spit in the ocean compared to that represented by the commercial broadcasting and communications services. So little, in fact, that the FCC obviously needs to direct it's administrative resources away from amateur radio and toward the commercial services to the greatest extent possible. Sure, services that affect/are used by 10's of millions of people will get more attention ... that's logical. The best way for them to achieve this is to reduce licensing standards to the greatest extent possible, in order to keep from repeatedly dealing with the same issues. That's nonsense ... all they have to do is set reasonable, logical, and justifiable licensing standards and then stick to their guns. Just because some yahoo asks them to do something stupid (like the Petitions for Reconsideration that came out immediately after restucturing, asking the FCC to re-institute 13 and 20 wpm code tests) doesn't mean they have to honor them ... such nonsense should be summarily dismissed with virtually no consumption of FCC resources. Carl - wk3c |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: What money are you talking about? (If you say "the manufacturers" that's baloney. I haven't seen a SINGLE comment filed on the current round of petitions by any manufacturer ...) All that's really happened so far in the "current round" is a flurry of petitions. There are more in process that don't have RM numbers yet. Back during the restructuring NPRM, there were comments from manufacturers. In fact, the most-often-quoted-by-FCC commenter in the R&O to 98-143 wasn't ARRL or NCI or NCVEC or some individual radio amateur. It was Kenwood. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: What money are you talking about? (If you say "the manufacturers" that's baloney. I haven't seen a SINGLE comment filed on the current round of petitions by any manufacturer ...) All that's really happened so far in the "current round" is a flurry of petitions. There are more in process that don't have RM numbers yet. Back during the restructuring NPRM, there were comments from manufacturers. In fact, the most-often-quoted-by-FCC commenter in the R&O to 98-143 wasn't ARRL or NCI or NCVEC or some individual radio amateur. It was Kenwood. I wonder if any folks let them know that they would NOT be purchasing Kenwood products because of this? I've always been a big proponent of leveraging one's monetary muscle. BTW, has anybody sent their respective ARRL candidates an e-mail re. their stance on the code? I'm getting campaign flyers in the mail, seems like the right opportunity. Same with our regular elected representatives. Drop 'em a note and make 'em, at least, question the FCC. Remember how the vanity call system came about. -- 73 de Bert WA2SI |
They also
value the educational opportunities it presents in a society that increasingly requires people who are trained in radio/electronics. The present written test, and the complete lack of knowledge by most No-Coders proves that stament WRONG. |
all they have to do is set reasonable, logical,
and justifiable licensing standards and then stick to their guns. Which they havent done. |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
The FCC's language seems to be geared mainly to pander to those commentors who favored the reduction/elimination of code testing, and for good reason. (snip) The only pandering I see in the quoted paragraph is that to the future needed expertise of this country. The FCC, if they can get the code testing requirement lifted, faces a smaller administrative burden in running the ARS licensing system, an important consideration since the ARS is an economically irrelevant communications service. (snip) Where exactly is this "smaller administrative burden" supposed to occur? Since the cost of entering code-related data while processing an overall license is almost infinitesimal, I just don't see a significant financial windfall for the FCC here. But what I do see here (in your overall mesage) is an effort to undermine the real reasons for the elimination of the code test requirement by suggesting the FCC is only doing it for financial gain instead. Of course, there is not a shred of evidence to support your claim, but the exact same thing could be said for all popular conspiracy claims. (snip) Nothing less than I would expect from people who don't understand or appreciate the nature of the ARS, and view it as an administrative burden which deflects valuable resources away from much more economically pertinent issues. As I've said many times before, follow the money, and you learn the truth. I think the FCC understands and appreciates the nature of the ARS just fine. If you honestly can't see that, then perhaps you don't understand or appreciate the nature of the FCC when it comes to its regulation of the ARS. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote:
Whether or not they're being honest or just spiteful, there's a lot of hams that accuse the largest ham radio equipment producers of financing the "beat the morse code" campaign (as they see it)... (snip) A little too conspiratorial for me but there's many who buy it. I agree. Only a handful of companies have ever said anything publicly about code testing and even less have stated a position on the matter. For many of the larger companies, Amateur Radio is a tiny market. Even if this market doubled in size, the profits would still be small compared to other markets (military and so on). In other words, there's just not much incentive for these companies to go out of their way to push towards the elimination of code testing in an effort to manipulate this market. There is even less incentive to finance an effort to do so. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: The FCC and Congress see the ARS as a valuable national resource. I hope they remember that BPL. FCC seems to require a reminder now and again... The "money" I'm talking about is that represented by all the OTHER commercial radio services administered by the FCC. Oh ... why didn't you say that? This is where the FCC's true mission exists, The FCC has a Congressional mandate to regulate all of the radio spectrum "in the public interest, convenience, and necessity" - that includes the ARS. Included in that "public interest, convenience and necessity" are economic concerns. Some perceive that broadband access to the 'net is somehow a big part of economic recovery, regardless of what other services get trashed. See Comm. Abernathy's remarks on the "Road To Enlightenment" and "Wideband Nirvana" being BPL. As if! and to a far greater extent than in what is now primarily a hobbyist service (amateur radio). YOU view it as primarily a hobby ... and it is a hobby, but the FCC and Congress look at it as a public service *provided for free to society* by folks who do it as a hobby. They also value the educational opportunities it presents in a society that increasingly requires people who are trained in radio/electronics. Exactly. And it goes in all sorts of directions. Maybe every ham doesn't become an EE like I did, but many have gone in related engineering and science directions because of exposure to technology via amateur radio. