To all:

The majority of people who communicate use the internet (well, phones and
cell phones too.) Email, Instant Messaging, blogs, newsgroups, webpages,
IRC chat, etc, etc... and these communications take place on a worldwide
scale and virtually touch the life of every citizen in first AND second
world countries.

Since BPL would be a MAJOR GAIN to the majority of people communicating
(using the internet) it would be one MAJOR MISTAKE to allow a handful of
hams, an insignificant number of the people using communications (and
then, theirs is only a hobby communication) to control the destiny of BPL
simply because it interferes with an insignificant number of hobby users.

It will be nothing short of a crime to allow this insignificant number to
influence BPL at all. The FCC and any public official(s) found doing so,
and being so influenced, should be reprimanded harshly!

How this self-serving bunch of closed-membership hams even hope to stop
tens of millions (hundreds of millions?) from these benefits, all so they
can set and enjoy their little hobby, staggers the mind and leads one to
doubt the sanity of those who would participate in this scam!

Amateur policy needs to get rid of its' self-serving element and
demonstrate they have good judgment and will hold their self-serving
interests above the interests and benefits of the hundreds of millions of
american citizens. It the stark light of reality amateur radio is seen in
the perverted state it has fallen into. This has happened by allowing men
and women of question character to control the destiny of amateur radios'
course--this needs to change direction and restore the dignity to this
hobby which it once held, decades ago.

If there is not a clear rule, regulation or tradition in amateur radio
which directs its members (licensees) to always behave in a manner which
holds the interests, benefits and well being of the citizens of the united
states in paramount importance, one SHOULD be placed there. However, it
seems a natural principle educated men or worth, intelligence and caliber
would hold to... and here, upon this simple test, you can weed the chaff
from the grain...

John

John Smith wrote:
To all:

The majority of people who communicate use the internet (well, phones and
cell phones too.) Email, Instant Messaging, blogs, newsgroups, webpages,
IRC chat, etc, etc... and these communications take place on a worldwide
scale and virtually touch the life of every citizen in first AND second
world countries.

I would even suggest that the majority of radio amateurs communicate
via the internet.

"John Smith" wrote in message
news
To all:

The majority of people who communicate use the internet (well, phones and
cell phones too.) Email, Instant Messaging, blogs, newsgroups, webpages,
IRC chat, etc, etc... and these communications take place on a worldwide
scale and virtually touch the life of every citizen in first AND second
world countries.

Since BPL would be a MAJOR GAIN to the majority of people communicating
(using the internet) it would be one MAJOR MISTAKE to allow a handful of
hams, an insignificant number of the people using communications (and
then, theirs is only a hobby communication) to control the destiny of BPL
simply because it interferes with an insignificant number of hobby users.

It will be nothing short of a crime to allow this insignificant number to
influence BPL at all. The FCC and any public official(s) found doing so,
and being so influenced, should be reprimanded harshly!

How this self-serving bunch of closed-membership hams even hope to stop
tens of millions (hundreds of millions?) from these benefits, all so they
can set and enjoy their little hobby, staggers the mind and leads one to
doubt the sanity of those who would participate in this scam!

Amateur policy needs to get rid of its' self-serving element and
demonstrate they have good judgment and will hold their self-serving
interests above the interests and benefits of the hundreds of millions of
american citizens. It the stark light of reality amateur radio is seen in
the perverted state it has fallen into. This has happened by allowing men
and women of question character to control the destiny of amateur radios'
course--this needs to change direction and restore the dignity to this
hobby which it once held, decades ago.

If there is not a clear rule, regulation or tradition in amateur radio
which directs its members (licensees) to always behave in a manner which
holds the interests, benefits and well being of the citizens of the united
states in paramount importance, one SHOULD be placed there. However, it
seems a natural principle educated men or worth, intelligence and caliber
would hold to... and here, upon this simple test, you can weed the chaff
from the grain...

