| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
BPL NPRM Approved
Broadband over Power Lines has been approved for a NPRM by the full 5
commissioners of the FCC. What this means for all short wave listeners is that once BPL is deployed a SWL is not protected by any interference caused by BPL transmissions. SWL's use part 15 devices and most accept any interference. If BPL interfered with local Radio or TV broadcast then the licensee of those stations could complain, however I doubt if any SWL in America will be able to get a international broadcaster to complain to a utility company about BPL interference. Basically this could lead to the death of shortwave listening and ham radio is equally threatened. Ham radio and CB operators will face irate neighbors who have their BPL Internet connection interfered with by transmissions. I can easily see enraged neighbors calling their congress person complaining about the 'CBer' wiping out all the Internet connections in their neighborhoods and congress quickly passing a law placing the burden on the Ham Radio and CB Operator not to interfere with Internet BPL. The FCC has allowed the beginning of the end of HF operation by allowing BPL to use HF frequencies. IMHO -- Best Regards, Keith NW Oregon Radio http://kilowatt-radio.org/ http://linux.com http://freebsd.org http://apple.com |
It may work, but I question how well. One reason for granting permission is
to extend internet to rural areas that can't be served by conventinal means. This Summer may prove whether it will be feasible or not. If the energy grid goes down, no one will be surfing on power lines. There is concern about the stability of the power grid and its vulnerability to terrorists and wackos. I question surfers' personal safety and security using a power line setup. I already have a great deal of interefernce all up and down the bands from some sort of constant computer signal in the area - power line transmission does not turn me on. It seems like recycling old rickety infrastucture to use new technology whose needs are not going to be well met by a means of transmission that is insecure and unreliable. Beside that, increasing the traffic on circuits already maxed out by spam and hackers is going to do nothing good to existing users of the internet. The Service Providers already lack sufficient bandwidth, and increasing traffic will not improve service if the providers cannot provide enough servers and secure enough transmission lines. To crash a program or a computer it is only necessary to gable enough ones and zeros - maybe even just one. "Keith" wrote in message ... Broadband over Power Lines has been approved for a NPRM by the full 5 commissioners of the FCC. What this means for all short wave listeners is that once BPL is deployed a SWL is not protected by any interference caused by BPL transmissions. SWL's use part 15 devices and most accept any interference. If BPL interfered with local Radio or TV broadcast then the licensee of those stations could complain, however I doubt if any SWL in America will be able to get a international broadcaster to complain to a utility company about BPL interference. Basically this could lead to the death of shortwave listening and ham radio is equally threatened. Ham radio and CB operators will face irate neighbors who have their BPL Internet connection interfered with by transmissions. I can easily see enraged neighbors calling their congress person complaining about the 'CBer' wiping out all the Internet connections in their neighborhoods and congress quickly passing a law placing the burden on the Ham Radio and CB Operator not to interfere with Internet BPL. The FCC has allowed the beginning of the end of HF operation by allowing BPL to use HF frequencies. IMHO -- Best Regards, Keith NW Oregon Radio http://kilowatt-radio.org/ http://linux.com http://freebsd.org http://apple.com |
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. |
Keith,
Don't worry about the neighbors on this one. This could indeed become a tacky situation. Since amateurs are supposed to used the minimum amount of power for reliable communications, some coordination via the internet/telephone may be in order. You pick a frequency with a lot of interference from BPL. This means that both ends will have to use substantial power. Where there is an egress, there also exists an ingress; i.e., amateur transmissions will cause problems for BPL. At this point, complaints may well be made. The amateur will also have to enter a complaint. At this point, push is gonna come to shove. I suspect that some government/public communications will also have a problem. Obviously, they don't want to run much up into VHF or there would be a *ton* of problems, but there will have to be a point that someone either says we need reasonable coordination and protection - or - to heck with it, big money gets everything. Notice how (at least in my newspaper today) they are starting to talk about cutting social security? Not because it is going broke; rather, because the feds are 'borrowing' these funds to keep the deficite only rediculous rather than insane. The feds have to pay it back (and they already want to welch on it). It is about time that we see in print what the government *really* wants. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "Keith" wrote in message ... Broadband over Power Lines has been approved for a NPRM by the full 5 commissioners of the FCC. What this means for all short wave listeners is that once BPL is deployed a SWL is not protected by any interference caused by BPL transmissions. SWL's use part 15 devices and most accept any interference. If BPL interfered with local Radio or TV broadcast then the licensee of those stations could complain, however I doubt if any SWL in America will be able to get a international broadcaster to complain to a utility company about BPL interference. Basically this could lead to the death of shortwave listening and ham radio is equally threatened. Ham radio and CB operators will face irate neighbors who have their BPL Internet connection interfered with by transmissions. I can easily see enraged neighbors calling their congress person complaining about the 'CBer' wiping out all the Internet connections in their neighborhoods and congress quickly passing a law placing the burden on the Ham Radio and CB Operator not to interfere with Internet BPL. The FCC has allowed the beginning of the end of HF operation by allowing BPL to use HF frequencies. IMHO -- Best Regards, Keith NW Oregon Radio http://kilowatt-radio.org/ http://linux.com http://freebsd.org http://apple.com --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.588 / Virus Database: 372 - Release Date: 2/13/04 |
Keith wrote in message ...