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: The FCC and Congress see the ARS as a valuable national resource. I hope they remember that BPL. FCC seems to require a reminder now and again... And they are being reminded vis a vis BPL. The "money" I'm talking about is that represented by all the OTHER commercial radio services administered by the FCC. Oh ... why didn't you say that? This is where the FCC's true mission exists, The FCC has a Congressional mandate to regulate all of the radio spectrum "in the public interest, convenience, and necessity" - that includes the ARS. Included in that "public interest, convenience and necessity" are economic concerns. Some perceive that broadband access to the 'net is somehow a big part of economic recovery, regardless of what other services get trashed. See Comm. Abernathy's remarks on the "Road To Enlightenment" and "Wideband Nirvana" being BPL. As if! The problem is the the BPL vendors/organizations apparently "pitched" BPL to the Commissioners as "the greatest thing since sliced bread, "the infrastructure already exists" (the wires are there, but they'll have to spend many millions of ratepayers' money to add all of the couplers, modems, etc.), and that it would provide a quality, economical competitor to xDSL and cable modems, all with 'no problems'." It's understandable that the Commissioners would get rather excited at the prospect, BUT they haven't had all of the facts, just hype from the BPL industry and utilities that are seeing $signs ... despite the fact that it's a demonstrably crappy business model. The other reason the Commissioners would get excited is that they simply don't have the technical background to see the problems without significant education on the matter ... and, sadly, NONE of the Commissioners has a technical advisor on their staff ... several legal advisors each, but not a technical advisor amongst them. NOTE: I am NOT trying to "defend" the FCC's enamourment with BPL, just explaining how it came to be and what's required to turn it around. 73, Carl - wk3c |
NOTE: I am NOT trying to "defend" the FCC's enamourment with BPL,
just explaining how it came to be and what's required to turn it around. 73, Carl - wk3c Yep, and thats how the No-Coders got there way. |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: The FCC and Congress see the ARS as a valuable national resource. I hope they remember that BPL. FCC seems to require a reminder now and again... And they are being reminded vis a vis BPL. The "money" I'm talking about is that represented by all the OTHER commercial radio services administered by the FCC. Oh ... why didn't you say that? This is where the FCC's true mission exists, The FCC has a Congressional mandate to regulate all of the radio spectrum "in the public interest, convenience, and necessity" - that includes the ARS. Included in that "public interest, convenience and necessity" are economic concerns. Some perceive that broadband access to the 'net is somehow a big part of economic recovery, regardless of what other services get trashed. See Comm. Abernathy's remarks on the "Road To Enlightenment" and "Wideband Nirvana" being BPL. As if! The problem is the the BPL vendors/organizations apparently "pitched" BPL to the Commissioners as "the greatest thing since sliced bread, "the infrastructure already exists" (the wires are there, but they'll have to spend many millions of ratepayers' money to add all of the couplers, modems, etc.), and that it would provide a quality, economical competitor to xDSL and cable modems, all with 'no problems'." It's understandable that the Commissioners would get rather excited at the prospect, BUT they haven't had all of the facts, just hype from the BPL industry and utilities that are seeing $signs ... despite the fact that it's a demonstrably crappy business model. The other reason the Commissioners would get excited is that they simply don't have the technical background to see the problems without significant education on the matter ... and, sadly, NONE of the Commissioners has a technical advisor on their staff ... several legal advisors each, but not a technical advisor amongst them. NOTE: I am NOT trying to "defend" the FCC's enamourment with BPL, just explaining how it came to be and what's required to turn it around. One of the odd things about the commissioners however. They must be able to suspend disbelief pretty easily. Household and electrical wiring has been around for a long time. And there's no rocket science to the technology of riding a signal on a line voltage circuit. Control signals are sent along these wires regularly and have been for many years. So if this was (is) such a good way to send signals, why wasn't the internet developed this way in the first place? I believe that I am skeptical enough that even if I didn't have a technical background, that question would pop up pretty quickly when considering BPL. Carl, is there any other way that we can aid this fight? - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: So if this was (is) such a good way to send signals, why wasn't the internet developed this way in the first place? Mike: Or cable TV, for that matter. Why spend all the bucks to wire the world with coax when power lines are everywhere? I believe that I am skeptical enough that even if I didn't have a technical background, that question would pop up pretty quickly when considering BPL. Carl, is there any other way that we can aid this fight? For one thing, if and when BPL comes to your area, don't subscribe to it! 