"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Jim:

I don't think I have ever made a statement or post to "reduce testing" or
even make it one question easier...

You are attempting to sneak in an argument of your own design and form a
false to what is being argued. Most, if not all, this is about is dumping
morse, an un-needed, under-used, ancient form of communication that a very
good portion of amateurs never use...

If they have some way of using ~1.72 - 80Mhz for BPL, go for it, at the
most they will only interfere with an insignificant number of hobby
users... business/corporate america can adapt to other freqs, indeed, the
boost on the whole to industry by updating the net will out weigh any
negative effects. Military can use satellites...

John


John, 60 meters is being tried for amateur use on a secondary basis - and
will likely experience some interference for the primary users.

As Len mentioned, there still are a lot of services using HF. The cellphone
and Internet set are likely not aware of them. Users like low-band VHF used
for long-haul trucking (somewhere around 40 MHz; I'm not exactly sure).
Also, Channel 2 television runs from 54 to 60 MHz. Channel 3 television
runs from 60 to 66 MHz. That still falls below 80 MHz and can be interfered
with. Not likely in the primary service area, but get near the fringe and
forget the picture with BPL. Of course, BPL will likely try and run in the
cities where the cost is lower. Of course, many folks are on cable and/or
satellite, so that won't bother most.

One needs to look at the whole picture. There *are* services other than
amateur radio in the HF spectrum. I hope you don't think that amateur radio
has 50% or more of the HF spectrum


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

Jim:

I don't think this country runs on HF, some others might... if so, our BPL
interference will not be a bother to them...

John

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:13:09 +0000, Jim Hampton wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Jim:

I don't think I have ever made a statement or post to "reduce testing" or
even make it one question easier...

You are attempting to sneak in an argument of your own design and form a
false to what is being argued. Most, if not all, this is about is dumping
morse, an un-needed, under-used, ancient form of communication that a very
good portion of amateurs never use...

If they have some way of using ~1.72 - 80Mhz for BPL, go for it, at the
most they will only interfere with an insignificant number of hobby
users... business/corporate america can adapt to other freqs, indeed, the
boost on the whole to industry by updating the net will out weigh any
negative effects. Military can use satellites...

John


John, 60 meters is being tried for amateur use on a secondary basis - and
will likely experience some interference for the primary users.

As Len mentioned, there still are a lot of services using HF. The cellphone
and Internet set are likely not aware of them. Users like low-band VHF used
for long-haul trucking (somewhere around 40 MHz; I'm not exactly sure).
Also, Channel 2 television runs from 54 to 60 MHz. Channel 3 television
runs from 60 to 66 MHz. That still falls below 80 MHz and can be interfered
with. Not likely in the primary service area, but get near the fringe and
forget the picture with BPL. Of course, BPL will likely try and run in the
cities where the cost is lower. Of course, many folks are on cable and/or
satellite, so that won't bother most.

One needs to look at the whole picture. There *are* services other than
amateur radio in the HF spectrum. I hope you don't think that amateur radio
has 50% or more of the HF spectrum


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

Jim Hampton wrote:

Since you purport to have a ee degree, you might explain how some signals
held below 300 KHz could possibly serve a number of users (say in a
neighborhood) at 3 megabaud (or higher) rates? My $29.95 per month ADSL
runs from 4,000 kbits to 7,000 kbits per second. I downloaded I.E. 6 at 695
kilobytes per second, so it is not a fluke. Will BPL do as well? BPL isn't
going to be used in the countryside; they want to penetrate cities where the
cost per user will be cheap. The problem is that cable (Roadrunner) and DSL
are running $29.95 per month - oh, DSL is now available (high speed) at
$24.95 per month. Of course, satellite can also supply high-speed Internet
connections. Perhaps BPL can do it for $10.00 per month? LOL

Some folks say BPL should be subsidized for a time to "stimulate
competition".

For what it is worth, Len is correct; the BPL runs from just above the AM
broadcast band (in the U.S.) to around 80 MHz. Even at, say, 1.8 MHz, there
can be considerable radiation.

It should be remembered that there are a number of different BPL
technologies being pushed. There's no one standard. Compare that to
competing systems!

The easiest solution is simply to allow it, but not allow signals any
greater than those currently permitted for unintentional radiators.

