(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.

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?

You were asked a specific and direct question in another thread,
ironically about BPL, however you choose to ignore it.

Bravo for me. Proves a point, but I see you still continue to
hound and antagonize others about BPL issues without offering one bit
of technical enlightenment about it yourself.

Not surprising since the answer will unravell you yet again.

Care to stop being a fool long enough to go to that thread and
answer the question?

Steve, K4YZ

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 . .

(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

The big sell points are "no installatio! Just plug it in!" and the extreme
portability. "Every power socket in your house is now a broadband internet
connection" - "easier than dialup!" etc.

Of course the same is true of the various 802.11 alphabet soup systems coming
out too - and those are faster!

I'm not up to speed on the methods which will be used to transport the
802.11 type signals into buildings 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. 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. 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 current show-stopper for the 802.11 crowd seems to be a lack of
standards and coordination. Which is very typical of fledgling
technologies, everybody wants their pet system to become the alpha
technology. 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. When that finally happens I expect that what
little bits and pieces of BPL might actually still be around will be
buried and forgotten. Quicky.

As as far as serving pore stranded Farmer Jones' needs if he's really
hot for broadband access all he has to do is sign up for dish service.
Which has been out there for *years*.

None of them are engineers - they're "regulators".

They're bush-league (pun intended)politicians as usual and don't have
to be engineers, their job is listen to the FCC technical staff,
that's why the FCC has technical experts on the payroll. As if they
care about any "technical details" like obliterating HF radio with
BPL, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. sed "Just DO it" and that's that. I've
been wondering if Commerce is being leaned on about watering down the
upcoming NTIA BPL study. I'll just bet it is.

And they're tasked by your
buddy Shrub

You jest!

to come up with whizbang technocures like hydrogen fuel and BPL.
Right!

And Ralph Nader is going to run again. GEts worse every day.

Comic relief. Beats Ross Perot.

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

The big sell points are "no installatio! Just plug it in!" and the extreme
portability. "Every power socket in your house is now a broadband internet
connection" - "easier than dialup!" etc.

Of course the same is true of the various 802.11 alphabet soup systems
coming out too - and those are faster!

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?

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.

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.

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, everybody wants their pet system to become the alpha
technology. 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.

BINGO! I knew you'd get it. Just like VHS smacked Beta's rear years ago.

hen that finally happens I expect that what
little bits and pieces of BPL might actually still be around will be
buried and forgotten. Quicky.

Hopefully they'll not get off the ground. But it still has to be fought because
once they get established they can set a precedent for other bad technologies.

As as far as serving pore stranded Farmer Jones' needs if he's really
hot for broadband access all he has to do is sign up for dish service.
Which has been out there for *years*.

The reason Farmer Jones doesn't have DSL or a cable modem is the same reason he
won't have BPL: not enough customers per mile.

None of them are engineers - they're "regulators".

They're bush-league (pun intended)politicians as usual and don't have
to be engineers, their job is listen to the FCC technical staff,
that's why the FCC has technical experts on the payroll.

But they don't have to do what the techies say.

As if they
care about any "technical details" like obliterating HF radio with
BPL, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. sed "Just DO it" and that's that.

Like code waivers from Papa Bush.

I've
been wondering if Commerce is being leaned on about watering down the
upcoming NTIA BPL study. I'll just bet it is.

Who knows?

And they're tasked by your
buddy Shrub

You jest!

Not at all. Just good ol
thousand-points-of-light-republican-coat-no-millionaire-left-behind-trickl
e-down business as usual.....

to come up with whizbang technocures like hydrogen fuel and BPL.
Right!

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.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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