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: What money Larry? The ARS is non-commercial. Carl: Yup. That's correct. The ARS is non-commercial, and therefore is an unproductive drain on the FCC's administrative resources. The FCC and Congress see the ARS as a valuable national resource. Carl: That doesn't mean that they don't see the advantage to them in reducing ARS licensing standards, as has already been proven. NCI doesn't even have mandatory dues and has lived on voluntary donations its whole life. That's just swell, Carl, but I don't recall this being about NCI and it's funding sources. I was just trying to address what appeared to be a "someone's going to make money off of this" scenario ... your text came across that way. Change the word "make" to "save," and you've finally got it right. What money are you talking about? (If you say "the manufacturers" that's baloney. I haven't seen a SINGLE comment filed on the current round of petitions by any manufacturer ...) Carl - wk3c The "money" I'm talking about is that represented by all the OTHER commercial radio services administered by the FCC. Oh ... why didn't you say that? Didn't have to. The ARS doesn't "make" money, Carl -- except for the equipment manufacturers, but as you said, they aren't fighting any of the petitions to eliminate code testing, since they figure it's going to result in increased future sales. In any event, they're just pocket change compared to the commercial broadcasting and communications services. This is where the FCC's true mission exists, The FCC has a Congressional mandate to regulate all of the radio spectrum "in the public interest, convenience, and necessity" - that includes the ARS. Which doesn't say anything about how far they can reduce licensing standards. and to a far greater extent than in what is now primarily a hobbyist service (amateur radio). YOU view it as primarily a hobby ... and it is a hobby, but the FCC and Congress look at it as a public service *provided for free to society* by folks who do it as a hobby. They also value the educational opportunities it presents in a society that increasingly requires people who are trained in radio/electronics. Well, considering the fact that licensing requirements are already just short of meaningless, and that most hams these days haven't a clue about what's going on inside their off-the-shelf gear, it's kinda hard to view the ARS as a particularly rigorous training experience for future electronics technicians. Even the "money" you allude to, represented in the business done between radio amateurs and the manufacturers of our radio equipment and accessories, is a spit in the ocean compared to that represented by the commercial broadcasting and communications services. So little, in fact, that the FCC obviously needs to direct it's administrative resources away from amateur radio and toward the commercial services to the greatest extent possible. Sure, services that affect/are used by 10's of millions of people will get more attention ... that's logical. The best way for them to achieve this is to reduce licensing standards to the greatest extent possible, in order to keep from repeatedly dealing with the same issues. That's nonsense ... all they have to do is set reasonable, logical, and justifiable licensing standards and then stick to their guns. I see. Well, on April 14, 2000 we *had* reasonable, logical, and justifiable licensing standards. Someone musta cleaned the glue off of their M-16's that evening, because on April 15, 2000 we suddenly had licensing standards which were dumbed down to a level which can only be viewed as downright silly. Just because some yahoo asks them to do something stupid (like the Petitions for Reconsideration that came out immediately after restucturing, asking the FCC to re-institute 13 and 20 wpm code tests) doesn't mean they have to honor them ... such nonsense should be summarily dismissed with virtually no consumption of FCC resources. Yeah, they'd rather listen to the yahoos that wanted them to reduce licensing standards down to a meaningless level. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote: The FCC's language seems to be geared mainly to pander to those commentors who favored the reduction/elimination of code testing, and for good reason. (snip) The only pandering I see in the quoted paragraph is that to the future needed expertise of this country. Dwight: Unfortunately, neither you nor the rest of the NCTA has been able to show just exactly what the connection is between technical expertise and the requirement for learning and being tested in a practical and useful communications skill such as Morse/CW in the AMATEUR Radio Service. The FCC, if they can get the code testing requirement lifted, faces a smaller administrative burden in running the ARS licensing system, an important consideration since the ARS is an economically irrelevant communications service. (snip) Where exactly is this "smaller administrative burden" supposed to occur? Since the cost of entering code-related data while processing an overall license is almost infinitesimal, I just don't see a significant financial windfall for the FCC here. But what I do see here (in your overall mesage) is an effort to undermine the real reasons for the elimination of the code test requirement by suggesting the FCC is only doing it for financial gain instead. Of course, there is not a shred of evidence to support your claim, but the exact same thing could be said for all popular conspiracy claims. Sooo, you're saying that eliminating the code testing requirement, and the associated licensing data, would not lead to a quantifiable reduction in the administrative workload related to licensing in the ARS? Sorry, Dwight, but you're just plain wrong about that. (snip) Nothing less than I would expect from people who don't understand or appreciate the nature of the ARS, and view it as an administrative burden which deflects valuable resources away from much more economically pertinent issues. As I've said many times before, follow the money, and you learn the truth. I think the FCC understands and appreciates the nature of the ARS just fine. If you honestly can't see that, then perhaps you don't understand or appreciate the nature of the FCC when it comes to its regulation of the ARS. I think that the FCC responds to political pressure. This is what brought about Restructuring and the elimination of code testing, save for the 5 WPM requirement which was tied to the ITU Treaty. I believe that if they (the FCC) truly understood the nature of the ARS, and the value of the Morse/CW mode within the ARS, that wouldn't have happened. However, the Bush Sr. Administration allowed JY1 to meddle with the U.S. amateur radio licensing requirements as the result of a plea by a "handicapped" ham in PA, and you know the rest. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
The biggest thing that I fear is the ham community going
ballistic prematurely and flaming the FCC, e-mail bombing them, etc. That would only hurt our cause. 73, Carl - wk3c I hope they do, and thanks for the Idea, let me see if I can get it started on some othergroups and let it snow Ball. Its only fitting you NO-Codes end up with nothing for your trouble. |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
et... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: The problem is the the BPL vendors/organizations apparently "pitched" BPL to the Commissioners as "the greatest thing since sliced bread, "the infrastructure already exists" (the wires are there, but they'll have to spend many millions of ratepayers' money to add all of the couplers, modems, etc.), and that it would provide a quality, economical competitor to xDSL and cable modems, all with 'no problems'." It's understandable that the Commissioners would get rather excited at the prospect, BUT they haven't had all of the facts, just hype from the BPL industry and utilities that are seeing $signs ... despite the fact that it's a demonstrably crappy business model. The other reason the Commissioners would get excited is that they simply don't have the technical background to see the problems without significant education on the matter ... and, sadly, NONE of the Commissioners has a technical advisor on their staff ... several legal advisors each, but not a technical advisor amongst them. NOTE: I am NOT trying to "defend" the FCC's enamourment with BPL, just explaining how it came to be and what's required to turn it around. One of the odd things about the commissioners however. They must be able to suspend disbelief pretty easily. Household and electrical wiring has been around for a long time. And there's no rocket science to the technology of riding a signal on a line voltage circuit. Control signals are sent along these wires regularly and have been for many years. So if this was (is) such a good way to send signals, why wasn't the internet developed this way in the first place? I believe that I am skeptical enough that even if I didn't have a technical background, that question would pop up pretty quickly when considering BPL. Carl, is there any other way that we can aid this fight? - Mike KB3EIA - Mike, ARRL is working this hard. Ed Hare was down to Emmaus again Thu/Fri/Sat, spoke at a local club meeting, and we did some measurements/comparisons between his field observations and mine (they correlate perfectly, as I expected) I am going to do what I can in terms of lobbying folks I know at the FCC from my professional dealings with them. The comment and reply comment periods on the NOI are over, so there will be an apparent lull in activity. One thing we're eager to see is the reaction of NTIA (on behalf of their USG "clients") ... I can't believe that they will come up with any different take on the interference potential of BPL than ARRL and I have ... and they will make a powerful ally if I am right. For the moment, I think we're in a mode of waiting for NTIA's reaction, some lobbying by folks who know folks, and other "background" work. The biggest thing that I fear is the ham community going ballistic prematurely and flaming the FCC, e-mail bombing them, etc. That would only hurt our cause. 73, Carl - wk3c |
Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: So if this was (is) such a good way to send signals, why wasn't the internet developed this way in the first place? Mike: Or cable TV, for that matter. Why spend all the bucks to wire the world with coax when power lines are everywhere? I believe that I am skeptical enough that even if I didn't have a technical background, that question would pop up pretty quickly when considering BPL. Carl, is there any other way that we can aid this fight? For one thing, if and when BPL comes to your area, don't subscribe to it! I have to believe that it would be the biggest dog of a service ever invented! I suspect in the real world, it might work about as good as a 56K modem... maybe. - Mike KB3EIA - |
We do NOT want inaccurate claims of "BPL
interference" to be made because the BPL industy will say, "See, we told you those hams were exaggerating ... our systems don't cause interference." Carl - w3kc Another good Idea thanks Karl, I will see if I can help get the troops to start Bitching |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
... In article , Mike Coslo writes: So if this was (is) such a good way to send signals, why wasn't the internet developed this way in the first place? Mike: Or cable TV, for that matter. Why spend all the bucks to wire the world with coax when power lines are everywhere? I believe that I am skeptical enough that even if I didn't have a technical background, that question would pop up pretty quickly when considering BPL. Carl, is there any other way that we can aid this fight? For one thing, if and when BPL comes to your area, don't subscribe to it! 73 de Larry, K3LT And, if BPL comes to your area and you receive interference, let Ed Hare, W1RFI, at the ARRL know about it. One thing that's VERY important ... we CANNOT afford to have people mis-identifying other sources of interference as "BPL" and making inaccurate interference complaints to the FCC. It is OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE that BPL interference be properly ID'd. We do NOT want inaccurate claims of "BPL interference" to be made because the BPL industy will say, "See, we told you those hams were exaggerating ... our systems don't cause interference." Carl - w3kc |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: NONE of the Commissioners has a technical advisor on their staff ... several legal advisors each, but not a technical advisor amongst them. NOTE: I am NOT trying to "defend" the FCC's enamourment with BPL, just explaining how it came to be and what's required to turn it around. And *that* is probably the most unsettling part of the entire picture- the fact that the political appointees, assigned to decide the future of the most technical facet of our society, involving countless billions of dollars,indeed deciding the success or failure of our economy, would disdain technical advice in favor of ONLY the legal. Miracle of miracles ... Dick and I have FINALLY found one thing we can agree on without hesitation! Carl - wk3c |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: The FCC and Congress see the ARS as a valuable national resource. I hope they remember that BPL. FCC seems to require a reminder now and again... And they are being reminded vis a vis BPL. The "money" I'm talking about is that represented by all the OTHER commercial radio services administered by the FCC. Oh ... why didn't you say that? This is where the FCC's true mission exists, The FCC has a Congressional mandate to regulate all of the radio spectrum "in the public interest, convenience, and necessity" - that includes the ARS. Included in that "public interest, convenience and necessity" are economic concerns. Some perceive that broadband access to the 'net is somehow a big part of economic