| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
The majority--well, ok, if that is the way you want it!
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 ... 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 |
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 ... 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 ... 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 |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... 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 ... Jim: I don't think I have ever made a statement or post to "reduce testing" or even make it one question easier... You are attempting to sneak in an argument of your own design and form a false to what is being argued. Most, if not all, this is about is dumping morse, an un-needed, under-used, ancient form of communication that a very good portion of amateurs never use... If they have some way of using ~1.72 - 80Mhz for BPL, go for it, at the most they will only interfere with an insignificant number of hobby users... business/corporate america can adapt to other freqs, indeed, the boost on the whole to industry by updating the net will out weigh any negative effects. Military can use satellites... John John, 60 meters is being tried for amateur use on a secondary basis - and will likely experience some interference for the primary users. As Len mentioned, there still are a lot of services using HF. The cellphone and Internet set are likely not aware of them. Users like low-band VHF used for long-haul trucking (somewhere around 40 MHz; I'm not exactly sure). Also, Channel 2 television runs from 54 to 60 MHz. Channel 3 television runs from 60 to 66 MHz. That still falls below 80 MHz and can be interfered with. Not likely in the primary service area, but get near the fringe and forget the picture with BPL. Of course, BPL will likely try and run in the cities where the cost is lower. Of course, many folks are on cable and/or satellite, so that won't bother most. One needs to look at the whole picture. There *are* services other than amateur radio in the HF spectrum. I hope you don't think that amateur radio has 50% or more of the HF spectrum ;) 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
Jim Hampton wrote:
Since you purport to have a ee degree, you might explain how some signals held below 300 KHz could possibly serve a number of users (say in a neighborhood) at 3 megabaud (or higher) rates? My $29.95 per month ADSL runs from 4,000 kbits to 7,000 kbits per second. I downloaded I.E. 6 at 695 kilobytes per second, so it is not a fluke. Will BPL do as well? BPL isn't going to be used in the countryside; they want to penetrate cities where the cost per user will be cheap. The problem is that cable (Roadrunner) and DSL are running $29.95 per month - oh, DSL is now available (high speed) at $24.95 per month. Of course, satellite can also supply high-speed Internet connections. Perhaps BPL can do it for $10.00 per month? LOL Some folks say BPL should be subsidized for a time to "stimulate competition". For what it is worth, Len is correct; the BPL runs from just above the AM broadcast band (in the U.S.) to around 80 MHz. Even at, say, 1.8 MHz, there can be considerable radiation. It should be remembered that there are a number of different BPL technologies being pushed. There's no one standard. Compare that to competing systems! The easiest solution is simply to allow it, but not allow signals any greater than those currently permitted for unintentional radiators. IIRC, that's what FCC allowed. The problem is that the current standards were meant for point-source individual radiators, like a computer monitor. IOW devices, not systems. One of the big problems with BPL is that you can't get far enough away from it. If my neighbor has a noisy computer monitor, it cannot get any closer to my ham radio stuff than the property line. But if even one of my neighbors has BPL, and we're fed off the same power-company transformer, all of *my* house and service wiring becomes a BPL radiator, whether I'm a BPL user or not. If done, only a small number of amateurs would likely be affected. That depends on how effective the power lines are as antennas. A noisy point source device like a computer monitor is not a very good antenna, and it's normally inside a building, with various things around it that provide some shielding/attenuation. Aerial power lines are up where they can do a good job of radiating! IMHO, one of the big reasons BPL is so new, with no previously-existing regulations addressing it, is that it used to be that nobody would dream of even proposing a system using HF on power lines, because they *knew* FCC would shoot them down big time. If I recall properly (and anyone is free to correct these numbers), BPL proponents had argued that BPL, as originally proposed, would only raise the background noise some 10 dB. Allegedly. According to their models. Ten decibels is, of course, 1 Bell, which is a 10 times increase in power (in this case, noise power). That is quite unacceptable. Period. To us radio types, yes. But to an administration looking for a silver bullet, HF radio is a legacy-mode of communications, as opposed to "the internets"... I know that a large number of folks would like to reduce testing (not just Morse) to as close to zero as possible. Yup. One of the good things about 05-235 is that FCC turned down all such proposals. No free upgrades. No easier entry level license. Not this time, anyway. Did you read the "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century" paper that led to the second NCVEC proposal? Pretty scary. My former employer discontinued apprenticeships a while back. Originally, they were 4 year apprenticeships; later, they became 3 year apprenticeships - but the 3 year apprenticeship conferred an associates degree upon graduation. So, the 4 year apprenticeship must have been a watered-down apprenticeship, right? Indeed. I see where one state in this country is now changing its' education system to take a strong stand against evolution and make some statements encouraging "intelligent design". "Creationism in a cheap tuxedo"... Next thing ya know they'll be burning copies of Inherit The Wind. Speaking of that associate's degree apprenticeship, they stated that it includes a lot of electronic theory. I saw the books. I was surprised that they actually mentioned Norton and Thevenin equivalents, but they were sorely lacking in much detail. No ac theory (forget complex impedance). Simply series and parallel dc circuits. No bridges. No Delta Wye conversions. No multiple dc sources either. Perhaps a maximum of 4 resistors in an extremely simple "circuit". Good heavens.. Whilst you and others seem intent on reducing testing (I have no problem with Morse - either for or against), I cannot agree with simplifying the theory/operating/law sections of the testing. I see other areas of the country which are similarly intent on watering down much other than amateur radio. Because it's 'too hard' You watch - when the Morse Code test is gone, there will be a flurry of upgrades and some new licenses, but it won't last. Then there will be renewed efforts to reduce the written tests still more. And they will use the same arguments that were used against the Morse Code tests. Why, oh why, are we the number 16 nation in the world in broadband penetration (oh, BPL, right?)? We are far from number one with cell phones. We are down around number 20 in life expectancy. There's a bunch of reasons for that: 1) Lots of old infrastructure 2) Low population density 3) Lack of exercise, unhealthy lifestyles, lack of access to routine medical care (how many people use the ER as their family doctor?) 4) Poverty, ignorance, lack of community 5) Diverse population 6) Misplaced priorities Yep, better argue against Darwin. All those liberal left-leaning universities must be the problem. Perhaps we can chase away learned folks the way Germany did 70 years ago or so. Werner Von Bran sure was an asset to our country when he left Germany. Maybe we can return the favor and chase some folks out of this country. I've already been told here that I should leave, rather than even suggest that energy independence might require some hard choices.... I'm beginning to see why some of the hams argue so vehemently. I think it has something more than just Morse behind it. BINGO! For about 30 years I've watched the standards erode, a little at a time. At each step I was told it was "no big deal", I was an "old head" and had to "accept change". I was told it was unreasonable to expect people to learn stuff like Morse Code or most of what was on the writtens. Yet the growth in amateur radio was greater under the old standards. Look how US ham radio grew in the 1970s, then the 1980s, and finally the 1990s. Take a look at what is happening. Read some newspapers (best look outside the U.S. for less-biased reporting). Check some numbers (such as poverty, Internet penetration, life expectancy). No, we are not in bad shape, but nowhere near the top where most folks simply *think* we are. Just because the administration says were are doing well doesn't make it so. I think a big part of that is due to the export of good jobs, like manufacturing, out of the USA. Each step is sold to us as "no big deal", but the overall effect is staggering. Remember Ross Perot and the "giant sucking sound" over NAFTA? Now we have CAFTA! I tried to buy a new power drill today. Just a plain 3/8' chuck VSR drill with a cord. Try to find one that's not made in China! Check this out: http://tinyurl.com/c9txx You see the leading edge of it because you're in Rochester, a city that was manufacturing- and technology-heavy. Kodak, Xerox, etc. Plus educational institutions to feed those industries. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
John Smith, CBer blathered:
The majority of people who communicate use the internet (well, phones and cell phones too.) drivel snipped-----flushed! Sorry Mr. CBer, If BPL emissions interfere with amateur radio signals BPL will be in violation of FCC regulations. Hams are all for improved technology, we are not in favor of FLAWED technology. Cable and Satellite technology already runs rings around anything BPL could dream of. The future is in Wi-Fi Johnny Cornhole. Get used to it. |
John Smith wrote:
