Jim:

Here is what I think:

1) NO standards have been established.
2) BPL is in a testing phase, we will NOT know anything until this is
completed by independent testing laboratories--NOT HAMS--NOT THOSE
HOLDING THE LICENSES, PATENTS, MANUFACTURING RIGHTS, ETC, ETC....
3) Amateurs are over-reacting BEFORE data has been had.
4) All will be decided on its merits.
5) Amateur hobbyists may have to tolerate some interference for the
benefit of tens or hundreds of millions.
6) I think they would be idiots to tell us exactly what they were working
on and details of the methods, freqs and hardware... if they do, why not
just give the technology away?

Sorry, that is just how it all looks to me...

Frankly, as I have stated, when BPL hits mhz instead of khz--I think it is
unworkable--but I AM NOT even knowledgeable enough to know for sure, I
think there are guys there working with BPL which will figure it out just
fine without us hobbyists interfering...

John

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 03:31:41 +0000, Jim Hampton wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
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

Jim:

300,000 with a 10:1 data compaction is already at 3,000,000... due to the
fact we KNOW NOTHING of the data compaction methods they are using (most
likely trade secrets) we can't even guess what they are capable of... I'd
venture 10megs or more...

You guys seem to think in terms of brass keys...

John

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 03:29:32 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:

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

Jim Hampton wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
...

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).

BPL is proven to interfere with amateur radio services. Proof is
available to anyone who seeks it. The idea that it doesn't is a
political one, such as faith based science ("Toto, I think we lost
Kansas!") global warming (If the world isn't warming up, fine! I'll
accept that. Now tell me *how* the atmosphere is coping with the
greenhouse gas load) and other bafflegab. Give me scientific reasons,
not accuse me of being a liberal or something because I don't agree with
your bad politically motivated science.

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).

Well, yeah Jim! Lets see we have an "anony- mousie" who is pretty good
at spouting off. Lot's of opinions, and ridicule to all who might
disagree with (him?). Sounds like a major troll to me.

I wonder why Len doesn't have any trouble with this anony-mousie? Seems
all the others arouse his ire..... ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dave Heil wrote:

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,

Right. And I'm a pie-eyed greepus!


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.

Easy, Dave! Just plug a really fast modem into it!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Michael:

No michael, you are just a character assassin without a victim...

You are just a guy telling us you got all the facts, don't collect any
data--just listen to you--yep, love that "scientific method" of yours...
you sitting in a group of girly-men and they are hanging on your every
word... hope nothing knocks you out of your element, you will look as lost
as here...

John

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:02:52 -0400, Michael Coslo wrote:



Dave Heil wrote:

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,

Right. And I'm a pie-eyed greepus!


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.

Easy, Dave! Just plug a really fast modem into it!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Michael Coslo wrote:
Jim Hampton wrote:
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.

He and the ARRL staff have produced detailed reports based on
observations and
measurements as well as simulations and models.

He's also gone around the country banging the drum about BPL. W3RV got
him to come to Philly and do his presentation here, to a packed house.
I had the pleasure of metting Ed and seeing the presentation.

BPL has one and only one selling point: If you have BPL service, you
can plug your computer into any power outlet in your house - or your
neighbor's house, if it's served - and get a highspeed connection. It's
a 'last mile' delivery system, nothing more.

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.

He's also busy as all get-out. Plus too many folks assume that since he
works at Hq., that he must march lockstep with ARRL policy. That's not
the case at all,
but after a while it's clear that some folks are immune to certain
facts.

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

Naw, the bickering has always been here. You can find posts five and
more years
old - from both sides - that look the same as today's. WA6VSE used to
among the worst - then he mellowed and became quite well mannered even
if you disagree with him totally. I think the change was due to his
upgrading to Extra and getting a vanity call....;-)

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).

BPL is proven to interfere with amateur radio services. Proof is
available to anyone who seeks it. The idea that it doesn't is a
political one, such as faith based science ("Toto, I think we lost
Kansas!") global warming (If the world isn't warming up, fine! I'll
accept that. Now tell me *how* the atmosphere is coping with the
greenhouse gas load) and other bafflegab. Give me scientific reasons,
not accuse me of being a liberal or something because I don't agree with
your bad politically motivated science.

Shall I tell the lightbulb joke again?

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).

Better yet, there's the technique of tossing in stuff that's provably
wrong. Like
misquotes of what people wrote, errors of fact, etc.

Well, yeah Jim! Lets see we have an "anony- mousie" who is pretty good
at spouting off. Lot's of opinions, and ridicule to all who might
disagree with (him?). Sounds like a major troll to me.

Please don't feed the trolls.

I wonder why Len doesn't have any trouble with this anony-mousie? Seems
all the others arouse his ire..... ;^)

Because he's against the code test, against the ARRL, against
conventional ham radio, and because he *never* disagrees with Len.

All anyone has to do is disagree with Len, and they get the treatment.
Worse,
if the actually prove him wrong about something (like whether it's
legal to
operate with an expired-but-in-the-grace-period license) he really goes
ballistic. So predictable it's not worth bothering about.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim:

I don't see the problem as "my being a troll", I see at as anyone you
can't shout down. chase away and disagrees with you, "is your definition
of a troll", well so be it, others may decide for themselves... you all
look like the child who "called wolf" all the time--you have now confused
everyone and they are unable to tell a real troll from someone who
disagrees with you--childish tactics at best...