recovery, regardless of what other services get trashed. See Comm. Abernathy's remarks on the "Road To Enlightenment" and "Wideband Nirvana" being BPL. As if! The problem is the the BPL vendors/organizations apparently "pitched" BPL to the Commissioners as "the greatest thing since sliced bread, "the infrastructure already exists" (the wires are there, but they'll have to spend many millions of ratepayers' money to add all of the couplers, modems, etc.), and that it would provide a quality, economical competitor to xDSL and cable modems, all with 'no problems'." It's understandable that the Commissioners would get rather excited at the prospect, BUT they haven't had all of the facts, just hype from the BPL industry and utilities that are seeing $signs ... despite the fact that it's a demonstrably crappy business model. The other reason the Commissioners would get excited is that they simply don't have the technical background to see the problems without significant education on the matter ... and, sadly, NONE of the Commissioners has a technical advisor on their staff ... several legal advisors each, but not a technical advisor amongst them. NOTE: I am NOT trying to "defend" the FCC's enamourment with BPL, just explaining how it came to be and what's required to turn it around. One of the odd things about the commissioners however. They must be able to suspend disbelief pretty easily. Household and electrical wiring has been around for a long time. And there's no rocket science to the technology of riding a signal on a line voltage circuit. Control signals are sent along these wires regularly and have been for many years. Mike, the "X10" system works at only a few hundred Hz of spectrum. At no time was any part of the US electrical distribution system, home to generating plant, EVER CHARACTERIZED OR STANDARDIZED AS R.F. TRANSMISSION LINES OVER A 1 TO 80 MHz FREQUENCY RANGE! Apparently the Office of Engineering and Technology at the FCC doesn't understand that yet...? I can look out at my neighborhood's electrical distribution system and see "RF transmission lines" that must vary from several hundred Ohms to just a few Ohms within the metal conduit of my home. That is NOT any sort of "RF transmission medium" that anyone can expect to work at either smooth, easy, or trouble-free radio frequency transmission. There's discontinuities up the ying-yang there and wherever there are discontinuities, there is also the danger of even more radiation (in addition to introducing more attenuation). So if this was (is) such a good way to send signals, why wasn't the internet developed this way in the first place? For the simple reason that it does NOT work very well. :-) I've got a pair of Phonex through-the-line coupled "modems" that are supposed to work between two rooms here. It's the second pair over the counter, the first pair returned because they don't work well. Second pair is no better. One good reason why they don't work is that the AC wiring in one room is on one side of the "double-phase" split from the pole drop and the outliet in the other room is on the other side. Neither Phonex or any other of the Homeplug group explains that. I measured an attenuation from the AC outlets better than 30 db from 10 to 80 MHz, 36 db being lower limit of this setup. The attenuation is probably greater than that. No sense in improving the test setup with that much attenuation...it is already too great. I believe that I am skeptical enough that even if I didn't have a technical background, that question would pop up pretty quickly when considering BPL. Carl, is there any other way that we can aid this fight? One of the first things to try is to force an explanation of how all the vaporware BPL systems work. NONE of them explain it in enough detail to make any electronic sense right now. They haven't done so in any of the prominent electronic trade publications yet...other than more generalized, non-specific-detail claims. Vaporware. LHA |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
Unfortunately, neither you nor the rest of the NCTA has been able to show just exactly what the connection is between technical expertise and the requirement for learning and being tested in a practical and useful communications skill such as Morse/CW in the AMATEUR Radio Service. (snip) The FCC has already done so in the paragraph I quoted. Basically, they said to encourage technically inclined persons to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise, less emphasis should be placed on Morse code proficiency. The key to this is "where the United States needs expertise." Morse code just doesn't fit in that picture. They base this on the fact that "no communication system has been designed in many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to receive messages in Morse code by ear," while pointing to more modern technology instead. If you missed the paragraph quoted, I'll repeat it again... "We are persuaded that because the amateur service is fundamentally a technical service, the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service. We note, moreover, that the design of modern communications systems, including personal communication services, satellite, fiber optic, and high definition television systems, are based on digital communication technologies. We also note that no communication system has been designed in many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to receive messages in Morse code by ear. In contrast, modern communication systems are designed to be automated systems. Given the changes that have occurred in communications in the last fifty years, we believe that reducing the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement will allow the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise." - FCC WT Docket No. 98-143 RM-9148 RM-9150 RM-9196 (snip) I think that the FCC responds to political pressure. (snip) And I think they're instead responding to the realities of the modern world. (snip) I believe that if they (the FCC) truly understood the nature of the ARS, and the value of the Morse/CW mode within the ARS, that wouldn't have happened. (snip) The "value of the Morse/CW mode" remains even without a test requirement. With that intact, only the basis and purpose of the ARS remains to be considered. And the FCC addressed that in the quote above and in the remainder of the docket I took that quote from (emergency communicaitons and so on). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
|
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