Jim: I don't think I have ever made a statement or post to "reduce testing" or even make it one question easier... You are attempting to sneak in an argument of your own design and form a false to what is being argued. Most, if not all, this is about is dumping morse, an un-needed, under-used, ancient form of communication that a very good portion of amateurs never use... If they have some way of using ~1.72 - 80Mhz for BPL, go for it, at the most they will only interfere with an insignificant number of hobby users... business/corporate america can adapt to other freqs, indeed, the boost on the whole to industry by updating the net will out weigh any negative effects. Military can use satellites... John Wow! That car was really moving fast. Wonder what kind it was. Ohhhhh, it's a *Dodge*. Dave K8MN On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:49:43 +0000, Jim Hampton wrote: John, Since you purport to have a ee degree, you might explain how some signals held below 300 KHz could possibly serve a number of users (say in a neighborhood) at 3 megabaud (or higher) rates? My $29.95 per month ADSL runs from 4,000 kbits to 7,000 kbits per second. I downloaded I.E. 6 at 695 kilobytes per second, so it is not a fluke. Will BPL do as well? BPL isn't going to be used in the countryside; they want to penetrate cities where the cost per user will be cheap. The problem is that cable (Roadrunner) and DSL are running $29.95 per month - oh, DSL is now available (high speed) at $24.95 per month. Of course, satellite can also supply high-speed Internet connections. Perhaps BPL can do it for $10.00 per month? LOL For what it is worth, Len is correct; the BPL runs from just above the AM broadcast band (in the U.S.) to around 80 MHz. Even at, say, 1.8 MHz, there can be considerable radiation. The easiest solution is simply to allow it, but not allow signals any greater than those currently permitted for unintentional radiators. If done, only a small number of amateurs would likely be affected. If I recall properly (and anyone is free to correct these numbers), BPL proponents had argued that BPL, as originally proposed, would only raise the background noise some 10 dB. Ten decibels is, of course, 1 Bell, which is a 10 times increase in power (in this case, noise power). That is quite unacceptable. Period. I know that a large number of folks would like to reduce testing (not just Morse) to as close to zero as possible. My former employer discontinued apprenticeships a while back. Originally, they were 4 year apprenticeships; later, they became 3 year apprenticeships - but the 3 year apprenticeship conferred an associates degree upon graduation. So, the 4 year apprenticeship must have been a watered-down apprenticeship, right? I see where one state in this country is now changing its' education system to take a strong stand against evolution and make some statements encouraging "intelligent design". Speaking of that associate's degree apprenticeship, they stated that it includes a lot of electronic theory. I saw the books. I was surprised that they actually mentioned Norton and Thevenin equivalents, but they were sorely lacking in much detail. No ac theory (forget complex impedance). Simply series and parallel dc circuits. No bridges. No Delta Wye conversions. No multiple dc sources either. Perhaps a maximum of 4 resistors in an extremely simple "circuit". Whilst you and others seem intent on reducing testing (I have no problem with Morse - either for or against), I cannot agree with simplifying the theory/operating/law sections of the testing. I see other areas of the country which are similarly intent on watering down much other than amateur radio. Why, oh why, are we the number 16 nation in the world in broadband penetration (oh, BPL, right?)? We are far from number one with cell phones. We are down around number 20 in life expectancy. Yep, better argue against Darwin. All those liberal left-leaning universities must be the problem. Perhaps we can chase away learned folks the way Germany did 70 years ago or so. Werner Von Bran sure was an asset to our country when he left Germany. Maybe we can return the favor and chase some folks out of this country. I'm beginning to see why some of the hams argue so vehemently. I think it has something more than just Morse behind it. Take a look at what is happening. Read some newspapers (best look outside the U.S. for less-biased reporting). Check some numbers (such as poverty, Internet penetration, life expectancy). No, we are not in bad shape, but nowhere near the top where most folks simply *think* we are. Just because the administration says were are doing well doesn't make it so. Best regards from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
Dave:
The Doc should have warned you, mixing alcohol with your meds can have that effect... when the chemicals and alcohol have worn off, things should return to normal, hopefully... John On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:03:43 +0000, Dave Heil wrote: John Smith wrote: Jim: I don't think I have ever made a statement or post to "reduce testing" or even make it one question easier... You are attempting to sneak in an argument of your own design and form a false to what is being argued. Most, if not all, this is about is dumping morse, an un-needed, under-used, ancient form of communication that a very good portion of amateurs never use... If they have some way of using ~1.72 - 80Mhz for BPL, go for it, at the most they will only interfere with an insignificant number of hobby users... business/corporate america can adapt to other freqs, indeed, the boost on the whole to industry by updating the net will out weigh any negative effects. Military can use satellites... John Wow! That car was really moving fast. Wonder what kind it was. Ohhhhh, it's a *Dodge*. Dave K8MN On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:49:43 +0000, Jim Hampton wrote: John, Since you purport to have a ee degree, you might explain how some signals held below 300 KHz could possibly serve a number of users (say in a neighborhood) at 3 megabaud (or higher) rates? My $29.95 per month ADSL runs from 4,000 kbits to 7,000 kbits per second. I downloaded I.E. 6 at 695 kilobytes