John


If you really look at BPL, it is not in the best interests of the potential
customers. Since it will be transmitted on unshielded wires, it will be
subject to interference from a wide range of natural and manmade sources
such as lightning, atmospherics, faulty transformers that plague so many
electrical lines, flourescent light bulbs, and plasma televisions. I can
just see the results when Dad hooks up to the internet and loses the signal
when other family members turn on the plasma TV! We already have several
technologies far better than BPL.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

From: John Smith on Tues 9 Aug 2005 10:41

To all:

The majority of people who communicate use the internet (well, phones and
cell phones too.) Email, Instant Messaging, blogs, newsgroups, webpages,
IRC chat, etc, etc... and these communications take place on a worldwide
scale and virtually touch the life of every citizen in first AND second
world countries.

Close but not quite the cigar.

Since BPL would be a MAJOR GAIN to the majority of people communicating
(using the internet) it would be one MAJOR MISTAKE to allow a handful of
hams, an insignificant number of the people using communications (and
then, theirs is only a hobby communication) to control the destiny of BPL
simply because it interferes with an insignificant number of hobby users.

Tsk, what started out nice became a Trollcast.

BPL is just another way to access the Internet. It has yet to
be proven "anywhere" for the simple reason that electric power
lines were NEVER characterized as HF-VHF signal transmission
lines nor was the electric power distribution gred. The
variability in characteristic impedance and an almost-random
set of discontinuities along any electric power distribution
installation makes it a strong - and unstandardizable - RF
EM wave launching area in many, many, many places along that
electric power grid.

Radio amateurs are NOT the only users of the HF and low-VHF
EM spectrum in the USA. To see who are, go into the NTIA and
NTIS Reports that were released in 2004. With a little searching
you can find the Access BPL Comments on the FCC website.

It will be nothing short of a crime to allow this insignificant number to
influence BPL at all. The FCC and any public official(s) found doing so,
and being so influenced, should be reprimanded harshly!

Not quite. [way too much exaggeration for Trollcast copy]

What the FCC actually did was "allow" A NEW DATA DISTRIBUTION
system to EXIST IN THE FCC REGULATIONS. It's under the
"unintentional radiators" in the OET jargon...but it is ALSO
cognizant of the measured FACT that every "test" installation
of BPL HAS RADIATED RF in HF through low-VHF.

OK, first the FCC *recognized* that BPL exists, legally and
in public. [turns on a spotlight, pretty or not] Second,
the FCC has NOT ALLOWED EXCESS RADIATION BEYOND THE EXISTING
SPECIFICATIONS for unintentional radiators. That is muy
importante...the BPL folks just haven't got as free a hand
as they thought at first. Third, the FCC (and the BPL folks)
have a difficult mutual problem: An HF measurement method
that is ACCEPTIBLE to all parties for "near-field" HF
radiated power levels. That's most important to avoid years
and years of legal wrangling for any particular RFI case.

Actually, the FCC, while POLITICALLY approving Access BPL
as to its existance, has also (courtesy of the OET) STUCK
the BPL providers with a lot of *required* controls and
record-keeping and having to actually shut down part of the
BPL data spectrum if there are enough interference reports.

How this self-serving bunch of closed-membership hams even hope to stop
tens of millions (hundreds of millions?) from these benefits, all so they
can set and enjoy their little hobby, staggers the mind and leads one to
doubt the sanity of those who would participate in this scam!

John, have you been getting your peyote from Gilroy, CA? :-)

Internet access providers range from POTS (Plain Old Telephone
System) through "high-speed" DSL through TV cable providers'
two-way data paths to "Wi-Fax" low microwave links. BPL is
a newcomer and NOT a dependable one for data transmission
everywhere.

Amateur policy needs to get rid of its' self-serving element and
demonstrate they have good judgment and will hold their self-serving
interests above the interests and benefits of the hundreds of millions of
american citizens. It the stark light of reality amateur radio is seen in
the perverted state it has fallen into. This has happened by allowing men
and women of question character to control the destiny of amateur radios'
course--this needs to change direction and restore the dignity to this
hobby which it once held, decades ago.

[yup, Gilroy for sure!]

If there is not a clear rule, regulation or tradition in amateur radio
which directs its members (licensees) to always behave in a manner which
holds the interests, benefits and well being of the citizens of the united
states in paramount importance, one SHOULD be placed there.

