I hate to say it, but I'll probably put up a 10 meter beacon. Of course,
FCC rules state using the minimum amount of power necessary for
communications. This means searching out folks on the internet that are
perhaps 40 miles away and you'd need some 'reasonable' power on 10 meters.
Best to use a horizontal dipole. A vertical will reduce BPL interference in
both directions and a yagi would reduce your horizontal signal spread (as
well as aid communications). 100 watts or so ... I wonder what would be
most effective? AM/SSB/FM? Again, you simply increase power on the mode
selected to obtain decent communications. You also happen to choose a mode
that would tend to disrupt BPL. Of course, if the power companies do happen
to filter to protect amateur bands, they also will protect themselves from
signal ingress. Obviously, they are smart enough to stay away from the
commercial FM band, but I'd bet there will be problems in fringe areas for
channel 2 and 3 television. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


"WA8ULX" wrote in message
...
Well the way I look at it is, that if it makes the spectrum useless, then
I
will use my gear for nothing more than a 24 Hour Beacon. Which in turn
should
make BPL pretty much useless. Not worried about the neighbors, the will
never
know whats causing there service to fail, and sooner than latter they will
drop
the Service.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.590 / Virus Database: 373 - Release Date: 2/16/04

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ...
I hate to say it, but I'll probably put up a 10 meter beacon. Of course,
FCC rules state using the minimum amount of power necessary for
communications. This means searching out folks on the internet that are
perhaps 40 miles away and you'd need some 'reasonable' power on 10 meters.
Best to use a horizontal dipole. A vertical will reduce BPL interference in
both directions and a yagi would reduce your horizontal signal spread (as
well as aid communications). 100 watts or so ... I wonder what would be
most effective? AM/SSB/FM? Again, you simply increase power on the mode
selected to obtain decent communications. You also happen to choose a mode
that would tend to disrupt BPL. Of course, if the power companies do happen
to filter to protect amateur bands, they also will protect themselves from
signal ingress. Obviously, they are smart enough to stay away from the
commercial FM band, but I'd bet there will be problems in fringe areas for
channel 2 and 3 television. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

But, but, but...

Jim, all you need is a wet noodle and you can work the world on the "kiddie band."

In article ,
(William) writes:

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
I hate to say it, but I'll probably put up a 10 meter beacon. Of course,
FCC rules state using the minimum amount of power necessary for
communications. This means searching out folks on the internet that are
perhaps 40 miles away and you'd need some 'reasonable' power on 10 meters.
Best to use a horizontal dipole. A vertical will reduce BPL interference
in
both directions and a yagi would reduce your horizontal signal spread (as
well as aid communications). 100 watts or so ... I wonder what would be
most effective? AM/SSB/FM? Again, you simply increase power on the mode
selected to obtain decent communications. You also happen to choose a mode
that would tend to disrupt BPL. Of course, if the power companies do
happen
to filter to protect amateur bands, they also will protect themselves from
signal ingress. Obviously, they are smart enough to stay away from the
commercial FM band, but I'd bet there will be problems in fringe areas for
channel 2 and 3 television. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

But, but, but...

Jim, all you need is a wet noodle and you can work the world on the "kiddie
band."

Wet noodle IN a tuna tin, Brian. Using on-off keyed [expletive deleted]
above all. The latter is important!

Real Hams use on-off keyed trolley cars, working DX with spark from
25 cycle overhead lines.

LHA / WMD

You miss the point. I'm interested in showing how this BPL is a two-way
street.

Beacons are legal on 10 meters. 6 meters would also likely be effective.
I'd prefer not using 20 meters for a 40 miles circuit which would require a
considerable signal and also cause that signal to be stronger thousands of
miles away. I'm interested in a band that isn't open and working someone
far enough away to require 50 watts or more. That is how you demonstrate
the two-way possibilities of BPL. Ya keep it all legal.

