![]() |
|
|
JJ wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote: Ah so, the federal authorization magically makes all amateurs into technical experts who KNOW things all through answering a few Something that is obviously beyond you capabilities. You sure have a hard on for those who have had the smarts enough to pass the amateur exam and get a license. Poor lennyboy, just can't hack it. Exactly my point. Also, please note a thread addressed specifically to him, asking him to validate his sniping at others about BPL without addressing the technical concerns it poses. He cannot do so without dropping his drawers in public (again). Sucks to be Lennie, I guess... Steve, K4YZ |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message . net...
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:53:38 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote: If not "stupid beyond belief", then they [ The Five Tubeless Tyres ] just aren't bothering to read up on the realities of implementation. But they're not stupid so what does that leave? They've gotten The Word from much higher than the Commission or NTIA or even DoD. It will be interesting to see who the movers and shakers (read: investors and controllers) of the BPL business are when the inevitable Congressional inquiry is forced to take place. What do you see triggering a Congressional flap over BPL?? "No Millionaire Left Behind" ??? .. . oughta be an interesting campaign . . |
|
Len,
I know you love to .... um .... shake things up .... but ... I had my 1st class radiotelephone license in 1966. I also worked in Electromagnetic Compatibilty testing in 1995. Believe me, even an improperly grounded power pole can cause problems. No, I am not suggesting "interfering" with an unlicensed service. I am suggesting asserting the rights of a licensed service. Unlicensed services may not cause interference and must put up with interference. You, and some others, think this is an "amateur vs. the world" thing. It is not. There will be problems with other services, I can assure you. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "Len Over 21" wrote in message ... In article , "Dee D. Flint" writes: The marketing hype is cheap broadband for the rural areas. Economic reality is that it will probably never be extended into the rural areas even if some suburban areas do go for it. You have the "studies" to prove this as a fact? Every single transformer between the injection point of the signal and the end user must be bypassed with the BPL signal for that signal to work. Of course you KNOW the EXACT CHARACTERISTICS of "a BPL signal," don't you? I don't and won't presume to guess. But, you are AUTHORIZED by the FCC to "legally interfere with any unlicensed service (of any kind)" and are therefore blameless. If you only have one user every few miles, it will never pay off. And of course you've mentioned the power and/or signal boosters required. Periodic boosters all along the line will be needed. Ah so, the federal authorization magically makes all amateurs into technical experts who KNOW things all through answering a few questions and passing a morse code test. Must be that new "interest" thing in hum radio. LHA / WMD --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 2/20/04 |
On 21 Feb 2004 07:12:26 -0800, Brian Kelly wrote:
It will be interesting to see who the movers and shakers (read: investors and controllers) of the BPL business are when the inevitable Congressional inquiry is forced to take place. What do you see triggering a Congressional flap over BPL?? Knowledgeable member of Some Agency gets p.o.-ed at The Power that pushes this down eveyone's throat, damn the interference, full speed ahead, and uses back-channel contacts to The Congress which wants some reason to stick The Power anyhow and gather headlines. Ought to make a good "made-for-television" script or maybe even "The West Wing". Or maybe no one really gives a damn..... "No Millionaire Left Behind" ??? .. . oughta be an interesting campaign . . Stay tuned. November is coming up rapidly... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: Dear Beeping Bill: How can a licensed user intentionally interfere with an unlicensed user? Why an NOI and now an NPRM for such a Part 15 device? The rules will change. State Department Dave lives in a different reality and isn't quite up to speed on FCC abbreviations. An "NPRM" is a Notice of Proposed Rule Making but big Dave thinks the rules are already in place. More sniping from the NG Putz. Lennie, is there some reason you can take time to antagonize and muck-rake through other threads, but you cannot answer a question put directly to you? Steve, K4YZ Steve, this is America, not East Germany. We have the right not to answer without some thug putting is jack boot on our throat. |
On 22 Feb 2004 01:02:36 GMT, N2EY wrote:
It's called "radio". aka "wireless". The modems/routers/hubs have these funny things called "antennas" on them and so do the boxes out on the utility pole. I had that 10 years ago - it was called Ricochet/Microtel, ran at dial-up speed using the 900 MHz non-licensed spectrum/technology, and worked just great. 24/7 connection with no extra phone line, DSL and Cable Modem service not quite on the market yet, and standards still being debated by several technical groups that I was a member of. Just about five years ago they went broke and stopped offering the service. I still have the device in the original carton (had to look at it to remember the name). I had heard that they tried to revive it at higher speed in the 2.4 GHz Part 15 band, but they aren't offering that service in this area and probably never will, what with everyone using 802.11b LAN access. I undertand that they would use a band of frequencies which would "endanger" our 2.4 Mhz allocations. But like I posted somewhere else earlier, I'll trade 2.4 Mhz for 14 Mhz any day. The 802.11b "Wi-Fi" LAN technology operates at 2.4 GHz, not MHz. The nice part about that is that Wi-Fi Channel 1 (IIRC) falls totally within the portion of the band that is shared between Amateur and Non-Licensed Part 15 users, and (theoretically, at least) a licensed ham can hang a super-high-gain antenna and a power amp on a commnercial Wi-Fi unit (CompUSA "special") operating on that channel, modifications that non-licensed Part 15 users cannot do. Just think what 1500 W TPO would do to the neighborhood Wi-Fi users. DX records. "King of the Hill". Some of them do and that's not good. Others are in the 5 GHz region. 