IIRC, that's what FCC allowed.

The problem is that the current standards were meant for point-source
individual radiators, like a computer monitor. IOW devices, not
systems.

One of the big problems with BPL is that you can't get far enough away
from it. If my neighbor has a noisy computer monitor, it cannot get any
closer to my ham radio stuff than the property line.

But if even one of my neighbors has BPL, and we're fed off the same
power-company transformer, all of *my* house and service wiring becomes
a BPL radiator, whether I'm a BPL user or not.

If
done, only a small number of amateurs would likely be affected.

That depends on how effective the power lines are as antennas. A noisy
point source device like a computer monitor is not a very good antenna,
and it's normally inside a building, with various things around it that
provide some shielding/attenuation. Aerial power lines are up where
they can do a good job of radiating!

IMHO, one of the big reasons BPL is so new, with no previously-existing
regulations addressing it, is that it used to be that nobody would
dream of even proposing a system using HF on power lines, because they
*knew* FCC would shoot them down big time.

If I recall properly (and anyone is free to correct these numbers), BPL
proponents had argued that BPL, as originally proposed, would only raise the
background noise some 10 dB.

Allegedly. According to their models.

Ten decibels is, of course, 1 Bell, which is a
10 times increase in power (in this case, noise power). That is quite
unacceptable. Period.

To us radio types, yes. But to an administration looking for a silver
bullet, HF radio is a legacy-mode of communications, as opposed to "the
internets"...

I know that a large number of folks would like to reduce testing (not just
Morse) to as close to zero as possible.

Yup. One of the good things about 05-235 is that FCC turned down all
such proposals. No free upgrades. No easier entry level license.

Not this time, anyway.

Did you read the "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century" paper that led to
the second NCVEC proposal? Pretty scary.

My former employer discontinued apprenticeships a while back. Originally,
they were 4 year apprenticeships; later, they became 3 year
apprenticeships - but the 3 year apprenticeship conferred an associates
degree upon graduation. So, the 4 year apprenticeship must have been a
watered-down apprenticeship, right?

Indeed.

I see where one state in this country is now changing its' education system
to take a strong stand against evolution and make some statements
encouraging "intelligent design".

"Creationism in a cheap tuxedo"...

Next thing ya know they'll be burning copies of Inherit The Wind.

Speaking of that associate's degree apprenticeship, they stated that it
includes a lot of electronic theory. I saw the books. I was surprised that
they actually mentioned Norton and Thevenin equivalents, but they were
sorely lacking in much detail. No ac theory (forget complex impedance).
Simply series and parallel dc circuits. No bridges. No Delta Wye
conversions. No multiple dc sources either. Perhaps a maximum of 4
resistors in an extremely simple "circuit".

Good heavens..

Whilst you and others seem intent on reducing testing (I have no problem
with Morse - either for or against), I cannot agree with simplifying the
theory/operating/law sections of the testing. I see other areas of the
country which are similarly intent on watering down much other than amateur
radio.

Because it's 'too hard'

You watch - when the Morse Code test is gone, there will be a flurry of
upgrades and some new licenses, but it won't last. Then there will be
renewed efforts to reduce the written tests still more. And they will
use the same
arguments that were used against the Morse Code tests.

Why, oh why, are we the number 16 nation in the world in broadband
penetration (oh, BPL, right?)? We are far from number one with cell phones.
We are down around number 20 in life expectancy.

There's a bunch of reasons for that:

1) Lots of old infrastructure
2) Low population density
3) Lack of exercise, unhealthy lifestyles, lack of access to routine
medical care (how many people use the ER as their family doctor?)
4) Poverty, ignorance, lack of community
5) Diverse population
6) Misplaced priorities

Yep, better argue against Darwin. All those liberal left-leaning
universities must be the problem. Perhaps we can chase away learned folks
the way Germany did 70 years ago or so. Werner Von Bran sure was an asset
to our country when he left Germany. Maybe we can return the favor and
chase some folks out of this country.

I've already been told here that I should leave, rather than even
suggest that
energy independence might require some hard choices....

I'm beginning to see why some of the hams argue so vehemently. I think it
has something more than just Morse behind it.

BINGO!