It's been in existance since before 1928 and "The Amateur's Code"
as propagated by the ARRL out of Newington.

However, it
seems a natural principle educated men or worth, intelligence and caliber
would hold to... and here, upon this simple test, you can weed the chaff
from the grain...

If any reader wonders, the grinding noise you hear is the bust
of Thomas Jefferson slowly shaking his head from side to side
up on Mount Rushmore. Tsk, John, he gonna give you some o'
dem oratory lessons!

tom abe

Len:

The BPL modems I have seen go from the bottom of low audio freqs up to
~300Khz. I don't know where anyone ever got the idea this range was even
going to go into the am broadcast band! At some of those freqs, a full
wavelength can be measured in miles... and, the "transmission line"
becomes a few small wavelengths...

I think they are doing, REALLY, what they say they are doing, they are now
simply in the process of TESTING it, what the final results of all this
are/"will be" ???

I am just stating amateurs and the interference it MAY pose to their HOBBY
is NOT ANY REASON(S) to be given ANY consideration what-so-ever, it is not
the majority--the greatest good for the greatest number...

John

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 17:31:46 -0700, LenAnderson wrote:

From: John Smith on Tues 9 Aug 2005 10:41

To all:

The majority of people who communicate use the internet (well, phones and
cell phones too.) Email, Instant Messaging, blogs, newsgroups, webpages,
IRC chat, etc, etc... and these communications take place on a worldwide
scale and virtually touch the life of every citizen in first AND second
world countries.

Close but not quite the cigar.

Since BPL would be a MAJOR GAIN to the majority of people communicating
(using the internet) it would be one MAJOR MISTAKE to allow a handful of
hams, an insignificant number of the people using communications (and
then, theirs is only a hobby communication) to control the destiny of BPL
simply because it interferes with an insignificant number of hobby users.

Tsk, what started out nice became a Trollcast.

BPL is just another way to access the Internet. It has yet to
be proven "anywhere" for the simple reason that electric power
lines were NEVER characterized as HF-VHF signal transmission
lines nor was the electric power distribution gred. The
variability in characteristic impedance and an almost-random
set of discontinuities along any electric power distribution
installation makes it a strong - and unstandardizable - RF
EM wave launching area in many, many, many places along that
electric power grid.

Radio amateurs are NOT the only users of the HF and low-VHF
EM spectrum in the USA. To see who are, go into the NTIA and
NTIS Reports that were released in 2004. With a little searching
you can find the Access BPL Comments on the FCC website.

It will be nothing short of a crime to allow this insignificant number to
influence BPL at all. The FCC and any public official(s) found doing so,
and being so influenced, should be reprimanded harshly!

Not quite. [way too much exaggeration for Trollcast copy]

What the FCC actually did was "allow" A NEW DATA DISTRIBUTION
system to EXIST IN THE FCC REGULATIONS. It's under the
"unintentional radiators" in the OET jargon...but it is ALSO
cognizant of the measured FACT that every "test" installation
of BPL HAS RADIATED RF in HF through low-VHF.

OK, first the FCC *recognized* that BPL exists, legally and
in public. [turns on a spotlight, pretty or not] Second,
the FCC has NOT ALLOWED EXCESS RADIATION BEYOND THE EXISTING
SPECIFICATIONS for unintentional radiators. That is muy
importante...the BPL folks just haven't got as free a hand
as they thought at first. Third, the FCC (and the BPL folks)
have a difficult mutual problem: An HF measurement method
that is ACCEPTIBLE to all parties for "near-field" HF
radiated power levels. That's most important to avoid years
and years of legal wrangling for any particular RFI case.

Actually, the FCC, while POLITICALLY approving Access BPL
as to its existance, has also (courtesy of the OET) STUCK
the BPL providers with a lot of *required* controls and
record-keeping and having to actually shut down part of the
BPL data spectrum if there are enough interference reports.

How this self-serving bunch of closed-membership hams even hope to stop
tens of millions (hundreds of millions?) from these benefits, all so they
can set and enjoy their little hobby, staggers the mind and leads one to
doubt the sanity of those who would participate in this scam!