802.11g - "Wide-Area" LAN or WAN. The Bay Area Wireless Communications Alliance members were discussing this about 5 years ago when I was active with that group. A higher-powered version requiring a point-to-multipoint microwave system license was starting to be pitched to a different crowd from the 802.11b (2.4 GHz) users. What is most important is that we can have a protected slice of GHz *and* those technologies can exist. The current show-stopper for the 802.11 crowd seems to be a lack of standards and coordination. Which is very typical of fledgling technologies, These ARE standards. Just different applications. Carl Stevenson is a national and international expert on them. And eventually evolutionary forces will do what they've always done and some 802.11 type system or another will be ready to market on a global scale. Both the 802.11b (short-range) and 802.11g (long-range) systems have been marketed on a global scale for several years. Don't confuse them with the differing standards for cellphoes and color TV - USA vs the rest of the world. BINGO! I knew you'd get it. Just like VHS smacked Beta's rear years ago. What makes you think that Beta died when VHS became the consumer standard? The TV and broadcast industry standardized on Beta for field recording, but alas Sony is no longer supporting it, having had it replaced by digital technology. Look for the same thing to happen with VHS - "everyone" is going to DVDs. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
William wrote:
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message Lennie, is there some reason you can take time to antagonize and muck-rake through other threads, but you cannot answer a question put directly to you? Steve, this is America, not East Germany. We have the right not to answer without some thug putting is jack boot on our throat. Bleeping Bill, There is no East Germany. Let's take the time machine back to 1972.... Teacher: "Brian Burke, what key factors led to the drafting of the 1964 Civil Rights bill?" William-Brian: "I understand that a number of Frenchmen commonly disregard their own laws." Teacher: "Is it possible for you to answer a direct question?" William-Brian: "This is America, not East Germany. We have the right not to answer without some thug putting is jack boot on our throat." Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
William wrote: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message Lennie, is there some reason you can take time to antagonize and muck-rake through other threads, but you cannot answer a question put directly to you? Steve, this is America, not East Germany. We have the right not to answer without some thug putting is jack boot on our throat. Bleeping Bill, There is no East Germany. Let's take the time machine back to 1972.... Teacher: "Brian Burke, what key factors led to the drafting of the 1964 Civil Rights bill?" William-Brian: "I understand that a number of Frenchmen commonly disregard their own laws." Teacher: "Is it possible for you to answer a direct question?" William-Brian: "This is America, not East Germany. We have the right not to answer without some thug putting is jack boot on our throat." Dave K8MN Bleeping David, I stand corrected. I should have stated "TFUSSRSCFKA East Germany." It never occured to me that the image of human opression in that former country would have been so fleeting. How quickly you forget. But thank you for your vigilance as netgroup cop. It is important work for you. You are free to go back to working out of band Frenchmen again. |
William wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... William wrote: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message Lennie, is there some reason you can take time to antagonize and muck-rake through other threads, but you cannot answer a question put directly to you? Steve, this is America, not East Germany. We have the right not to answer without some thug putting is jack boot on our throat. Bleeping Bill, There is no East Germany. Let's take the time machine back to 1972.... Teacher: "Brian Burke, what key factors led to the drafting of the 1964 Civil Rights bill?" William-Brian: "I understand that a number of Frenchmen commonly disregard their own laws." Teacher: "Is it possible for you to answer a direct question?" William-Brian: "This is America, not East Germany. We have the right not to answer without some thug putting is jack boot on our throat." Bleeping David, I stand corrected. I should have stated "TFUSSRSCFKA East Germany." It never occured to me that the image of human opression in that former country would have been so fleeting. How quickly you forget. See how you play it? I tell you that there is no East Germany; you tell me that I've quickly forgotten. I didn't forget anything, Brian. I told you that there is no East Germany. But thank you for your vigilance as netgroup cop. You did not receive a citation. You are not required to pay a fine. It is important work for you. You are free to go back to working out of band Frenchmen again. And you are free to continue your fetish over things French. Give my regards to Doctor Evil. Dave K8MN |
In article , "Jim Hampton"