For about 30 years I've watched the standards erode, a little at a
time. At each step I was told it was "no big deal", I was an "old head"
and had to "accept change". I was told it was unreasonable to expect
people to
learn stuff like Morse Code or most of what was on the writtens.

Yet the growth in amateur radio was greater under the old standards.
Look how
US ham radio grew in the 1970s, then the 1980s, and finally the 1990s.


Take a look at what is happening. Read some newspapers (best look outside
the U.S. for less-biased reporting). Check some numbers (such as poverty,
Internet penetration, life expectancy). No, we are not in bad shape, but
nowhere near the top where most folks simply *think* we are. Just because
the administration says were are doing well doesn't make it so.

I think a big part of that is due to the export of good jobs, like
manufacturing, out of the USA. Each step is sold to us as "no big
deal", but the overall effect is staggering.

Remember Ross Perot and the "giant sucking sound" over NAFTA? Now we
have CAFTA!

I tried to buy a new power drill today. Just a plain 3/8' chuck VSR
drill with a cord. Try to find one that's not made in China!

Check this out:

http://tinyurl.com/c9txx

You see the leading edge of it because you're in Rochester, a city that
was manufacturing- and technology-heavy. Kodak, Xerox, etc. Plus
educational institutions to feed those industries.

73 de Jim, N2EY

John Smith, CBer blathered:

The majority of people who communicate use the internet (well, phones and cell phones too.)

drivel snipped-----flushed!

Sorry Mr. CBer,

If BPL emissions interfere with amateur radio signals BPL will be in violation of FCC regulations. Hams are all for improved technology, we are not in favor of FLAWED technology. Cable and Satellite technology already runs rings around anything BPL could dream of. The future is in Wi-Fi Johnny Cornhole. Get used to it.

John Smith wrote:
Jim:

I don't think I have ever made a statement or post to "reduce testing" or
even make it one question easier...

You are attempting to sneak in an argument of your own design and form a
false to what is being argued. Most, if not all, this is about is dumping
morse, an un-needed, under-used, ancient form of communication that a very
good portion of amateurs never use...

If they have some way of using ~1.72 - 80Mhz for BPL, go for it, at the
most they will only interfere with an insignificant number of hobby
users... business/corporate america can adapt to other freqs, indeed, the
boost on the whole to industry by updating the net will out weigh any
negative effects. Military can use satellites...

John

Wow! That car was really moving fast. Wonder what kind it was.
Ohhhhh, it's a *Dodge*.

Dave K8MN

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:49:43 +0000, Jim Hampton wrote:


John,

Since you purport to have a ee degree, you might explain how some signals
held below 300 KHz could possibly serve a number of users (say in a
neighborhood) at 3 megabaud (or higher) rates? My $29.95 per month ADSL
runs from 4,000 kbits to 7,000 kbits per second. I downloaded I.E. 6 at 695
kilobytes per second, so it is not a fluke. Will BPL do as well? BPL isn't
going to be used in the countryside; they want to penetrate cities where the
cost per user will be cheap. The problem is that cable (Roadrunner) and DSL
are running $29.95 per month - oh, DSL is now available (high speed) at
$24.95 per month. Of course, satellite can also supply high-speed Internet
connections. Perhaps BPL can do it for $10.00 per month? LOL

For what it is worth, Len is correct; the BPL runs from just above the AM
broadcast band (in the U.S.) to around 80 MHz. Even at, say, 1.8 MHz, there
can be considerable radiation.

The easiest solution is simply to allow it, but not allow signals any
greater than those currently permitted for unintentional radiators. If
done, only a small number of amateurs would likely be affected.

If I recall properly (and anyone is free to correct these numbers), BPL
proponents had argued that BPL, as originally proposed, would only raise the
background noise some 10 dB. Ten decibels is, of course, 1 Bell, which is a
10 times increase in power (in this case, noise power). That is quite
unacceptable. Period.

I know that a large number of folks would like to reduce testing (not just
Morse) to as close to zero as possible.

My former employer discontinued apprenticeships a while back. Originally,
they were 4 year apprenticeships; later, they became 3 year
apprenticeships - but the 3 year apprenticeship conferred an associates
degree upon graduation. So, the 4 year apprenticeship must have been a
watered-down apprenticeship, right?