John, have you been getting your peyote from Gilroy, CA? :-)

Internet access providers range from POTS (Plain Old Telephone
System) through "high-speed" DSL through TV cable providers'
two-way data paths to "Wi-Fax" low microwave links. BPL is
a newcomer and NOT a dependable one for data transmission
everywhere.

Amateur policy needs to get rid of its' self-serving element and
demonstrate they have good judgment and will hold their self-serving
interests above the interests and benefits of the hundreds of millions of
american citizens. It the stark light of reality amateur radio is seen in
the perverted state it has fallen into. This has happened by allowing men
and women of question character to control the destiny of amateur radios'
course--this needs to change direction and restore the dignity to this
hobby which it once held, decades ago.

[yup, Gilroy for sure!]

If there is not a clear rule, regulation or tradition in amateur radio
which directs its members (licensees) to always behave in a manner which
holds the interests, benefits and well being of the citizens of the united
states in paramount importance, one SHOULD be placed there.

It's been in existance since before 1928 and "The Amateur's Code"
as propagated by the ARRL out of Newington.

However, it
seems a natural principle educated men or worth, intelligence and caliber
would hold to... and here, upon this simple test, you can weed the chaff
from the grain...

If any reader wonders, the grinding noise you hear is the bust
of Thomas Jefferson slowly shaking his head from side to side
up on Mount Rushmore. Tsk, John, he gonna give you some o'
dem oratory lessons!

tom abe

From: John Smith on Tues 9 Aug 2005 17:46

Len:

The BPL modems I have seen go from the bottom of low audio freqs up to
~300Khz. I don't know where anyone ever got the idea this range was even
going to go into the am broadcast band! At some of those freqs, a full
wavelength can be measured in miles... and, the "transmission line"
becomes a few small wavelengths...

We aren't talking about the in-building carrier-current kind of
thing. This is HIGHER SPEED stuff occupying HF and on up to
about 80 MHz.

I think they are doing, REALLY, what they say they are doing, they are now
simply in the process of TESTING it, what the final results of all this
are/"will be" ???

It's primarily MARKET testing...plus ordinary Field Trials.
Seems to be very difficult to get some real guts-contents kind
of information but it IS broadband, much wider than the best
carrier-current stuff.

There's been several field tests for RFI on the installed Test
(Market) locales. That Testing began 3 years ago or so. It
has gone on longer in Yurp.

You can begin looking into BPL at the ARRL website and continue
on to some very large RFI testing reports by the government and
private metrology companies, checking out the links. FCC ECFS
has lots and lots and lots of Comments on it. Much of that has
been thrashed-out in words and figures in 2003 and 2004.

I am just stating amateurs and the interference it MAY pose to their HOBBY
is NOT ANY REASON(S) to be given ANY consideration what-so-ever, it is not
the majority--the greatest good for the greatest number...

The "majority users" of HF may NOT be just radio amateurs.

Aeronautical Radio Inc., ARINC, contracts to do HF comms with
air carriers on long international routes. Those sites CAN
be interfered with, not a good thing with the "heavies" (747
and the like) carrying lots of passengers.

The U.S. government has about 2500 HF-capable stations in the
contiguous states, AK, and HI, plus PR and other U.S.
territories. Those are periodically netted as a SHARES
exercise. Most of those are equipped with ALE and can jump
frequency as needed depending on local QRM.

There's still a couple of low HF freqs for maritime emergency
comms. Maritime radio services still use HF especially on
deep water; they've gone to single-channel SSB for voice and
Teleprinter Over Radio for data in place of electromechanical
teleprinter. There's the WWV and WWVH time-frequency standard
stations; not everyone uses (or can get) the 60 KHz WWVB
signal; still useful for medium-accuracy metrology.

The "low-VHF" band for PLMRS (Private Land Mobile Radio
Service) includes freqs in high-HF as well as from 30 to 50
MHz. Lots and lots of those still working in USA.

"SW BC" can kiss some of their audience goombye wherever a
BPL is running since it will effectively mask reception of
both foreign and domestic stations. There are more SW BC
bands than there are ham bands on HF.