John

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 03:31:41 +0000, Jim Hampton wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
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

N2EY:

From my experience here and on the bands, it is obvious the MAJOR MAJORITY
of hams are vastly behind the times, I think your small group here, and
your "net buddies" are all in agreement, I am also quite sure that hams
fearful of what they don't understand are going around crying "wolf."

You won't find any in the computer industry with these strange and bizarre
views you guys have here...

Course, everyone knows, a "hobby amateur license" makes hams some kinda
"damn authority", unfortunately, one which makes up the truth... who was
that newscaster who got fired for doing that?

John

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:12:39 -0700, N2EY wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:
Jim Hampton wrote:
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.

He and the ARRL staff have produced detailed reports based on
observations and
measurements as well as simulations and models.

He's also gone around the country banging the drum about BPL. W3RV got
him to come to Philly and do his presentation here, to a packed house.
I had the pleasure of metting Ed and seeing the presentation.

BPL has one and only one selling point: If you have BPL service, you
can plug your computer into any power outlet in your house - or your
neighbor's house, if it's served - and get a highspeed connection. It's
a 'last mile' delivery system, nothing more.

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.

He's also busy as all get-out. Plus too many folks assume that since he
works at Hq., that he must march lockstep with ARRL policy. That's not
the case at all,
but after a while it's clear that some folks are immune to certain
facts.

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

Naw, the bickering has always been here. You can find posts five and
more years
old - from both sides - that look the same as today's. WA6VSE used to
among the worst - then he mellowed and became quite well mannered even
if you disagree with him totally. I think the change was due to his
upgrading to Extra and getting a vanity call....;-)

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).

BPL is proven to interfere with amateur radio services. Proof is
available to anyone who seeks it. The idea that it doesn't is a
political one, such as faith based science ("Toto, I think we lost
Kansas!") global warming (If the world isn't warming up, fine! I'll
accept that. Now tell me *how* the atmosphere is coping with the
greenhouse gas load) and other bafflegab. Give me scientific reasons,
not accuse me of being a liberal or something because I don't agree with
your bad politically motivated science.

Shall I tell the lightbulb joke again?

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).

Better yet, there's the technique of tossing in stuff that's provably
wrong. Like
misquotes of what people wrote, errors of fact, etc.

Well, yeah Jim! Lets see we have an "anony- mousie" who is pretty good
at spouting off. Lot's of opinions, and ridicule to all who might
disagree with (him?). Sounds like a major troll to me.

Please don't feed the trolls.

I wonder why Len doesn't have any trouble with this anony-mousie? Seems
all the others arouse his ire..... ;^)

Because he's against the code test, against the ARRL, against
conventional ham radio, and because he *never* disagrees with Len.

All anyone has to do is disagree with Len, and they get the treatment.
Worse,
if the actually prove him wrong about something (like whether it's
legal to
operate with an expired-but-in-the-grace-period license) he really goes
ballistic. So predictable it's not worth bothering about.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim:

W1RFI? The arrl hitman against BPL? That guy? Krist, look at his call!
The guy has RFI on the brain, probably thinks alien spacecraft is causing
a lot of interference on the band too! Oh yeah, sounds like a real
unbiased guy to be giving advice alright...

Get real!

John

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 03:31:41 +0000, Jim Hampton wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
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

Jim:

First of all, compaction is MUCH more important than bandwidth, with out
data compaction you would shortly be out of bandwidth...

First of all, binary trees is one super method of compacting data... if
you understand the simple concept of binary trees, and especially in
relationship to data compaction, much of this "I can't believe it!" will
quickly disappear. Indeed, your head should become filled with "what if?"
and you will start trying to figure out ways to do it yourself, wondering
why you didn't do it before!

This will probably lead you to homebrewing a couple of hardware devices
and experimenting with a friend... and, a good starting place just
happens to be those "junk" discarded "USRobotics Courier Modems" everyone
seems to think is a joke... there is better equip but my access to state
of the art equip is rather limited for experimenting, but I do hunt
electronics surplus dealers with a keen eye... ya never know what might
just be in the next box in the corner...

John

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 in message
...
Len:

I must admit, I am not aware of any of that, attempts to use HF on
power lines, or even VHF... but I have not kept up at all... that doesn't
sound wacky, it sounds impossible to me...

However, I would't even attempt to get a 1.750Mhz signal down power
wiring, the capacitance between windings, shielding in all those xfrms
along the way, underground power lines, ground shielding in between
windings, wiring wound around in conduit boxes, etc, etc...

My first degree was in EE. From what I remember, take a damn idiot to
expect those freqs to go any distance at all--the capacitive loading is
going to start looking like a direct short to ground I would expect!
Especially at 80Mhz! And that, even if the modem puts out a 1KW output!
There are some remote 60Hz users out there. The inductance of that wiring
is going to look staggering to multi-Mhz signals, I would think--no one is
going to be able to control the impedance of that feedline. Really, I
would have to see it to believe it, will keep my eyes open, now you have
me interested.

Now, 300Hz to vlf is great, and there would be tolerable line
attenuation due to impedance from line inductance, the resistance of the
wire would then become one of largest losses, if not the largest. In
special cases, where line length ended up being a resonate or
near-resonate length, might even have a signal in need of attenuation at
the ISP. I have no idea what-so-ever of how "long wire antennas" of that
magnitude behave like... and as a transmission line! Krist, I am worried
about how much signal I am getting though 250+ feet of aging coax!

John