I see where one state in this country is now changing its' education system
to take a strong stand against evolution and make some statements
encouraging "intelligent design".

Speaking of that associate's degree apprenticeship, they stated that it
includes a lot of electronic theory. I saw the books. I was surprised that
they actually mentioned Norton and Thevenin equivalents, but they were
sorely lacking in much detail. No ac theory (forget complex impedance).
Simply series and parallel dc circuits. No bridges. No Delta Wye
conversions. No multiple dc sources either. Perhaps a maximum of 4
resistors in an extremely simple "circuit".

Whilst you and others seem intent on reducing testing (I have no problem
with Morse - either for or against), I cannot agree with simplifying the
theory/operating/law sections of the testing. I see other areas of the
country which are similarly intent on watering down much other than amateur
radio.

Why, oh why, are we the number 16 nation in the world in broadband
penetration (oh, BPL, right?)? We are far from number one with cell phones.
We are down around number 20 in life expectancy.

Yep, better argue against Darwin. All those liberal left-leaning
universities must be the problem. Perhaps we can chase away learned folks
the way Germany did 70 years ago or so. Werner Von Bran sure was an asset
to our country when he left Germany. Maybe we can return the favor and
chase some folks out of this country.

I'm beginning to see why some of the hams argue so vehemently. I think it
has something more than just Morse behind it.

Take a look at what is happening. Read some newspapers (best look outside
the U.S. for less-biased reporting). Check some numbers (such as poverty,
Internet penetration, life expectancy). No, we are not in bad shape, but
nowhere near the top where most folks simply *think* we are. Just because
the administration says were are doing well doesn't make it so.


Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

Dave:

The Doc should have warned you, mixing alcohol with your meds can have
that effect... when the chemicals and alcohol have worn off, things
should return to normal, hopefully...

John

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:03:43 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:

John Smith wrote:
Jim:

I don't think I have ever made a statement or post to "reduce testing" or
even make it one question easier...

You are attempting to sneak in an argument of your own design and form a
false to what is being argued. Most, if not all, this is about is dumping
morse, an un-needed, under-used, ancient form of communication that a very
good portion of amateurs never use...

If they have some way of using ~1.72 - 80Mhz for BPL, go for it, at the
most they will only interfere with an insignificant number of hobby
users... business/corporate america can adapt to other freqs, indeed, the
boost on the whole to industry by updating the net will out weigh any
negative effects. Military can use satellites...

John

Wow! That car was really moving fast. Wonder what kind it was.
Ohhhhh, it's a *Dodge*.

Dave K8MN

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:49:43 +0000, Jim Hampton wrote:


John,

Since you purport to have a ee degree, you might explain how some signals
held below 300 KHz could possibly serve a number of users (say in a
neighborhood) at 3 megabaud (or higher) rates? My $29.95 per month ADSL
runs from 4,000 kbits to 7,000 kbits per second. I downloaded I.E. 6 at 695
kilobytes per second, so it is not a fluke. Will BPL do as well? BPL isn't
going to be used in the countryside; they want to penetrate cities where the
cost per user will be cheap. The problem is that cable (Roadrunner) and DSL
are running $29.95 per month - oh, DSL is now available (high speed) at
$24.95 per month. Of course, satellite can also supply high-speed Internet
connections. Perhaps BPL can do it for $10.00 per month? LOL

For what it is worth, Len is correct; the BPL runs from just above the AM
broadcast band (in the U.S.) to around 80 MHz. Even at, say, 1.8 MHz, there
can be considerable radiation.

The easiest solution is simply to allow it, but not allow signals any
greater than those currently permitted for unintentional radiators. If
done, only a small number of amateurs would likely be affected.

If I recall properly (and anyone is free to correct these numbers), BPL
proponents had argued that BPL, as originally proposed, would only raise the
background noise some 10 dB. Ten decibels is, of course, 1 Bell, which is a
10 times increase in power (in this case, noise power). That is quite
unacceptable. Period.

I know that a large number of folks would like to reduce testing (not just
Morse) to as close to zero as possible.

My former employer discontinued apprenticeships a while back. Originally,
they were 4 year apprenticeships; later, they became 3 year
apprenticeships - but the 3 year apprenticeship conferred an associates
degree upon graduation. So, the 4 year apprenticeship must have been a
watered-down apprenticeship, right?