The "occupiers" of HF can be found at the NIST site as
reports and documents, going back two decades if you like
that sort of thing. They and the NTIA work together to
try future planning for the EM spectrum; FCC cooperates
by using that information for decision-making on specific
radio services. FCC OET (Office of Engineering and
Technology) concentrates on Mass Media radio services
(broadcasting) for BC standards, separation of stations
by locale, and useful info on BC antennas.

In Yurp there's similar but their "BPL" (they use another
acronym) is older. The first system was a test in Norway.
Lots of info on the web for that, just not concentrated
neatly as for the USA. Japan has done some trials and was
NOT happy with the results.

Ackshully, the electric power transmission people have been
using a BPL-predecessor longer for telemetry and control of
the power lines they are controlling. Slower-speed stuff
which may be what you've seen. Hasn't been a bed of roses
for them, either, according to some of the Commentors in
the FCC ECFS on Access BPL, a couple of those being P.E.s
who were involved in that "pre-BPL" work. Electric power
folks have the advantage that few other folk live close to
the Kilo- and Mega-Volt electric power transmission lines;
them MVe lines be ten kinds of noisy anyway.

Access BPL systems in Market Testing have been using the
"medium" (around 4 KV) distribution lines. Those are the
ones that connect to transformer primaries (such as on
utility poles) so that the secondaries can supply 230/115
Volt drops to individual subscribers. Some kind of couplers
manage to get the KV line data to the drop lines for
residential broadband service (two-way) with most systems
but at least one uses a WiFax-kind of coupler to get to an
individual residence. That sort-of isolates the data line
from the KV. WiFax is a low end of microwaves or high UHF.

I would presume that the data rate of these BPL providers
is similar to the broadband data supplied through wideband
cable such as TV cable service. TV allows HF to 50 MHz for
broadband data downstream since it doesn't interfere with
present-day TV channel 2; that's a 40+ MHz wide path for
fairly-good-rate data. TV itself uses about 1 GHz bandwidth
(give or take) for analog TV; larger for digital TV through
fiber optic main distribution (analog for the drops).

"Discontinuities" in transmission lines (for RF, data, etc.)
are the culprit for high VSWR and thus reflected power
which winds up spritzing out into space (around the lines).
Discontinuities come from everything...jump to a different
characteristic impedance, changes in conductor wires,
weird loopy jumpers, pole-mounted circuit breakers. The
electric power lines were NEVER characterized as RF or
DATA transmission lines...ONLY for 60 Hz AC, never higher
in frequency.

rfi emi

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

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:47:29 -0700, LenAnderson wrote:

From: John Smith on Tues 9 Aug 2005 17:46

Len:

The BPL modems I have seen go from the bottom of low audio freqs up to
~300Khz. I don't know where anyone ever got the idea this range was even
going to go into the am broadcast band! At some of those freqs, a full
wavelength can be measured in miles... and, the "transmission line"
becomes a few small wavelengths...

We aren't talking about the in-building carrier-current kind of
thing. This is HIGHER SPEED stuff occupying HF and on up to
about 80 MHz.

I think they are doing, REALLY, what they say they are doing, they are now
simply in the process of TESTING it, what the final results of all this
are/"will be" ???

It's primarily MARKET testing...plus ordinary Field Trials.
Seems to be very difficult to get some real guts-contents kind
of information but it IS broadband, much wider than the best
carrier-current stuff.

There's been several field tests for RFI on the installed Test
(Market) locales. That Testing began 3 years ago or so. It
has gone on longer in Yurp.

You can begin looking into BPL at the ARRL website and continue
on to some very large RFI testing reports by the government and
private metrology companies, checking out the links. FCC ECFS
has lots and lots and lots of Comments on it. Much of that has
been thrashed-out in words and figures in 2003 and 2004.

I am just stating amateurs and the interference it MAY pose to their HOBBY
is NOT ANY REASON(S) to be given ANY consideration what-so-ever, it is not
the majority--the greatest good for the greatest number...

The "majority users" of HF may NOT be just radio amateurs.

Aeronautical Radio Inc., ARINC, contracts to do HF comms with
air carriers on long international routes. Those sites CAN
be interfered with, not a good thing with the "heavies" (747
and the like) carrying lots of passengers.