Daytime 160 or 75 meters would also require a fair amount of power for a 60
mile or so circuit, but you wouldn't generate the e-fields which would
bother the BPL as much (but, on second thought, those power lines are long
and would tend to pick up quite a signal). You have given me another
thought here ... )

You see, if an unlicensed transmitter is going to put some electric field
into my receiver, I simply want to return the favor - with interest.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


"William" wrote in message
om...

But, but, but...

Jim, all you need is a wet noodle and you can work the world on the
"kiddie band."


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.592 / Virus Database: 375 - Release Date: 2/18/04

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ...
You miss the point. I'm interested in showing how this BPL is a two-way
street.

Beacons are legal on 10 meters. 6 meters would also likely be effective.
I'd prefer not using 20 meters for a 40 miles circuit

Not a circuit.

which would require a
considerable signal and also cause that signal to be stronger thousands of
miles away. I'm interested in a band that isn't open and working someone
far enough away to require 50 watts or more. That is how you demonstrate
the two-way possibilities of BPL. Ya keep it all legal.

Your entire response is conspiracy to commit an illegal act:
intentional interference.

Daytime 160 or 75 meters would also require a fair amount of power for a 60
mile or so circuit, but you wouldn't generate the e-fields which would
bother the BPL as much (but, on second thought, those power lines are long
and would tend to pick up quite a signal). You have given me another
thought here ... )

I don't recall mentioning MW.

You see, if an unlicensed transmitter is going to put some electric field
into my receiver, I simply want to return the favor - with interest.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

You might want to run it by the ARRL and/or Riley. ;^)

(William) wrote:
You might want to run it by the ARRL and/or Riley. ;^)

Riley and his cronies are part of the problem, not the cure.

--
Go 40 42 12

William wrote:

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ...
You miss the point. I'm interested in showing how this BPL is a two-way
street.

Beacons are legal on 10 meters. 6 meters would also likely be effective.
I'd prefer not using 20 meters for a 40 miles circuit

Not a circuit.

which would require a
considerable signal and also cause that signal to be stronger thousands of
miles away. I'm interested in a band that isn't open and working someone
far enough away to require 50 watts or more. That is how you demonstrate
the two-way possibilities of BPL. Ya keep it all legal.

Your entire response is conspiracy to commit an illegal act:
intentional interference.

Dear Beeping Bill:

How can a licensed user intentionally interfere with an unlicensed user?


You see, if an unlicensed transmitter is going to put some electric field
into my receiver, I simply want to return the favor - with interest.

You might want to run it by the ARRL and/or Riley. ;^)

You might want to consider that word "unlicensed".
Part 97 = licensed
Part 15 = unlicensed


Dave K8MN

Dave,

You are correct, of course. Also, using 20 meters for a 40 mile away
contact would not sit favourably with many folks and might be looked upon
unfavourably by the FCC. Certainly neither I nor many folks would
intentionally interfere with anyone. The unlicensed devices are not
protected and must put up with any interference. Although there exist some
filters to protect amateurs (and likely other users of rf spectrum), they
are not overly efficient. They would tend (I would think) to distort the
BPL somewhat - and the higher the speed, the less distortion the modems can
put up with.

I probably shouldn't even have posted. These were indeed my thoughts, but
the reality is that much of the posting (certainly much of mine) is not
really related to policy. BPL would be related, but most of the posts are
intended to inflame rather than discuss.

Your point, Dave, is well made and is, in fact, current policy with the FCC.
I'd like to think this stuff could coexist with various HF/VHF
communications, but have *severe* reservations about it; especially after
W1RFI and others went through areas with BPL and put the video on the net.

Actually, the BPL question should cause many folks to try and reach some
kind of argreement rather than the constant flames. BPL will affect
amateurs who have passed code exams, amateurs who have not taken a code
exam, CBers, SWL enthusiasts and others.

Certainly there will be 'attacks' (if you will) on some of the UHF/SHF
amateur bands. Some accomodations will have to be made, hopefully with some
spectrum replacement. Pagers and cellphones require bandwidth and now we
have cellphones that take (and transmit) pictures. Wireless cameras will
pass information over the air. The cameras will, most likely, be very low
power and not a concern. Cellphones and similar devices, along with many
other users (hey, digital tv has arrived) will make some demands.
Hopefully, the FCC will try and accomodate everyone as much as possible
(however, don't hold your breath on any government agency - both Republicans
and Democrats are beholden to various, albeit often different, special
interest groups).