I see where one state in this country is now changing its' education system
to take a strong stand against evolution and make some statements
encouraging "intelligent design".

Speaking of that associate's degree apprenticeship, they stated that it
includes a lot of electronic theory. I saw the books. I was surprised that
they actually mentioned Norton and Thevenin equivalents, but they were
sorely lacking in much detail. No ac theory (forget complex impedance).
Simply series and parallel dc circuits. No bridges. No Delta Wye
conversions. No multiple dc sources either. Perhaps a maximum of 4
resistors in an extremely simple "circuit".

Whilst you and others seem intent on reducing testing (I have no problem
with Morse - either for or against), I cannot agree with simplifying the
theory/operating/law sections of the testing. I see other areas of the
country which are similarly intent on watering down much other than amateur
radio.

Why, oh why, are we the number 16 nation in the world in broadband
penetration (oh, BPL, right?)? We are far from number one with cell phones.
We are down around number 20 in life expectancy.

Yep, better argue against Darwin. All those liberal left-leaning
universities must be the problem. Perhaps we can chase away learned folks
the way Germany did 70 years ago or so. Werner Von Bran sure was an asset
to our country when he left Germany. Maybe we can return the favor and
chase some folks out of this country.

I'm beginning to see why some of the hams argue so vehemently. I think it
has something more than just Morse behind it.

Take a look at what is happening. Read some newspapers (best look outside
the U.S. for less-biased reporting). Check some numbers (such as poverty,
Internet penetration, life expectancy). No, we are not in bad shape, but
nowhere near the top where most folks simply *think* we are. Just because
the administration says were are doing well doesn't make it so.


Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

John Smith wrote:
Dave:

The Doc should have warned you, mixing alcohol with your meds can have
that effect... when the chemicals and alcohol have worn off, things
should return to normal, hopefully...

John

What effect would that be, "John"--the ability to see you dodging Jim's
points?

Dave K8MN

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:03:43 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:


John Smith wrote:

Jim:

I don't think I have ever made a statement or post to "reduce testing" or
even make it one question easier...

You are attempting to sneak in an argument of your own design and form a
false to what is being argued. Most, if not all, this is about is dumping
morse, an un-needed, under-used, ancient form of communication that a very
good portion of amateurs never use...

If they have some way of using ~1.72 - 80Mhz for BPL, go for it, at the
most they will only interfere with an insignificant number of hobby
users... business/corporate america can adapt to other freqs, indeed, the
boost on the whole to industry by updating the net will out weigh any
negative effects. Military can use satellites...

John

Wow! That car was really moving fast. Wonder what kind it was.
Ohhhhh, it's a *Dodge*.

Dave K8MN


On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:49:43 +0000, Jim Hampton wrote:



John,

Since you purport to have a ee degree, you might explain how some signals
held below 300 KHz could possibly serve a number of users (say in a
neighborhood) at 3 megabaud (or higher) rates? My $29.95 per month ADSL
runs from 4,000 kbits to 7,000 kbits per second. I downloaded I.E. 6 at 695
kilobytes per second, so it is not a fluke. Will BPL do as well? BPL isn't
going to be used in the countryside; they want to penetrate cities where the
cost per user will be cheap. The problem is that cable (Roadrunner) and DSL
are running $29.95 per month - oh, DSL is now available (high speed) at
$24.95 per month. Of course, satellite can also supply high-speed Internet
connections. Perhaps BPL can do it for $10.00 per month? LOL

For what it is worth, Len is correct; the BPL runs from just above the AM
broadcast band (in the U.S.) to around 80 MHz. Even at, say, 1.8 MHz, there
can be considerable radiation.

The easiest solution is simply to allow it, but not allow signals any
greater than those currently permitted for unintentional radiators. If
done, only a small number of amateurs would likely be affected.

If I recall properly (and anyone is free to correct these numbers), BPL
proponents had argued that BPL, as originally proposed, would only raise the
background noise some 10 dB. Ten decibels is, of course, 1 Bell, which is a
10 times increase in power (in this case, noise power). That is quite
unacceptable. Period.

I know that a large number of folks would like to reduce testing (not just
Morse) to as close to zero as possible.