writes: I know you love to .... um .... shake things up .... but ... I had my 1st class radiotelephone license in 1966. Irrelevant in this newsgroup. Some of the amateurs in here seem to think an Amateur Extra class license is a "PhD in radio." No other radio licenses are allowed to figure in... I also worked in Electromagnetic Compatibilty testing in 1995. Another guy in here has you beat...worked as a purchasing agent for a set-top box maker. High-level knowledge. EMI testing, Tempest, the whole works is fairly normal work on any DoD contract. So? You think BPL is equivalent to an EMP?!? Believe me, even an improperly grounded power pole can cause problems. Yes, all those wooden utility poles are real tough radiators...? No, I am not suggesting "interfering" with an unlicensed service. I am suggesting asserting the rights of a licensed service. OK, plant the flag and claim HF is the sovereign terrortory of hams. Mama Dee has interpreted the law and sent down an encyclical that any ham can do anything as long as they have a LICENSE and "are authoritized to radiate." Not quite right, that, but it pleases the machismo of some. You rather clearly stated an INTENT to interfere. Intent is not evidenciary per se, but it doesn't win you any friends in court.. Unlicensed services may not cause interference and must put up with interference. Nooo, not quite and the OET won't buy that by itself, nor would any courts in most countries, USA included. If all could be summed up that easily, it would be "perfectly legal" for you to hold a 5 W HT up to the abdomen of a pacemaker wearer and thumb the PTT switch. Are you licensed by the FCC to deliberately interfere with anything? I don't think so. We can toss a coin to see if the pacemaker wearer has an infarc. You, and some others, think this is an "amateur vs. the world" thing. It is not. I didn't write that. You imagined that in another burst of macho testosterone, ASSERTING yourself. Does your geographic territory NEED another beacon? The pioneering and exploration of HF was pretty much over with when the USA got into WW2. If you NEED QSLs so much, advertise for some on the Internet. There will be problems with other services, I can assure you. Duhhhhhh...no kiddin, huh? Jim, I'm more than well aware of potential interference problems in radio, all the way from VLF on up into the microwaves. That's where I've been working for a half century and still keep my hand in. I've also had four tours of duty as a juror and understand quite well what INTENT is. No LLD needed for that. All the aging olde-tyme hammes in here seem to be ASSERTING themselves in some adolescent machismo in tuff tawk...and none of them has demonstrated knowledge-one about the BPL signal levels or the data protocol or anything else about any BPL system proposed. None of the tuff tawkers seem to know anything yet they all talk like they are a cross between expert PhDs in EMI and The Terminator gutturally announcing "Ahl be backkk." [just before driving through the door of a police station and killing lots of cops] :-) All that anyone seems to want to do is wait until Newington spoon-feeds them "what they need to know" and cause a lot of wing-flapping and squawking. Nobody seems to check the FCC website. Nobody has gone out to try to find a representative technical document from one of the proposed BPL systems. All seem to be whistling in the dark while tiptoeing through the graveyard. The NPRM is announced as docket number 04-37 and there is one document (as of Saturdy, 21 Feb 04) on that NPRM. The text of the NPRM isn't available on the 'web. Perhaps the executives in Newington have a copy...the general public doesn't have it available. None of you KNOW what the characteristics of any proposed BPL system IS, yet you are all "expert" on it becoming the downfall of HF for Hams. Will it interfere in general? Probably. Will it have terrible interference and cancel all the events in the ham playground? Unknown. Meanwhile, think about how you wing-flappers appear to the guvmint and the industry, all the while demonstrating near-absolute-zero on thinking and radiation expertise. Tawkin tuff in here doesn't cut it on getting rid of it. Tawking tuff doan police your playground. EM spectrum ain't da 'hood and you guys ain't da onley Boyz in da HF 'hood. LHA / WMD |
|
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
William wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... William wrote: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message Lennie, is there some reason you can take time to antagonize and muck-rake through other threads, but you cannot answer a question put directly to you? Steve, this is America, not East Germany. We have the right not to answer without some thug putting is jack boot on our throat. Bleeping Bill, There is no East Germany. Let's take the time machine back to 1972.... Teacher: "Brian Burke, what key factors led to the drafting of the 1964 Civil Rights bill?" William-Brian: "I understand that a number of Frenchmen commonly disregard their own laws." Teacher: "Is it possible for you to answer a direct question?" William-Brian: "This is America, not East Germany. We have the right not to answer without some thug putting is jack boot on our throat." Bleeping David, I stand corrected. I should have stated "TFUSSRSCFKA East Germany." It never occured to me that the image of human opression in that former country would have been so fleeting. How quickly you forget. See how you play it? I tell you that there is no East Germany; you tell me that I've quickly forgotten. I didn't forget anything, Brian. I told you that there is no East Germany. Sorry, Dave, but it might have worked if you had told me there was no "Atlantis." But thank you for your vigilance as netgroup cop. You did not receive a citation. You are not required to pay a fine. Hopefully you won't require me to work out of band Frenchmen as community service. It is important work for you. You are free to go back to working out of band Frenchmen again. And you are free to continue your fetish over things French. Give my regards to Doctor Evil. Regards, Dr. Evil. |
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (William) writes: Lennie, is there some reason you can take time to antagonize and muck-rake through other threads, but you cannot answer a question put directly to you? Steve, K4YZ Steve, this is America, not East Germany. We have the right not to answer without some thug putting is jack boot on our throat. Don't bother with him, Brian. The gunnery nurse went over to the dark side of Checkpoint Charlie a long time ago. He is Grade A Stasi (Statspolizei), Certified. [emphasis on the latter] He may be getting hand-me-downs from Kolonel Klunk, der Komandant, when they do lunch along the Ku-damm. LHA / WMD Ahem, sorry Len, but I was just informed that there is no East Germany, and thus by extension, no Checkpoint Charlie. Probably never existed. "Tear Down That Wall," was just a Hollywood stunt like the moon landing. |