What amazes me is that this *one* interest (the power companies with BPL)
may well be allowed to wreck havoc with many (far more than just amateur,
which is what some folks think) users. I'm not even sure how inexpensively
BPL could be rolled out in a rural area. They would either need some kind
of boosters or run a *lot* of rf power at the source. Maybe I'm wrong, but
my thinking is that BPL would likely be targeted at suburbs where many might
live too far away for DSL, but the distribution costs for BPL might not be
too much.

In any case, thanks for your input, Dave.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
William wrote:
Your entire response is conspiracy to commit an illegal act:
intentional interference.

Dear Beeping Bill:

How can a licensed user intentionally interfere with an unlicensed user?

You might want to consider that word "unlicensed".
Part 97 = licensed
Part 15 = unlicensed


Dave K8MN


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.592 / Virus Database: 375 - Release Date: 2/18/04

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

What amazes me is that this *one* interest (the power companies with BPL)
may well be allowed to wreck havoc with many (far more than just amateur,
which is what some folks think) users. I'm not even sure how
inexpensively
BPL could be rolled out in a rural area. They would either need some kind
of boosters or run a *lot* of rf power at the source. Maybe I'm wrong,
but
my thinking is that BPL would likely be targeted at suburbs where many
might
live too far away for DSL, but the distribution costs for BPL might not be
too much.

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. 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. 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.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

You are correct, of course. Also, using 20 meters for a 40 mile away
contact would not sit favourably with many folks and might be looked upon
unfavourably by the FCC. Certainly neither I nor many folks would
intentionally interfere with anyone. The unlicensed devices are not
protected and must put up with any interference. Although there exist some
filters to protect amateurs (and likely other users of rf spectrum), they
are not overly efficient. They would tend (I would think) to distort the
BPL somewhat - and the higher the speed, the less distortion the modems can
put up with.

I probably shouldn't even have posted. These were indeed my thoughts, but
the reality is that much of the posting (certainly much of mine) is not
really related to policy. BPL would be related, but most of the posts are
intended to inflame rather than discuss.

Your point, Dave, is well made and is, in fact, current policy with the FCC.
I'd like to think this stuff could coexist with various HF/VHF
communications, but have *severe* reservations about it; especially after
W1RFI and others went through areas with BPL and put the video on the net.

Actually, the BPL question should cause many folks to try and reach some
kind of argreement rather than the constant flames. BPL will affect
amateurs who have passed code exams, amateurs who have not taken a code
exam, CBers, SWL enthusiasts and others.

Certainly there will be 'attacks' (if you will) on some of the UHF/SHF
amateur bands. Some accomodations will have to be made, hopefully with some
spectrum replacement. Pagers and cellphones require bandwidth and now we
have cellphones that take (and transmit) pictures. Wireless cameras will
pass information over the air. The cameras will, most likely, be very low
power and not a concern. Cellphones and similar devices, along with many
other users (hey, digital tv has arrived) will make some demands.
Hopefully, the FCC will try and accomodate everyone as much as possible
(however, don't hold your breath on any government agency - both Republicans
and Democrats are beholden to various, albeit often different, special
interest groups).

What amazes me is that this *one* interest (the power companies with BPL)
may well be allowed to wreck havoc with many (far more than just amateur,
which is what some folks think) users. I'm not even sure how inexpensively
BPL could be rolled out in a rural area. They would either need some kind
of boosters or run a *lot* of rf power at the source. Maybe I'm wrong, but
my thinking is that BPL would likely be targeted at suburbs where many might
live too far away for DSL, but the distribution costs for BPL might not be
too much.

In any case, thanks for your input, Dave.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

Glad you found an ally in your scheme to interfere. But you should
take it off-line to work out the details. Public postings of
stupidity of such magnitude really won't endear y/our cause to the
FCC. Best of luck.