My former employer discontinued apprenticeships a while back. Originally,
they were 4 year apprenticeships; later, they became 3 year
apprenticeships - but the 3 year apprenticeship conferred an associates
degree upon graduation. So, the 4 year apprenticeship must have been a
watered-down apprenticeship, right?

I see where one state in this country is now changing its' education system
to take a strong stand against evolution and make some statements
encouraging "intelligent design".

Speaking of that associate's degree apprenticeship, they stated that it
includes a lot of electronic theory. I saw the books. I was surprised that
they actually mentioned Norton and Thevenin equivalents, but they were
sorely lacking in much detail. No ac theory (forget complex impedance).
Simply series and parallel dc circuits. No bridges. No Delta Wye
conversions. No multiple dc sources either. Perhaps a maximum of 4
resistors in an extremely simple "circuit".

Whilst you and others seem intent on reducing testing (I have no problem
with Morse - either for or against), I cannot agree with simplifying the
theory/operating/law sections of the testing. I see other areas of the
country which are similarly intent on watering down much other than amateur
radio.

Why, oh why, are we the number 16 nation in the world in broadband
penetration (oh, BPL, right?)? We are far from number one with cell phones.
We are down around number 20 in life expectancy.

Yep, better argue against Darwin. All those liberal left-leaning
universities must be the problem. Perhaps we can chase away learned folks
the way Germany did 70 years ago or so. Werner Von Bran sure was an asset
to our country when he left Germany. Maybe we can return the favor and
chase some folks out of this country.

I'm beginning to see why some of the hams argue so vehemently. I think it
has something more than just Morse behind it.

Take a look at what is happening. Read some newspapers (best look outside
the U.S. for less-biased reporting). Check some numbers (such as poverty,
Internet penetration, life expectancy). No, we are not in bad shape, but
nowhere near the top where most folks simply *think* we are. Just because
the administration says were are doing well doesn't make it so.


Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

Dave:

"Jims' points" are mostly a ploy to inject points which are not even at
issue.

Some "crystal-ball papers?" I have never seen "futurists" as being any
more accurate then Sylvia Browne, and I am just about as likely to consult
with their forecasts (people with the futurist papers) as I am Sylvia
Browne, history is created by participating, not reading what others will
think it is, or forecast it as being.

On CW being dropped? Well, the FCC is asking for logical, reasonable,
meaningful, coherent, comments on that subject right now--anyone can read
the comments and decide for themselves. Hopefully, the final decision is
made without someone hiding in the woodpile with vested interests... and
purely on the basis of what is good for american citizens, the hobby of
amateur radio and society as a whole... I think someone has woken up to
that fact that there is a stagnant air about it now, and it is becoming
of such insignificant numbers that the level of regulation it now has is
becoming difficult to justify.

On BPL? Well there are a lot of test blocks where that is being
technically tested, evaluated and data is being recorded. I don't think
one needs futurist papers, Sylvia Browne, or some hams opinion--technical
data will make it a reality or not... that final data is not available
yet... I don't think a bunch of aging hams are going to block a
multi-billion dollar a year industry, if it is technically feasibly, I
know some of them think so, but rational men viewing them only grin behind
their backs--but, as long as they only pay attention to their "net
buddy's" they will not have to suffer the embarrassment of coping with
reality...

On amateurs? I think a noticeably number of existing amateurs will be SK
before this year is out, more next year, even more the following year, I
think that is a graph which points towards the bottom, and will drag the
number of general and extra licenses in an almost 1:1 ratio.

On what he thinks of me? He can hold any opinion he likes, indeed, if I
understand my forefathers meanings and intent, I am supposed to uphold
that right of his (and all other americans, even including myself) even if
it costs my life and those of my family, neighbors and friends--so why
would I then, understanding these principles put forth by those men, move
even my little finger to halt him in his pursuits of happiness?

Or, perhaps there is something of deep meaning and paramount importance
which I am failing to see here?

John

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 02:29:20 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:

John Smith wrote:
Dave:

The Doc should have warned you, mixing alcohol with your meds can have
that effect... when the chemicals and alcohol have worn off, things
should return to normal, hopefully...

John

What effect would that be, "John"--the ability to see you dodging Jim's
points?