It is OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE that BPL interference be properly ID'd. We do NOT want inaccurate claims of "BPL interference" to be made because the BPL industy will say, "See, we told you those hams were exaggerating ... our systems don't cause interference." Are there indentifying characteristics? One possible backlash of this is that there may be many hams running about looking for BPL interferece, and finding other Power line interference that the Power companies will have to clean up! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Len Over 21 wrote:
Mike, the "X10" system works at only a few hundred Hz of spectrum. I'm not familiar with the specific names. X10 is the one the power companies use? There was another system that was used to control clocks in schools and other places where the clocks need to show the same time over At no time was any part of the US electrical distribution system, home to generating plant, EVER CHARACTERIZED OR STANDARDIZED AS R.F. TRANSMISSION LINES OVER A 1 TO 80 MHz FREQUENCY RANGE! Apparently the Office of Engineering and Technology at the FCC doesn't understand that yet...? I can look out at my neighborhood's electrical distribution system and see "RF transmission lines" that must vary from several hundred Ohms to just a few Ohms within the metal conduit of my home. That is NOT any sort of "RF transmission medium" that anyone can expect to work at either smooth, easy, or trouble-free radio frequency transmission. There's discontinuities up the ying-yang there and wherever there are discontinuities, there is also the danger of even more radiation (in addition to introducing more attenuation). So if this was (is) such a good way to send signals, why wasn't the internet developed this way in the first place? For the simple reason that it does NOT work very well. :-) I guess I was kind of knowing the answer as I asked the question. 8^) It's intellectual dishonesty for those companies to try to sell it as something that will work. But even if it is a failure, some will be able to make money on it.. for while. I've got a pair of Phonex through-the-line coupled "modems" that are supposed to work between two rooms here. It's the second pair over the counter, the first pair returned because they don't work well. Second pair is no better. One good reason why they don't work is that the AC wiring in one room is on one side of the "double-phase" split from the pole drop and the outliet in the other room is on the other side. Neither Phonex or any other of the Homeplug group explains that. I can hear it now.........."We need to rewire your house to get your BPL modem to work!" 8^) I measured an attenuation from the AC outlets better than 30 db from 10 to 80 MHz, 36 db being lower limit of this setup. The attenuation is probably greater than that. No sense in improving the test setup with that much attenuation...it is already too great. Interesting. As a comparison to my cable modem hookup, There was a lot of adjusting of the line levels to get a good signal to my home office. If the installation included boosting the power enough to overcome that, there would be some serious RFI running around. I believe that I am skeptical enough that even if I didn't have a technical background, that question would pop up pretty quickly when considering BPL. Carl, is there any other way that we can aid this fight? One of the first things to try is to force an explanation of how all the vaporware BPL systems work. NONE of them explain it in enough detail to make any electronic sense right now. They haven't done so in any of the prominent electronic trade publications yet...other than more generalized, non-specific-detail claims. Vaporware. Agreed! - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Len Over 21 wrote: Mike, the "X10" system works at only a few hundred Hz of spectrum. I'm not familiar with the specific names. X10 is the one the power companies use? There was another system that was used to control clocks in schools and other places where the clocks need to show the same time over At no time was any part of the US electrical distribution system, home to generating plant, EVER CHARACTERIZED OR STANDARDIZED AS R.F. TRANSMISSION LINES OVER A 1 TO 80 MHz FREQUENCY RANGE! Apparently the Office of Engineering and Technology at the FCC doesn't understand that yet...? I can look out at my neighborhood's electrical distribution system and see "RF transmission lines" that must vary from several hundred Ohms to just a few Ohms within the metal conduit of my home. That is NOT any sort of "RF transmission medium" that anyone can expect to work at either smooth, easy, or trouble-free radio frequency transmission. There's discontinuities up the ying-yang there and wherever there are discontinuities, there is also the danger of even more radiation (in addition to introducing more attenuation). So if this was (is) such a good way to send signals, why wasn't the internet developed this way in the first place? For the simple reason that it does NOT work very well. :-) I guess I was kind of knowing the answer as I asked the question. 8^) It's intellectual dishonesty for those companies to try to sell it as something that will work. But even if it is a failure, some will be able to make money on it.. for while. I've got a pair of Phonex through-the-line coupled "modems" that are supposed to work between two rooms here. It's the second pair over the counter, the first pair returned because they don't work well. Second pair is no better. One good reason why they don't work is that the AC wiring in one room is on one side of the "double-phase" split from the pole drop and the outliet in the other room is on the other side. Neither Phonex or any other of the Homeplug group explains that. I can hear it now.........."We need to rewire your house to get your BPL modem to work!" 8^) I measured an attenuation from the AC outlets better than 30 db from 10 to 80 MHz, 36 db being lower limit of this setup. The attenuation is probably greater than that. No sense in improving the test setup with that much attenuation...it is already too great. Interesting. As a comparison to my cable modem hookup, There was a lot of adjusting of the line levels to get a good signal to my home office. If the installation included boosting the power enough to overcome that, there would be some serious RFI running around. I believe that I am skeptical enough that even if I didn't have a technical background, that question would pop up pretty quickly when considering BPL. Carl, is there any other way that we can aid this fight? One of the first things to try is to force an explanation of how all the vaporware BPL systems work. NONE of them explain it in enough detail to make any electronic sense right now. They haven't done