The U.S. government has about 2500 HF-capable stations in the
contiguous states, AK, and HI, plus PR and other U.S.
territories. Those are periodically netted as a SHARES
exercise. Most of those are equipped with ALE and can jump
frequency as needed depending on local QRM.

There's still a couple of low HF freqs for maritime emergency
comms. Maritime radio services still use HF especially on
deep water; they've gone to single-channel SSB for voice and
Teleprinter Over Radio for data in place of electromechanical
teleprinter. There's the WWV and WWVH time-frequency standard
stations; not everyone uses (or can get) the 60 KHz WWVB
signal; still useful for medium-accuracy metrology.

The "low-VHF" band for PLMRS (Private Land Mobile Radio
Service) includes freqs in high-HF as well as from 30 to 50
MHz. Lots and lots of those still working in USA.

"SW BC" can kiss some of their audience goombye wherever a
BPL is running since it will effectively mask reception of
both foreign and domestic stations. There are more SW BC
bands than there are ham bands on HF.

The "occupiers" of HF can be found at the NIST site as
reports and documents, going back two decades if you like
that sort of thing. They and the NTIA work together to
try future planning for the EM spectrum; FCC cooperates
by using that information for decision-making on specific
radio services. FCC OET (Office of Engineering and
Technology) concentrates on Mass Media radio services
(broadcasting) for BC standards, separation of stations
by locale, and useful info on BC antennas.

In Yurp there's similar but their "BPL" (they use another
acronym) is older. The first system was a test in Norway.
Lots of info on the web for that, just not concentrated
neatly as for the USA. Japan has done some trials and was
NOT happy with the results.

Ackshully, the electric power transmission people have been
using a BPL-predecessor longer for telemetry and control of
the power lines they are controlling. Slower-speed stuff
which may be what you've seen. Hasn't been a bed of roses
for them, either, according to some of the Commentors in
the FCC ECFS on Access BPL, a couple of those being P.E.s
who were involved in that "pre-BPL" work. Electric power
folks have the advantage that few other folk live close to
the Kilo- and Mega-Volt electric power transmission lines;
them MVe lines be ten kinds of noisy anyway.

Access BPL systems in Market Testing have been using the
"medium" (around 4 KV) distribution lines. Those are the
ones that connect to transformer primaries (such as on
utility poles) so that the secondaries can supply 230/115
Volt drops to individual subscribers. Some kind of couplers
manage to get the KV line data to the drop lines for
residential broadband service (two-way) with most systems
but at least one uses a WiFax-kind of coupler to get to an
individual residence. That sort-of isolates the data line
from the KV. WiFax is a low end of microwaves or high UHF.

I would presume that the data rate of these BPL providers
is similar to the broadband data supplied through wideband
cable such as TV cable service. TV allows HF to 50 MHz for
broadband data downstream since it doesn't interfere with
present-day TV channel 2; that's a 40+ MHz wide path for
fairly-good-rate data. TV itself uses about 1 GHz bandwidth
(give or take) for analog TV; larger for digital TV through
fiber optic main distribution (analog for the drops).

"Discontinuities" in transmission lines (for RF, data, etc.)
are the culprit for high VSWR and thus reflected power
which winds up spritzing out into space (around the lines).
Discontinuities come from everything...jump to a different
characteristic impedance, changes in conductor wires,
weird loopy jumpers, pole-mounted circuit breakers. The
electric power lines were NEVER characterized as RF or
DATA transmission lines...ONLY for 60 Hz AC, never higher
in frequency.

rfi emi

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
news
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

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

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
news
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

From: John Smith on Tues 9 Aug 2005 22:19

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...

I can understand all of that. However, the nature of
transmission lines is that they appear (to source and
termination) as extremely-long, quite-low-cutoff-rate
L-C lowpass filters. If the source output impedance and
the termination input impedance are the same as the
transmission lines' characteristic impedance, maximum
power flow happens.