Dave K8MN

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:03:43 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:


John Smith wrote:

Jim:

I don't think I have ever made a statement or post to "reduce testing" or
even make it one question easier...

You are attempting to sneak in an argument of your own design and form a
false to what is being argued. Most, if not all, this is about is dumping
morse, an un-needed, under-used, ancient form of communication that a very
good portion of amateurs never use...

If they have some way of using ~1.72 - 80Mhz for BPL, go for it, at the
most they will only interfere with an insignificant number of hobby
users... business/corporate america can adapt to other freqs, indeed, the
boost on the whole to industry by updating the net will out weigh any
negative effects. Military can use satellites...

John

Wow! That car was really moving fast. Wonder what kind it was.
Ohhhhh, it's a *Dodge*.

Dave K8MN


On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:49:43 +0000, Jim Hampton wrote:



John,

Since you purport to have a ee degree, you might explain how some signals
held below 300 KHz could possibly serve a number of users (say in a
neighborhood) at 3 megabaud (or higher) rates? My $29.95 per month ADSL
runs from 4,000 kbits to 7,000 kbits per second. I downloaded I.E. 6 at 695
kilobytes per second, so it is not a fluke. Will BPL do as well? BPL isn't
going to be used in the countryside; they want to penetrate cities where the
cost per user will be cheap. The problem is that cable (Roadrunner) and DSL
are running $29.95 per month - oh, DSL is now available (high speed) at
$24.95 per month. Of course, satellite can also supply high-speed Internet
connections. Perhaps BPL can do it for $10.00 per month? LOL

For what it is worth, Len is correct; the BPL runs from just above the AM
broadcast band (in the U.S.) to around 80 MHz. Even at, say, 1.8 MHz, there
can be considerable radiation.

The easiest solution is simply to allow it, but not allow signals any
greater than those currently permitted for unintentional radiators. If
done, only a small number of amateurs would likely be affected.

If I recall properly (and anyone is free to correct these numbers), BPL
proponents had argued that BPL, as originally proposed, would only raise the
background noise some 10 dB. Ten decibels is, of course, 1 Bell, which is a
10 times increase in power (in this case, noise power). That is quite
unacceptable. Period.

I know that a large number of folks would like to reduce testing (not just
Morse) to as close to zero as possible.

My former employer discontinued apprenticeships a while back. Originally,
they were 4 year apprenticeships; later, they became 3 year
apprenticeships - but the 3 year apprenticeship conferred an associates
degree upon graduation. So, the 4 year apprenticeship must have been a
watered-down apprenticeship, right?

I see where one state in this country is now changing its' education system
to take a strong stand against evolution and make some statements
encouraging "intelligent design".

Speaking of that associate's degree apprenticeship, they stated that it
includes a lot of electronic theory. I saw the books. I was surprised that
they actually mentioned Norton and Thevenin equivalents, but they were
sorely lacking in much detail. No ac theory (forget complex impedance).
Simply series and parallel dc circuits. No bridges. No Delta Wye
conversions. No multiple dc sources either. Perhaps a maximum of 4
resistors in an extremely simple "circuit".

Whilst you and others seem intent on reducing testing (I have no problem
with Morse - either for or against), I cannot agree with simplifying the
theory/operating/law sections of the testing. I see other areas of the
country which are similarly intent on watering down much other than amateur
radio.

Why, oh why, are we the number 16 nation in the world in broadband
penetration (oh, BPL, right?)? We are far from number one with cell phones.
We are down around number 20 in life expectancy.

Yep, better argue against Darwin. All those liberal left-leaning
universities must be the problem. Perhaps we can chase away learned folks
the way Germany did 70 years ago or so. Werner Von Bran sure was an asset
to our country when he left Germany. Maybe we can return the favor and
chase some folks out of this country.

I'm beginning to see why some of the hams argue so vehemently. I think it
has something more than just Morse behind it.

Take a look at what is happening. Read some newspapers (best look outside
the U.S. for less-biased reporting). Check some numbers (such as poverty,
Internet penetration, life expectancy). No, we are not in bad shape, but
nowhere near the top where most folks simply *think* we are. Just because
the administration says were are doing well doesn't make it so.


Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

John Smith wrote:
Dave:

"Jims' points" are mostly a ploy to inject points which are not even at
issue.