so in any of the prominent electronic trade publications yet...other than more generalized, non-specific-detail claims. Vaporware. Agreed! |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: It is OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE that BPL interference be properly ID'd. We do NOT want inaccurate claims of "BPL interference" to be made because the BPL industy will say, "See, we told you those hams were exaggerating ... our systems don't cause interference." Are there indentifying characteristics? One possible backlash of this is that there may be many hams running about looking for BPL interferece, and finding other Power line interference that the Power companies will have to clean up! - Mike KB3EIA - Go download it from www.arrl.org . I played some of my CD of it on 14.275 so a friend could hear it. After I signed out I was deluged with people saying they couldn't believe how terrible it was. Dan/W4NTI |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Len Over 21 wrote: Mike, the "X10" system works at only a few hundred Hz of spectrum. I'm not familiar with the specific names. X10 is the one the power companies use? No, it's a long-on-the-market home appliance remote control and alarm system, available at places like Lowe's and Home Depot among many. Search for "X10" on the Internet and you can find their website and product explanation. There was another system that was used to control clocks in schools and other places where the clocks need to show the same time over Those were still very low-frequency. For clocks with synchronous motors, the separate clock AC line could be speeded-up or slowed- down by a separate AC source (synchronous clock motors don't take much AC power). For some systems, a separate control line was used to set the hands to a particular time all at once to make them read the same. WREX-TV in Winnebago, IL, had still another system combining a WWV receiver checking the time of a master pendulum clock through the background tone-on from WWV and then syncing all the clocks in the station running on their own AC circuits. In master control we used the master pendulum clock since every second counted (for cash flow) on taking network (CBS at the time, coming up precisely 1.0 second after the hour or every half hour). At no time was any part of the US electrical distribution system, home to generating plant, EVER CHARACTERIZED OR STANDARDIZED AS R.F. TRANSMISSION LINES OVER A 1 TO 80 MHz FREQUENCY RANGE! Apparently the Office of Engineering and Technology at the FCC doesn't understand that yet...? I can look out at my neighborhood's electrical distribution system and see "RF transmission lines" that must vary from several hundred Ohms to just a few Ohms within the metal conduit of my home. That is NOT any sort of "RF transmission medium" that anyone can expect to work at either smooth, easy, or trouble-free radio frequency transmission. There's discontinuities up the ying-yang there and wherever there are discontinuities, there is also the danger of even more radiation (in addition to introducing more attenuation). So if this was (is) such a good way to send signals, why wasn't the internet developed this way in the first place? For the simple reason that it does NOT work very well. :-) I guess I was kind of knowing the answer as I asked the question. 8^) It's intellectual dishonesty for those companies to try to sell it as something that will work. I'm sure it can work...the question really is "can it be used anywhere with the ease at which existing wired service does?" When each and every BPL proponent HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THEIR SYSTEM, they can't actually be charged directly with "intellectual dishonesty." At this point it is all the usual marketing-advertising snow job. But even if it is a failure, some will be able to make money on it.. for while. That's usually the case. See the fancy bar-code reader that Radio Shack was promoting as part of a "system" to speed up information exchange. IEEE Spectrum magazine and a couple of other trade publications have spotlighted that one. The point with BPL now is still vaporware. It WILL increase the noise environment from MF to bottom of VHF but it is impossible to get a quantitative handle on the spectral power. Getting technical details is like nailing jelly to a tree...it doesn't work and everyone gets sticky from all the sugar in the jelly. The ARRL Lab did the best they could with the BPL technical info available. They used the maximum RF radiation specs from Part 15 in modeling one transmission line (so-called "MV" distribution in a neighborhood). Their model was as "good" and "accurate" as the circumstances allowed...and doesn't actually model a BPL system because the exact nature of the BPL systems isn't explained! The problem with such modeling is that the actual MV distribution is HIGHLY variable depending on the city, district, neighborhood, etc. The spacing of the conductors (which determines equivalent RF characteristic impedance) is highly variable even if within the NEC and local codes. For SOME distribution systems BPL uses those MV lines (voltages from 4 to 12 KVAC). There's absolutely nothing in the National Electrical Code or even any local ordinances that mandates any characteristic impedance of those lines or standardization at RF! I've got a pair of Phonex through-the-line coupled "modems" that are supposed to work between two rooms here. It's the second pair over the counter, the first pair returned because they don't work well. Second pair is no better. One good reason why they don't work is that the AC wiring in one room is on one side of the "double-phase" split from the pole drop and the outliet in the other room is on the other side. Neither Phonex or any other of the Homeplug group explains that. I can hear it now.........."We need to rewire your house to get your BPL modem to work!" 8^) None of us have any idea of how those "BPL modems" work...the BPL folks won't explain it... :-( I measured an attenuation from the AC outlets better than 30 db from 10 to 80 MHz, 36 db being lower limit of this setup. The attenuation is probably greater than that. No sense in improving the test setup with that much attenuation...it is already too great. Interesting. As a comparison to my cable modem hookup, There was a lot of adjusting of the line levels to get a good signal to my home office. If the installation included boosting the power enough to overcome that, there would be some serious RFI running around. You have higher speed than 56K? I believe that I am skeptical enough that even if I didn't have a technical background, that question would pop up pretty