|
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: I'm not up to speed on the methods which will be used to transport the 802.11 type signals into buildings It's called "radio". aka "wireless". The modems/routers/hubs have these funny things called "antennas" on them and so do the boxes out on the utility pole. but I assume it'll be carried over existing cable TV wiring to a Part 15 tranciever/modem somewhere in the building. Or something along those lines. No wires at all. You been to Microcenter lately? Spare me the lectures willya??! I'm about ten feet from one, they're everywhere and I don't need a tour of Microcenter to "find out what they are". And yes it does need a wire, in this case a cable TV connection to the modems/routers/hub. Is this the "Wi-Fi 802 dot something" which is being hyped? I don't think so. Makes a helluva lot more sense economically and in all other respects vs. BPL. In particular they won't trash the HF spectrum like BPL does. It's also faster, more robust, and even more portable. Put a PCIMCIA cardmodem in your lapper and surf anywhere. Wrong. Surf around as long as you're in Starbucks, in an airport terminal, in a Hilton and maybe you'll find a connection. Now drive a few miles to the Wharton Tract or even to Ridley Creek State Park and try to get a connect yer lapper-with-an-antenna. I undertand that they would use a band of frequencies which would "endanger" our 2.4 Mhz allocations. But like I posted somewhere else earlier, I'll trade 2.4 Mhz for 14 Mhz any day. Some of them do and that's not good. Others are in the 5 GHz region. What is most important is that we can have a protected slice of GHz *and* those technologies can exist. And if "they" can't find a "solution" then kiss the 2.4 Ghz (got it right that time) ham band 'bye-'bye. Get comfortable with the concept And Ralph Nader is going to run again. GEts worse every day. Comic relief. Beats Ross Perot. Ralph Nader is Shrub's best friend. Without him, Algore would be in the White House. At this point I'm not in the least bit convinced that Gore would have been one bit worse that the Shrub. Democrats are the free-spenders and the Rebublicans are the fiscally conservative right? Have you checked the size of the national debt recently? 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message . net...
On 22 Feb 2004 01:02:36 GMT, N2EY wrote: I undertand that they would use a band of frequencies which would "endanger" our 2.4 Mhz allocations. But like I posted somewhere else earlier, I'll trade 2.4 Mhz for 14 Mhz any day. The 802.11b "Wi-Fi" LAN technology operates at 2.4 GHz, not MHz. QSL. The nice part about that is that Wi-Fi Channel 1 (IIRC) falls totally within the portion of the band that is shared between Amateur and Non-Licensed Part 15 users, and (theoretically, at least) a licensed ham can hang a super-high-gain antenna and a power amp on a commnercial Wi-Fi unit (CompUSA "special") operating on that channel, modifications that non-licensed Part 15 users cannot do. Just think what 1500 W TPO would do to the neighborhood Wi-Fi users. DX records. "King of the Hill". ****er-offer to end all. But would it be any worse than the days when the first consumer TV receivers hit the shelves and hams "invented" TVI? How long ago?? It's all circles. Some of them do and that's not good. Others are in the 5 GHz region. 802.11g - "Wide-Area" LAN or WAN. The Bay Area Wireless Communications Alliance members were discussing this about 5 years ago when I was active with that group. A higher-powered version requiring a point-to-multipoint microwave system license was starting to be pitched to a different crowd from the 802.11b (2.4 GHz) users. What is most important is that we can have a protected slice of GHz *and* those technologies can exist. The current show-stopper for the 802.11 crowd seems to be a lack of standards and coordination. Which is very typical of fledgling technologies, These ARE standards. Just different applications. Depends on what/how/who defines a "standard". Touch-tone pads are standard. The rest are questionable on that scale, and in the case of the instant topic very questionable. I spend a good bit of time cruising the financial news, London Financial Times, Reuters, Business Week, anywhere where I don't have to cough up coin to get into like the WSJ. The technologies which will matter down the road are those Wall Street buys into. The rest will be orphaned. Good collection of articles by the investments pundits on the likes of Wi-Fi and the related standards problems they see in this field. http://www.businessweek.com/technolo.../tc_04wifi.htm Speaking of orphans . . I have yet to run into a single peep about BPL anywhere in the tech investments rags so far. I think this silently speaks volumes about the future of BPL. Carl Stevenson is a national and international expert on them. Yup, would have been nice to have him in this thread. And eventually evolutionary forces will do what they've always done and some 802.11 type system or another will be ready to market on a global scale. Both the 802.11b (short-range) and 802.11g (long-range) systems have been marketed on a global scale for several years. Don't confuse them with the differing standards for cellphoes and color TV - USA vs the rest of the world. You're right. BINGO! I knew you'd get it. Just like VHS smacked Beta's rear years ago. What makes you think that Beta died when VHS became the consumer standard? The TV and broadcast industry standardized on Beta for field recording, but alas Sony is no longer supporting it, having had it replaced by digital technology. Look for the same thing to happen with VHS - "everyone" is going to DVDs. They're selling computers which don't have floppy drives. I tried to remember when I last used a floppy. Years ago. w3rv |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message . net...