Yeah, that sneaky Jim--always working a ploy.

On BPL? Well there are a lot of test blocks where that is being
technically tested, evaluated and data is being recorded. I don't think
one needs futurist papers, Sylvia Browne, or some hams opinion--technical
data will make it a reality or not... that final data is not available
yet... I don't think a bunch of aging hams are going to block a
multi-billion dollar a year industry, if it is technically feasibly, I
know some of them think so, but rational men viewing them only grin behind
their backs--but, as long as they only pay attention to their "net
buddy's" they will not have to suffer the embarrassment of coping with
reality...

A bunch of aging hams who are federally licensed trumps Part 15 users
each and every time. Some of those supposed rational, grinning men have
had to yank their BPL systems down because of interference.

Or, perhaps there is something of deep meaning and paramount importance
which I am failing to see here?

"Since you purport to have a ee degree, you might explain how some
signals held below 300 KHz could possibly serve a number of users (say
in a neighborhood) at 3 megabaud (or higher) rates?"

There you go.

Dave K8MN

"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Dave:

"Jims' points" are mostly a ploy to inject points which are not even at
issue.

Some "crystal-ball papers?" I have never seen "futurists" as being any
more accurate then Sylvia Browne, and I am just about as likely to consult
with their forecasts (people with the futurist papers) as I am Sylvia
Browne, history is created by participating, not reading what others will
think it is, or forecast it as being.

On CW being dropped? Well, the FCC is asking for logical, reasonable,
meaningful, coherent, comments on that subject right now--anyone can read
the comments and decide for themselves. Hopefully, the final decision is
made without someone hiding in the woodpile with vested interests... and
purely on the basis of what is good for american citizens, the hobby of
amateur radio and society as a whole... I think someone has woken up to
that fact that there is a stagnant air about it now, and it is becoming
of such insignificant numbers that the level of regulation it now has is
becoming difficult to justify.

On BPL? Well there are a lot of test blocks where that is being
technically tested, evaluated and data is being recorded. I don't think
one needs futurist papers, Sylvia Browne, or some hams opinion--technical
data will make it a reality or not... that final data is not available
yet... I don't think a bunch of aging hams are going to block a
multi-billion dollar a year industry, if it is technically feasibly, I
know some of them think so, but rational men viewing them only grin behind
their backs--but, as long as they only pay attention to their "net
buddy's" they will not have to suffer the embarrassment of coping with
reality...

On amateurs? I think a noticeably number of existing amateurs will be SK
before this year is out, more next year, even more the following year, I
think that is a graph which points towards the bottom, and will drag the
number of general and extra licenses in an almost 1:1 ratio.

On what he thinks of me? He can hold any opinion he likes, indeed, if I
understand my forefathers meanings and intent, I am supposed to uphold
that right of his (and all other americans, even including myself) even if
it costs my life and those of my family, neighbors and friends--so why
would I then, understanding these principles put forth by those men, move
even my little finger to halt him in his pursuits of happiness?

Or, perhaps there is something of deep meaning and paramount importance
which I am failing to see here?

John


John,

If you have been around this group for over a year, you would have seen
links to some of W1RFI's work. There are different BPL standards
(apparently) now. A link had been posted in this group quite some time ago
(perhaps a year?) which allowed folks to view the video of some of W1RFI's
work. What he found was a tremendous amount of interference caused by BPL.
Interference that did not stop at the ends of the amateur bands.

I have not seen W1RFI post in quite some time. I suspect he is tired of the
tirades of some uninformed individuals as well as promises of some as to how
advantageous certain unlicensed bands are. Not that information was
incorrect, just that much was omitted.

A lot of good folks have left this group as the bickering keeps getting
worse.

You continue to miss the fact that at least some of the BPL that was
demonstrated *does* cause harmful interference. You suggest that the fact
that it interferes with amateur radio means nothing whilst you neglect that
it *does* interfere with other licensed services (I believe I mentioned
channel 2 and 3 television, but there are many more services that it can
affect).

It is posts such as yours that seem more intent upon trolling than engaging
in meaningful discussion that tend to upset some folks. By trolling I mean
that you post with a leading subject line and ignore a lot of facts (as if
BPL couldn't cause a problem with other services).


With all due regards,
Jim AA2QA