The MAJOR problem with ANY transmission line environment is
DISCONTINUITIES...anything along the line path that upsets
the characteristic impedance, usually a physical size thing
but can be a change in conductor material, addition of a
dielectric in the Transverse ElectroMagnetic (TEM) field,
and similar. ANY discontinuity will produce a reflection
to the wavefront and increases the VSWR (Voltage Standing
Wave Ratio).

Note: I use "VSWR" where most hams use "SWR." That's
industry practice and relates to the method of measurement,
by voltage instead of some means of measuring power (for
direct SWR). All ham-used "SWR" meters really measure
RF voltage in/out, thus they measure VSWR, but indicators
are automatically converting the VSWR to "SWR" for some
odd kind of apparent tradition.

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.

Well, I "cheated" in that I took two semesters (at night)
of microwave theory and techniques because that was what
I was working in at the time. Taught by an EE with teaching
credentials, himself a day worker in microwave engineering
at Hughes Aircraft, Culver City, CA. Gave me terrific
insight to the behavior of transmission lines, matching, etc.
Afterwards I found a McGraw-Hill Schaum's Outline Series on
transmission lines by Robert A Chipman (professor of EE at
University of Toledo) with many fascinating examples and
solved problems on everything from electric power transmission
at 60 Hz to waveguide power transmission at GigaHertzes.
[out of print now but the 230+ pages of 8 1/2 x 11 inch soft-
bound cost a mere $4.95 in the early 1970s] Made good use of
that Chipman text in later formal EE class work...saved
my mind from having to "re-invent the wheel" (as most beginners
do) in order to get the beloved academic *credits*. :-(

Most residential areas in the USA have above-ground electric
power distribution. With those, it is relatively easy to just
look and estimate the conductor size, their spacing, and get
a rough idea of the characteristic impedance of two-wire open
wire transmission lines. Then look along the 4 KV distribution
route and see where the spacings change, the connections to
step-down transformers occur (and at what intervals), the
cross-overs and half-loop jumpers as the line has to turn
corners, splices, whatever. Usually there will be places
where the line spacings deliberately come closer or spread
for whatever mechanical reasons. All are discontinuities.

At RF, most pole transformers present a high impedance to the
4 KV distribution line. Those can be thought of as "parallel
bridgings" (as in video signal distribution) or like the
common "capacitance tap" of older TV cable coax distribution.
They don't affect the main transmission line much at all.
From what I understand of BPL practice, the broadband
service couplers go around the pole transformer and go directly
to the subscriber drop with appropriate HV protection, etc.
How they do that is irrelevant...like the "capacity tap" of
TV cable subscriber drop pick-off, it won't affect the main
distribution route. ALL THE OTHER DISCONTINUITIES WILL affect
the "characteristic impedance" of this BPL transmission line.

Where discontinuities exist physically, there WILL BE RADIATION
of the BPL signal sidebands. That will happen on every single
RF transmission line ever built/installed/debugged/whatever.

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!

Whether coaxial cable or open-wire line, ALL transmission lines
have attenuation increasing with increasing frequency. For new
cable the "db per 100 foot" column can be consulted for what it
was when new in your 250-foot case. Attenuation will increase
somewhat with aging but - for coax - that is due mostly to the
dielectric polymer material doing some weird polymerization
depending on its original quality and composition. Big difference
in polyethylenes, very little difference with tetrafluoroethylenes
(Teflon). Open-wire lines have the least problems with aging,
that due mostly to conductor surface oxidation (plating with
another, non-oxidizing metal helps that) and accumulation of
airborne dirt and crap (which can be cleaned off). Problem with
open-wire line is the characteristic impedance is so much higher
than coax and thus the RF voltages are proportionally higher.

For ANY transmission line ya gotta treat the line as essentially
broadband media (but with a slow rate of attenuation at higher
frequencies). When the line's characteristic impedance is
matched at both ends, everyone is happy. When it ain't, ya get
delivered power LOSS with the difference between input and
output power being either radiated or absorbed (in something).
Mostly that is excess RADIATION...which CAN be measured.

With an ideal transmission line (and ideal matching front/back)
there isn't any radiation. Power loss is confined to the loss
within the line itself (also measureable). The minute you put
a discontinuity in that line, there WILL BE RADIATION.

low swr