On 21 Feb 2004 07:12:26 -0800, Brian Kelly wrote: It will be interesting to see who the movers and shakers (read: investors and controllers) of the BPL business are when the inevitable Congressional inquiry is forced to take place. What do you see triggering a Congressional flap over BPL?? Knowledgeable member of Some Agency gets p.o.-ed at The Power that pushes this down eveyone's throat, damn the interference, full speed ahead, and uses back-channel contacts to The Congress which wants some reason to stick The Power anyhow and gather headlines. Ought to make a good "made-for-television" script or maybe even "The West Wing". Might not be too far off base here Phil. There's a congresscritter/ham who has expressed his view and he's on the telecoms committee. Or maybe no one really gives a damn..... Nah, a lotta folk give a damn. "No Millionaire Left Behind" ??? .. . oughta be an interesting campaign . . Stay tuned. November is coming up rapidly... Can't happen soon enough for me. w3rv |
(William) wrote in message om...
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: Lennie, is there some reason you can take time to antagonize and muck-rake through other threads, but you cannot answer a question put directly to you? Steve, K4YZ Steve, this is America, not East Germany. We have the right not to answer without some thug putting is jack boot on our throat. Don't bother with him, Brian. The gunnery nurse went over to the dark side of Checkpoint Charlie a long time ago. He is Grade A Stasi (Statspolizei), Certified. [emphasis on the latter] He may be getting hand-me-downs from Kolonel Klunk, der Komandant, when they do lunch along the Ku-damm. Ahem, sorry Len, but I was just informed that there is no East Germany, and thus by extension, no Checkpoint Charlie. Probably never existed. "Tear Down That Wall," was just a Hollywood stunt like the moon landing. That's OK...I didn't really expect Lennie to stand up and answer. He lacks the male applicances and testosterone levels to operate it anyway. Like I said...His silence was his answer, and his reference (once again_ to the (defunct) East German secret police is typical. Seems Lennie has an afinity for "defunct" things...Now we (yes, the "royal" we...) know what ELSE is defunct! Steve, K4YZ |
|
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: Point is that the last-mile problem isn't a real problem at all. Run the fiber down the street on the poles, put a little box every so many poles, use a little encoding, no problem. Certainly. But running fiber optics lines is a very expensive proposition, much more expensive per unit length than any of the other utility lines. If/when real wideband access comes true in this country it's most likely gonna at least get started via the cable. That probability is mixed into Comcast's move to bring the Mouse to Philly. And if "they" can't find a "solution" then kiss the 2.4 Ghz (got it right that time) ham band 'bye-'bye. Get comfortable with the concept More bandwidth than all of HF. Hare and I touched on that when he was here, it's a classic case of use it or lose it and it's not being used. I asked him how much ham activity he knew about on 2.4 Ghz and he answered "What activity?". btw, I came across some info on the Manassas thing. $20 month for BPL - for the first three months! Then it jumps to $50/month. On a good day it might get up to half of DSL speed. Maybe. Good. I hope they lose their skivvies on that deal. In this country standard DSL runs 0.5-1.0 Mb/s and can be found for $30/month. Cable here runs at around 3Mb/s for $45/month. The JAs have a flavor of DSL which runs at 26 Mb/sec in heavily-populated areas for $50/month with the HLs close behind. Manassas BPL for $50/month for only half of 0.5-1.0 Mb/s you say? They gotta be kidding . . ! One more dot bomb in the making . . At this point I'm not in the least bit convinced that Gore would have been one bit worse that the Shrub. Izzat the sun coming up over Sugartown Road? Huh? How did Sugartown Rd. get into it?? Have you checked the size of the national debt recently? Yep. But that's not the big problem - the real 800 pound gorilla is how fast the deficit is making it grow. A few years back we had a surplus.... Yeah, it's the rate which is really scary. And now we're supposed to go back to the Moon, and send people to Mars. Yet the odds on a Shuttle failure are worse than 100 to 1... I don't see shuttle safety being part of the politics of the upcoming campaign. As has been the case in all major explorations since Leif Ericsson's days and millenia before the folk who ride the things know they didn't buy a seat in a 737 and some are not gonna come back. Tell ya what, let's fund Shrub's moon-mars-madness the same way things like education, mass transit and health care get funded. How 'bout we just bag the whole stupid Mars camping trip thing and first build a new version of the Shuttle then put Wideband on the front burner as a matter of national policy? Which is what the JAs and HLs did and explains why this country is years behind them in this field. We could have walkathons and bake sales. Corporate sponsorship in return for advertising space, just like they do in NASCAR and at Indy. Let groups and individuals send in money to buy parts and supplies - a gallon of rocket fuel, coupla resistors for the computer, etc. NASA can have anything in the Southgate Radio stockroom for a very nominal price. Let's not get carried away here Miccolis . . 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
|