per second, so it is not a fluke. Will BPL do as well? BPL isn't going to be used in the countryside; they want to penetrate cities where the cost per user will be cheap. The problem is that cable (Roadrunner) and DSL are running $29.95 per month - oh, DSL is now available (high speed) at $24.95 per month. Of course, satellite can also supply high-speed Internet connections. Perhaps BPL can do it for $10.00 per month? LOL For what it is worth, Len is correct; the BPL runs from just above the AM broadcast band (in the U.S.) to around 80 MHz. Even at, say, 1.8 MHz, there can be considerable radiation. The easiest solution is simply to allow it, but not allow signals any greater than those currently permitted for unintentional radiators. If done, only a small number of amateurs would likely be affected. If I recall properly (and anyone is free to correct these numbers), BPL proponents had argued that BPL, as originally proposed, would only raise the background noise some 10 dB. Ten decibels is, of course, 1 Bell, which is a 10 times increase in power (in this case, noise power). That is quite unacceptable. Period. I know that a large number of folks would like to reduce testing (not just Morse) to as close to zero as possible. My former employer discontinued apprenticeships a while back. Originally, they were 4 year apprenticeships; later, they became 3 year apprenticeships - but the 3 year apprenticeship conferred an associates degree upon graduation. So, the 4 year apprenticeship must have been a watered-down apprenticeship, right? I see where one state in this country is now changing its' education system to take a strong stand against evolution and make some statements encouraging "intelligent design". Speaking of that associate's degree apprenticeship, they stated that it includes a lot of electronic theory. I saw the books. I was surprised that they actually mentioned Norton and Thevenin equivalents, but they were sorely lacking in much detail. No ac theory (forget complex impedance). Simply series and parallel dc circuits. No bridges. No Delta Wye conversions. No multiple dc sources either. Perhaps a maximum of 4 resistors in an extremely simple "circuit". Whilst you and others seem intent on reducing testing (I have no problem with Morse - either for or against), I cannot agree with simplifying the theory/operating/law sections of the testing. I see other areas of the country which are similarly intent on watering down much other than amateur radio. Why, oh why, are we the number 16 nation in the world in broadband penetration (oh, BPL, right?)? We are far from number one with cell phones. We are down around number 20 in life expectancy. Yep, better argue against Darwin. All those liberal left-leaning universities must be the problem. Perhaps we can chase away learned folks the way Germany did 70 years ago or so. Werner Von Bran sure was an asset to our country when he left Germany. Maybe we can return the favor and chase some folks out of this country. I'm beginning to see why some of the hams argue so vehemently. I think it has something more than just Morse behind it. Take a look at what is happening. Read some newspapers (best look outside the U.S. for less-biased reporting). Check some numbers (such as poverty, Internet penetration, life expectancy). No, we are not in bad shape, but nowhere near the top where most folks simply *think* we are. Just because the administration says were are doing well doesn't make it so. Best regards from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
John Smith wrote:
Dave: The Doc should have warned you, mixing alcohol with your meds can have that effect... when the chemicals and alcohol have worn off, things should return to normal, hopefully... John What effect would that be, "John"--the ability to see you dodging Jim's points? Dave K8MN On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:03:43 +0000, Dave Heil wrote: John Smith wrote: Jim: I don't think I have ever made a statement or post to "reduce testing" or even make it one question easier... You are attempting to sneak in an argument of your own design and form a false to what is being argued. Most, if not all, this is about is dumping morse, an un-needed, under-used, ancient form of communication that a very good portion of amateurs never use... If they have some way of using ~1.72 - 80Mhz for BPL, go for it, at the most they will only interfere with an insignificant number of hobby users... business/corporate america can adapt to other freqs, indeed, the boost on the whole to industry by updating the net will out weigh any negative effects. Military can use satellites... John Wow! That car was really moving fast. Wonder what kind it was. Ohhhhh, it's a *Dodge*. Dave K8MN On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:49:43 +0000, Jim Hampton wrote: John, Since you purport to have a ee degree, you might explain how some signals held below 300 KHz could possibly serve a number of users (say in a neighborhood) at 3 megabaud (or higher) rates? My $29.95 per month ADSL runs from 4,000 kbits to 7,000 kbits per second. I downloaded I.E. 6 at 695 kilobytes per second, so it is not a fluke. Will BPL do as well? BPL isn't going to be used in the countryside; they want to penetrate cities where the cost per user will be cheap. The problem is that cable (Roadrunner) and DSL are running $29.95 per month - oh, DSL is now available (high speed) at $24.95 per month. Of course, satellite can also supply high-speed Internet connections. Perhaps