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

"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

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

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