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: Certainly. But running fiber optics lines is a very expensive proposition, much more expensive per unit length than any of the other utility lines. It's already all over the place out here in the Principality of Radnor. And TE, and West Chester, etc. There's an optics cable running along the street here which isn't more than 75 feet from me as I peck at the keyboard. And a half block north there's a moose-sized optics cable running along MacDade Blvd. I have no idea where they come from or where they go or what they actually do but there isn't a drop to a residence or a business in sight anywhere. I've seen Ma Bell "mobile labs" futzing with the things so I guess it's for running phone comms between switching centers. Or something. In any event these cables don't look like they're ready to duke it out with BPL. The really big cost is getting from the pole into people's houses. That's the really big selling point of BPL: no installation, every outlet in your house is a broadband connection. As if. A lot of "cable" is actually fiber. But it makes no real difference; the big probelm is getting into every overpriced little box made out of ticky tacky. The cable and telco folks took their pain upfront. And they can avoid more pain by *not* installing residential drops. Install 802 dot somthing boxes on the poles every hundred yards or so. Would work and would kick BPLs butt. The huge advantage wireless devices bring to this game is that they do *not* need a connection to the house wiring. Freely floating lappers, remotes, etc. Hare and I touched on that when he was here, it's a classic case of use it or lose it and it's not being used. I asked him how much ham activity he knew about on 2.4 Ghz and he answered "What activity?". I wuz there. And what activity does exist uses highly directional antennas.... Seems like we all forgot that most of it is satellite ops which do not always use directional antennas. That could be a problem but a couple MHZ wide AMSAT setaside would probably work. btw, I came across some info on the Manassas thing. $20 month for BPL - for the first three months! Then it jumps to $50/month. On a good day it might get up to half of DSL speed. Maybe. Good. I hope they lose their skivvies on that deal. They'll ask Uncle Sam to bail them out. "No millionaire left behind". That would require Congessional action and it would never in this world happen. Didja see where RCN went Chapter 11? I looked at RCN when it first popped up. Talk about no bang for the buck, the Comcast and Ma Bell guys musta been laughing their buns off at the RCN prices. The cofounder of Microsoft put 1.65 billion into that outfit and now his piece is worth $2 million. That's like putting $165,000 of yer IRA/401K in something and having it go down to $200. Yeah and after RCN drubbed him Mr. Allen came out with 20 point somthing billion left in his piggy bank. Pore thing. He and his buddy Bill are tossing coin at all sortsa wild investment adventures. Their baby airliner is a good example. They don't care, it's only money. Cable here runs at around 3Mb/s for $45/month. The JAs have a flavor of DSL which runs at 26 Mb/sec in heavily-populated areas for $50/month with the HLs close behind. Manassas BPL for $50/month for only half of 0.5-1.0 Mb/s you say? Double check with Ed but I recall half MB as the best they'd ever gotten - and that was for a single customer on the system. More folks = sharing. . . . . more is better, bring it on . . . They gotta be kidding . . ! One more dot bomb in the making . . I sure hope so. Boom dot bust. But it ain't over till it's over. It won't hurt very long . . Yep. But that's not the big problem - the real 800 pound gorilla is how fast the deficit is making it grow. A few years back we had a surplus.... Yeah, it's the rate which is really scary. Not just a big hole but digging it deeper as fast as they can. Check OMB's rant on the subject which was published yesterday. I don't see shuttle safety being part of the politics of the upcoming campaign. As has been the case in all major explorations since Leif Ericsson's days and millenia before the folk who ride the things know they didn't buy a seat in a 737 and some are not gonna come back. That's not how it was sold, though. Ask the McAuliffes if they were told that there was a 1 in 75 chance of augering in. Sure they knew, just like the relatives of military aircrews know the level of risk involved. Whether they accept it and internalize it or not is another story. How 'bout we just bag the whole stupid Mars camping trip thing and first build a new version of the Shuttle then put Wideband on the front burner as a matter of national policy? That makes way too much sense. In fact the really sensible thing would be a cheap oneshot big booster for unmanned payloads and a highly reliable but much smaller human transport system. Send the big stuff on ahead and the astronauts meet it up there. The UAs been doing that for thirty years. Hey - didja see where they're planning a space walk on the ISS where all the crew will be outside at the same time, with nobody in the station? Didn't they ever go to the movies back in 1968? Was not the first time by any means and yup, it rained so they had to duck back inside. 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
|
|
Old man lennie blabbered: If all could be summed up that easily, it would be "perfectly legal" for you to hold a 5 W HT up to the abdomen of a pacemaker wearer and thumb the PTT switch. Are you licensed by the FCC to deliberately interfere with anything? I don't think so. We can toss a coin to see if the pacemaker wearer has an infarc. And Steve Robeson, K4CAP responded: "Infarct", Lennie... Besides...A pacer is not the therapy of choice for a myocardial infarction. A pacer is placed due to an SA node or other pacer failure...An ELECTRICAL failure of the heart which may or mayNOT be due to an MI. An MI is actual damage done to the myocardium, or heart muscle, usually due to cardiovascular disease or a thrombus of other etiology, even trauma. It is very difficult to interfere with today's pacers, and interference to one isn't going to cause a myocardial infarction. A story about pacemakers and hams. A ham friend lived across the street from a person who wore a pacemaker. The ham had been on the air, on HF and VHF, for some years without even knowing the across the street neighbor wore the device. The ham had never had a