quickly when considering BPL. Carl, is there any other way that we can aid this fight? One of the first things to try is to force an explanation of how all the vaporware BPL systems work. NONE of them explain it in enough detail to make any electronic sense right now. They haven't done so in any of the prominent electronic trade publications yet...other than more generalized, non-specific-detail claims. Vaporware. Agreed! Initially, there was an UNWARRANTED Hue and Cry by the "radio community" (two BPL proponents' name for ham radio) in that "RF interference would be too high!" Since NO ONE had any specific RF line level information on BPL systems, it was really impossible to determine whether those levels were "too high," "just right" or "too low." The ARRL model was done solely on RF levels being at a certain maximum level that was not determined from any specific BPL data. Instead of acting in group hysteria, the "radio community" should have gone into basics and demanded more details of the BPL systems both in hardware and expected technical performance. For a bunch of supposed RF-savvy radio activists, damn few ever considered the AC power lines as RF transmission lines or the VARIATION of lines' characteristics at RF. Picture an RF transmission line spaced for about 1000 to 3000 Ohms connected (somehow, unknown) to 75 Ohm coax as a basic model. Then consider that the RF xmssn line is really a triplet with a common in the center and the "coax" is really Twinax (a shielded twisted-pair, sort-of). Intuitively, it's going to be one bitch of a task to get a 7 to 8 octave frequency match of one line to the other. If the match isn't good, then the reflected RF is going to go someplace and that is back out the MV line and probably radiated instead of being absorbed (by unknown "terminations"). The BPL types would have been better off to just consider a fiber- optic cable carrying high-speed data both directions...and that mounted in the pole space of the MV lines. No conductors and the fiber-optic cable couldn't short out the MV lines and the MV lines wouldn't interfere with data on the fiber. Sharing "pole space" could have been their schtick instead of thinking that RF can flow easily on an AC power system never designed for RF. LHA |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: It is OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE that BPL interference be properly ID'd. We do NOT want inaccurate claims of "BPL interference" to be made because the BPL industy will say, "See, we told you those hams were exaggerating ... our systems don't cause interference." Are there indentifying characteristics? Listen to the ARRL video is the best I can offer over the net. If you were here, I'd be happy to take you down to the BPL area in Emmaus and show you ... to someone who's listened to a lot of data transmissions it has a certain characteristic (which varies from the SS system of main.net and the OFDM system of Amperion ...) but it's nearly impossible to explain in text. One possible backlash of this is that there may be many hams running about looking for BPL interferece, and finding other Power line interference that the Power companies will have to clean up! Most have been dismally poor at doing that - ARRL has over 300 unresolved power line noise complaints on the books, according to Ed Hare, including 50 or so where the FCC has sent a letter to the utility telling them to find it and fix it. 73, Carl - wk3c |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Len Over 21 wrote: Mike, the "X10" system works at only a few hundred Hz of spectrum. I'm not familiar with the specific names. X10 is the one the power companies use? No, "X10" was an in-home system. 73, Carl - wk3c |
I definitely am not an expert in any way, shape or form about this whole BPL
thing, but to me logic would dictate that if these BPL lines are going to be emanating a ton of intereference, would they not also be prone to interference coming in??? Seems to me that would create problems with connections and the quality of transfer rates. -- Ryan, KC8PMX "Symbolism is for the simple minded....." For one thing, if and when BPL comes to your area, don't subscribe to it! I have to believe that it would be the biggest dog of a service ever invented! I suspect in the real world, it might work about as good as a 56K modem... maybe. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Bert Craig" wrote in message .net...
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: What money are you talking about? (If you say "the manufacturers" that's baloney. I haven't seen a SINGLE comment filed on the current round of petitions by any manufacturer ...) All that's really happened so far in the "current round" is a flurry of petitions. There are more in process that don't have RM numbers yet. Back during the restructuring NPRM, there were comments from manufacturers. But not when mere proposals and petitions were flying about. And let's be up-front about it - manufacturers are part of the amateur radio community, and have a vested interest. If a rules change has an effect on Kenwood's sales, why shouldn't they comment? That doesn't mean their comments will necessarily always be in the best interest of the ARS. In fact, the most-often-quoted-by-FCC commenter in the R&O to 98-143 wasn't ARRL or NCI or NCVEC or some individual radio amateur. It was Kenwood. I wonder if any folks let them know that they would NOT be purchasing Kenwood products because of this? I've always been a big proponent of leveraging one's monetary muscle. Good idea! But considering that I've never owned a non-USA made piece of hamgear, I doubt it would mean much to them coming from me. In fact, I'm probably the exact type of ham that Ikensu wants to go away. In 36 years as a ham, I've bought exactly two major pieces of ham radio equipment (transceivers). Both were kits. Both were from American companies. All the rest has been used stuff, military surplus ("and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and never make war any more") and good ol' homebrew. A few rrap regulars have heard and worked said homebrew. BTW, has anybody sent their respective ARRL candidates an e-mail re. their stance on the code? More than one. I'm getting campaign flyers in the mail, seems like the right opportunity. Same with our regular elected representatives. Drop 'em a note and make 'em, at least, question the FCC. Remember how the vanity call system came about. I dunno if bugging congresscritters will do much good. But the ARRL directors really do want to know, because it means they have backing whichever way they decide. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com