Broadband over Power Lines has been approved for a NPRM by the full 5 commissioners of the FCC. What this means for all short wave listeners is that once BPL is deployed a SWL is not protected by any interference caused by BPL transmissions. SWL's use part 15 devices and most accept any interference. If BPL interfered with local Radio or TV broadcast then the licensee of those stations could complain, however I doubt if any SWL in America will be able to get a international broadcaster to complain to a utility company about BPL interference. Basically this could lead to the death of shortwave listening and ham radio is equally threatened. Ham radio and CB operators will face irate neighbors who have their BPL Internet connection interfered with by transmissions. I can easily see enraged neighbors calling their congress person complaining about the 'CBer' wiping out all the Internet connections in their neighborhoods and congress quickly passing a law placing the burden on the Ham Radio and CB Operator not to interfere with Internet BPL. The FCC has allowed the beginning of the end of HF operation by allowing BPL to use HF frequencies. IMHO WRONG but never mind. w3rv |
"Maximus" wrote in message ink.net... It may work, but I question how well. One reason for granting permission is to extend internet to rural areas that can't be served by conventinal means. Serving the rural areas happens to be the biggest marketing lie in the whole mess. It won't be econmically feasible in the rural areas. There simply are not enough customers per square mile to justify the amount of equipment (e.g. signal boosters and transformer bypasses) that will have to be installed. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
"Keith" wrote in message ... Broadband over Power Lines has been approved for a NPRM by the full 5 commissioners of the FCC. What this means for all short wave listeners is that once BPL is deployed a SWL is not protected by any interference caused by BPL transmissions. SWL's use part 15 devices and most accept any interference. [snip] It's my guess that interference and the FCC are the least of BPL's problems. Now let's see if it's fast and reliable enough to get people to pay for it. Frank Dresser |
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: "Maximus" wrote in message link.net... It may work, but I question how well. One reason for granting permission is to extend internet to rural areas that can't be served by conventinal means. Serving the rural areas happens to be the biggest marketing lie in the whole mess. It won't be econmically feasible in the rural areas. There simply are not enough customers per square mile to justify the amount of equipment (e.g. signal boosters and transformer bypasses) that will have to be installed. You "know" all those technical things from experience and learning how to twiddle a morse key in amateur radio? :-) Please point to a trade-technical press with detailed technical information on any of the proposed BPL systems. Detailed descriptions including signal levels, not computer simulations based on assumptions. LHA / WMD |
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." |
|
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:
"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 |
"William" wrote in message m... "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. Interfering with a Part 15 device doesn't happen to be illegal. Part 15 devices are not allowed to interfere with any licensed radio service and must accept (i.e. tolerate) interference from any licensed radio service. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"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 |
Dee D. Flint wrote:
Interfering with a Part 15 device doesn't happen to be illegal. Part 15 devices are not allowed to interfere with any licensed radio service and must accept (i.e. tolerate) interference from any licensed radio service. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE If/when BPL gets rolling and big bucks start rolling in to the BPL folks, you don't really think it will remain under Part 15 rules do you? |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
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? Why an NOI and now an NPRM for such a Part 15 device? The rules will change. |
"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. |
William wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in message ... 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? Why an NOI and now an NPRM for such a Part 15 device? Read them and the answers will become clear. The rules will change. Have you seen anything in the notices indicating that BPL is about to become part of a licensed service? The question put to you was: How can a licensed user intentionally interfere with an unlicensed user? I'll add: 1) Is a Part 15 user required to stop interfering with a licensed operation in any service? 2) Is a Part 15 user required to accept interference from a licensed operation? Have fun with these and see if you can get your rant back on track. Dave K8MN |
William wrote:
"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. You have a rare ability to see the facts spread out before you and to come to an incorrect conclusion. There was nothing I wrote which would make me an ally of anyone in a "scheme to interfere". I pointed out some reality. I asked a question. Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
You have a rare ability to see the facts spread out before you and to come to an incorrect conclusion. There was nothing I wrote which would make me an ally of anyone in a "scheme to interfere". I pointed out some reality. I asked a question. Dave K8MN Dave, whenever I come across something posted here that lacks "good amateur practice," your name pops up. |
William wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in message ... You have a rare ability to see the facts spread out before you and to come to an incorrect conclusion. There was nothing I wrote which would make me an ally of anyone in a "scheme to interfere". I pointed out some reality. I asked a question. Dave, whenever I come across something posted here that lacks "good amateur practice," your name pops up. It would appear that my name pops up because you attempt to make an association where none exists. I'm not involved in a scheme. 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. Dave K8MN |
|
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 |
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: Interfering with a Part 15 device doesn't happen to be illegal. Part 15 devices are not allowed to interfere with any licensed radio service and must accept (i.e. tolerate) interference from any licensed radio service. Riiiiiight. Do your TVI thing, Mama Dee, interfere with pacemakers and wired telephones and CB radios and whatever you want. You have the "legal right" to do that from your federal authorization? Must be all that "interest" thing in hum radio. LHA / WMD |
In article , "Jim Hampton"
writes: 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. Of course. "Interest." Feel free to "return favors" to cardiac patients using pacemakers and other medical devices using RF coupling. Mama Dee says that sort of thing is LEGAL because YOU HAVE A LICENSE and the federal AUTHORIZATION to do such. Feel free to generate TVI with your authorized amateur radio license even though broadcast TV is also authorized. "Return with interest." I'll bet Mama Dee will say that is perfectly legal, too. Feel free to spritz your neighbors with RF 24/7. You are authorized to transmit and it is so difficult to measure EM radiation levels by amateurs. "Return with interest" all the irritation they caused you. "Interest" in amateur radio. LHA / WMD |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com...
"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. It's worse than that Dee. Power lines used for BPL will have very significant losses per block or however you might measure it and there is a distinct limit to the number of amplifiers which can be used per injection point. Bottom line is that BPL won't work unless it's periodically and frequently fed by a fiber optic or cable TV type "primary source", a backbone. The BPL system currently being installed in Manassas VA will make use of a municipally-funded fiber optic backbone. The simple fact of the matter is that BPL will not happen in the boonies unless it's fed into the boonies on some sort of backbone. So if Farmer Jones doesn't already have cable TV, DSL/ISDN or fiber optic service available the probability of Jones getting a BPL feed is nil. The FCC commissioners who are hyping BPL are either stupid beyond belief or are lying thru their teeth. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE w3rv |
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message om... The simple fact of the matter is that BPL will not happen in the boonies unless it's fed into the boonies on some sort of backbone. So if Farmer Jones doesn't already have cable TV, DSL/ISDN or fiber optic service available the probability of Jones getting a BPL feed is nil. The FCC commissioners who are hyping BPL are either stupid beyond belief or are lying thru their teeth. w3rv If not "stupid beyond belief", then they just aren't bothering to read up on the realities of implementation. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
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. 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. "No Millionaire Left Behind" ??? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane a.k.a. Peter J. Paranoid |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , "Jim Hampton" writes: 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. Of course. "Interest." Feel free to "return favors" to cardiac patients using pacemakers and other medical devices using RF coupling. Mama Dee says that sort of thing is LEGAL because YOU HAVE A LICENSE and the federal AUTHORIZATION to do such. Feel free to generate TVI with your authorized amateur radio license even though broadcast TV is also authorized. "Return with interest." I'll bet Mama Dee will say that is perfectly legal, too. Feel free to spritz your neighbors with RF 24/7. You are authorized to transmit and it is so difficult to measure EM radiation levels by amateurs. "Return with interest" all the irritation they caused you. "Interest" in amateur radio. LHA / WMD So just how would Dave's 10 meter beacon generate TVI, interfere with pacemakers or other medical devices? There are many 10 meter beacons in operation, are they doing all this interference you blabber about? How about all the hams using 10 meters and all the other ham frequencies on a daily basis? Are they knocking out cardiac patients who have pacemakers. Too bad you were never able to pass the ham exam, then you would know better than to make the absurd statements you do, just chalk it up to someone too old for his time I guess. If BPL gets rolling in my neck of the woods, I will probably put up a 10 meter beacon as well, all legal. You wanna make something of it? |
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. |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
William wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... You have a rare ability to see the facts spread out before you and to come to an incorrect conclusion. There was nothing I wrote which would make me an ally of anyone in a "scheme to interfere". I pointed out some reality. I asked a question. Dave, whenever I come across something posted here that lacks "good amateur practice," your name pops up. It would appear that my name pops up because you attempt to make an association where none exists. I'm not involved in a scheme. If you say so (wink). 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. |
|
(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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:38 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com