complaint of any kind of TVI or any other type of interference from any neighbors. The neighbor purchased a cheap TV and one day noticed interference, someone told him it might be the ham across the street. He went to see the ham, the ham took his own portable TV over to the neighbors and ask the neighbor to use his set for a few days to see if there was any interference. The ham operated on all HF bands and his usual VHF frequencies for a couple of days and no inteference occured to the hams TV but did on the neighbors. The neighbor was convinced it was his TV and returned it to the store. End of story right? Not quite. The neighbor, on a visit to his cardiologist, happened to mention the ham and the inteference problem. The doctor got all excited and told the patient that that ham's signals could interfer with his pacemaker and possibly kill him. Now the ham had been operating for years and there had never been a hint of a problem, but now his signals may suddenly kill this guy. On advice of the doctor, the neighbor called the FCC. The FCC got envolved and came out and made checks and measurements of the hams stations and gave it a clean bill of health. The neighbor, knowing he was going to die if the ham operated, was not satisfied and demanded the FCC put the ham off the air. The FCC refused, so an engineer from the pacemaker manufacturer was called in. They took an indentical pacemaker, laid it next to the hams station, strung the leads out, operated the station at power levels from very low to full legal limit, and was never able to observe any interference to the pacer from the signals. They repeated the same test at the neighbors location and no matter what they tried they could not get the hams signals to interfer with the pacemaker. That was over 25 years ago. Pacemaker technology has improved vastly since then. My wife wears a pacemaker and shortly after it was installed I had a conversation with one of the St. Jude (the manufacturer) engineers on the subject of interference. He said it would be very difficult for my ham transmissions to interfere. I ask what would be the consquencies it it did. His answer was that when the pacer detected any interference it would simply stop pacing until the interference went away. The effect on the wearer would be the heart would slow down to whatever its own pacing rate was (in my wife's case between 30-40 beats per min), and she would probably feel dizzy, lightheaded, out of breath, or if her rhythm were slow enough, maybe pass out, but once the interference is gone, the pacer would pick up and pace her at 70 the rate it is set for. So lennieboy, get your facts straight, some ham or any other transmitter near a pacemaker wearer isn't going to cause them to suffer a heart attack, as much as you would like to think it would so you could blame all those nasty hams for killing people. If it were so, then pacemaker users would be dropping all over the place everytime a police car went by with the officer on the radio, or when they passed a high power broadcasting tower or any number of scenarios. They don't even tell pacer users to beware of microwave ovens anymore. Now back to you room lennie and let some other resident of the home use the computer, the nurse is waiting to give you your meds. |
In article , JJ
writes: Old man lennie blabbered: And Steve Robeson, K4CAP responded: "Infarct", Lennie... The familiar, shortened form of the word doesn't pronounce the T. Doctor Killgore, the gunnery nurse, still can't sign "MD" behind her name. She isn't licensed to practice medicine without a real physician in charge. She will object strenuously to that in more tuff tawk, but that is to be expected. The gunnery nurse still can't legally put "MD" behind her name. It is very difficult to interfere with today's pacers, and interference to one isn't going to cause a myocardial infarction. A story about pacemakers and hams. That is irrelevant coming from a NOBODY, an ANONYMOUS troll who doesn't have the guts or the heart to identify herself. Go ahead, make our day, put a pacemaker wearer right next to a mismatched 1 KW transmitter connected to an antenna with open-wire lines. Do you want to "experiment" with something that might kill a person? Would the gunnery nurse do that? You both would, of course, at least in messages. You guys are TUFF, strong, noble, good, and true, know everything (and know hardly anything). :-) So lennieboy, get your facts straight, some ham or any other transmitter near a pacemaker wearer isn't going to cause them to suffer a heart attack, as much as you would like to think it would so you could blame all those nasty hams for killing people. I'm not blaming "all those nasty hams." :-) Just the PHONIES with federal merit badges in here who think they are all gunnery nurse candidates in search of a real self. :-) Now back to you room lennie and let some other resident of the home use the computer, the nurse is waiting to give you your meds. Only in your fevered imagination ANONYMOUS ONE. :-) My home IS restfull but only my wife and I (and three cats) live here. Nice 2000 square foot place in the hills. No "nurse" in attendance. That's just the southern house, the one in California, the same postal address in all those Ham Radio magazine bylines. The northern house on the Puget Sound is even more restful...same size but nice pines all around...only two pines down here but 14 tall cypresses. Good health here, no heart problems. :-) I only counterattack the FAKERS, the ANONYMOUS trolls, the PRETENDERS, the GUTLESS ones who imagine they are radio amateurs of great toughness and resolve and superior to all others yet HIDE behind a pseudonym, AFRAID of truth. YOU fit all those categories, "JJ." Now be good, little "JJ" or Mama Dee will spank you and take away your computer privileges until grade school is over for the summer. LHA / WMD |
Len Over 21 wrote:
That is irrelevant coming from a NOBODY, an ANONYMOUS troll who doesn't have the guts or the heart to identify herself. Herself? Boy, the senility is really setting in lennyboy. Now back to the rec room for some fun with chair excersizes. |
Len Over 21 wrote:
elf. Go ahead, make our day, put a pacemaker wearer right next to a mismatched 1 KW transmitter connected to an antenna with open-wire lines. Do you want to "experiment" with something that might kill a person? Would the gunnery nurse do that? Go re-read my post again about the ham and the pacemaker incident. A pacemaker was placed next to the operating position of the hams station and operated at the full legal limit. Nothing happened to the pacemaker. Senility is really affecting your reading comprehension lennyboy. Now go back to the front desk and ask the kind nurse to point you the way to your room so you can lay down and get your afternoon nappie in. |
Len Over 21 wrote:
I'm not blaming "all those nasty hams." :-) Just the PHONIES with federal merit badges in here who think they are all gunnery nurse candidates in search of a real self. :-) Your aren't even a ham, can't pass the test, have nothing to do with ham radio, so why would you even care? Show me one ham with a federal merit badge. |
|
JJ wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote: I'm not blaming "all those nasty hams." :-) Just the PHONIES with federal merit badges in here who think they are all gunnery nurse candidates in search of a real self. :-) Your aren't even a ham, can't pass the test, have nothing to do with ham radio, so why would you even care? Show me one ham with a federal merit badge. TSBAKAL believes that his one and only appearance before an FCC examiner in 1950-something was all that he should have ever had to do...He passed THAT test, ergo he "knows it all" and should be exempt from the laws that pertain to every other citizen. What a putz. Steve, K4YZ |
In article , JJ
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: Go re-read my post again about the ham and the pacemaker incident. A pacemaker was placed next to the operating position of the hams station and operated at the full legal limit. Nothing happened to the pacemaker. Anonymous source of unreferenceable news, anonymous none? You really shouldn't make up those stories. They aren't believable and they have no references for anyone to check validity. Senility is really affecting your reading comprehension lennyboy. Now, now, Anonymous None, be careful or you will lose fantasy and imagination privileges... :-) LHA / WMD |
Len Over 21 wrote:
Anonymous source of unreferenceable news, anonymous none? You really shouldn't make up those stories. They aren't believable and they have no references for anyone to check validity. Check with the Dallas, Tx FCC office, they can verify it. And here is another, get some 6 year old to read it and explaine to you so you will understand. **** HAM RADIO AND PACEMAKERS This is from Angela, VE7ANG’s Newsletter. Richard/VE7SRB has had a pacemaker installed recently. At first he thought he might not be able to continue Ham Radio, but after some research he came up with the following. Perhaps it will be of interest to others. We have researched the literature concerning the effects of amateur radio broadcasts and their potential effects on implanted pulse generators. Most articles concerning the effects of electromagnetic interference (EMI) on pulse generators touch very briefly on the effects of radio frequencies. We have done testing on types of interference most likely to be encountered by pacemakers patients. One category of interference we tested was radio frequency. This covers the HF and VHF bands from 1 MHz to 200 Mhz. Amateur radio, broadcast AM and FM, TV two way communications, short-wave diathermy and CB radios are in this range. Many transmitters have large power capability. Radio amateurs are allowed a one kilowatt input in eight bands, commercial short-wave goes to 250 KW, broadcast to 50 KW, two way radio in emergency short-wave regularly uses 150 watts in mobile installations. Implantable pulse generators may be affected depending on the details of shielding and filtering in the device and modulation of interference signal. Testing was performed on 106 pacemakers comprising 20 different models from various manufacturers. Testing was conducted at interference frequencies of 3.4, 7, 14, 21 and 28.6 Mhz. No effects on pacemaker operation were observed in the presence of field strengths less than 200 volts/meter. Field strengths of this magnitude are unlikely except in the immediate vicinity of a high power transmitting antenna. Overall, our testing indicates that pacemaker patients are very unlikely to encounter problems with radio frequency fields. Certainly we would recommend avoiding direct contact with transmitting antenna. ******* Now go ask the nurse for another blood pressure pill lennyboy so you don't have a stroke. |
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
(William) wrote in message . com... Dave Heil wrote in message ... I did, however, ask you how a licensed service can intentionally interfere with a non-licensed producer of RF. You've not yet come up with a response. The same way you can communicate with French who had no license to operate where they were operating. Hey Dave...here's MY interpretation of Brain's non-answer: "I have no valid answer. I know that common sense precludes my being able to render any effective response without further demonstrating my ignorance and arrogance, hence I'll just make some inappropriate insinuations and hope no one notices how foolish I REALLY am. My sole purpose in this forum is to disrupt any meaningful use of this forum, and to emulate my mentor, Lennie Anderson, a known and documented pathological liar." Hey Brain...did that pretty well sum it up? Steve, K4YZ I'm sure that when the French start calling you on a CAP frequency that you'll ask them to include a green stamp to QSL. Best of Luck. |
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:32 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com