BPL can do it for $10.00 per month? LOL For what it is worth, Len is correct; the BPL runs from just above the AM broadcast band (in the U.S.) to around 80 MHz. Even at, say, 1.8 MHz, there can be considerable radiation. The easiest solution is simply to allow it, but not allow signals any greater than those currently permitted for unintentional radiators. If done, only a small number of amateurs would likely be affected. If I recall properly (and anyone is free to correct these numbers), BPL proponents had argued that BPL, as originally proposed, would only raise the background noise some 10 dB. Ten decibels is, of course, 1 Bell, which is a 10 times increase in power (in this case, noise power). That is quite unacceptable. Period. I know that a large number of folks would like to reduce testing (not just Morse) to as close to zero as possible. My former employer discontinued apprenticeships a while back. Originally, they were 4 year apprenticeships; later, they became 3 year apprenticeships - but the 3 year apprenticeship conferred an associates degree upon graduation. So, the 4 year apprenticeship must have been a watered-down apprenticeship, right? I see where one state in this country is now changing its' education system to take a strong stand against evolution and make some statements encouraging "intelligent design". Speaking of that associate's degree apprenticeship, they stated that it includes a lot of electronic theory. I saw the books. I was surprised that they actually mentioned Norton and Thevenin equivalents, but they were sorely lacking in much detail. No ac theory (forget complex impedance). Simply series and parallel dc circuits. No bridges. No Delta Wye conversions. No multiple dc sources either. Perhaps a maximum of 4 resistors in an extremely simple "circuit". Whilst you and others seem intent on reducing testing (I have no problem with Morse - either for or against), I cannot agree with simplifying the theory/operating/law sections of the testing. I see other areas of the country which are similarly intent on watering down much other than amateur radio. Why, oh why, are we the number 16 nation in the world in broadband penetration (oh, BPL, right?)? We are far from number one with cell phones. We are down around number 20 in life expectancy. Yep, better argue against Darwin. All those liberal left-leaning universities must be the problem. Perhaps we can chase away learned folks the way Germany did 70 years ago or so. Werner Von Bran sure was an asset to our country when he left Germany. Maybe we can return the favor and chase some folks out of this country. I'm beginning to see why some of the hams argue so vehemently. I think it has something more than just Morse behind it. Take a look at what is happening. Read some newspapers (best look outside the U.S. for less-biased reporting). Check some numbers (such as poverty, Internet penetration, life expectancy). No, we are not in bad shape, but nowhere near the top where most folks simply *think* we are. Just because the administration says were are doing well doesn't make it so. Best regards from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
Dave:
"Jims' points" are mostly a ploy to inject points which are not even at issue. Some "crystal-ball papers?" I have never seen "futurists" as being any more accurate then Sylvia Browne, and I am just about as likely to consult with their forecasts (people with the futurist papers) as I am Sylvia Browne, history is created by participating, not reading what others will think it is, or forecast it as being. On CW being dropped? Well, the FCC is asking for logical, reasonable, meaningful, coherent, comments on that subject right now--anyone can read the comments and decide for themselves. Hopefully, the final decision is made without someone hiding in the woodpile with vested interests... and purely on the basis of what is good for american citizens, the hobby of amateur radio and society as a whole... I think someone has woken up to that fact that there is a stagnant air about it now, and it is becoming of such insignificant numbers that the level of regulation it now has is becoming difficult to justify. On BPL? Well there are a lot of test blocks where that is being technically tested, evaluated and data is being recorded. I don't think one needs futurist papers, Sylvia Browne, or some hams opinion--technical data will make it a reality or not... that final data is not available yet... I don't think a bunch of aging hams are going to block a multi-billion dollar a year industry, if it is technically feasibly, I know some of them think so, but rational men viewing them only grin behind their backs--but, as long as they only pay attention to their "net buddy's" they will not have to suffer the embarrassment of coping with reality... On amateurs? I think a noticeably number of existing amateurs will be SK before this year is out, more next year, even more the following year, I think that is a graph which points towards the bottom, and will drag the number of general and extra licenses in an almost 1:1 ratio. On what he thinks of me? He can hold any opinion he likes, indeed, if I understand my forefathers meanings and intent, I am supposed to uphold that right of his (and all other americans, even including myself) even if it costs my life and those of my family, neighbors and friends--so why would I then, understanding these principles put forth by those men, move even my little finger to halt him in his pursuits of happiness? Or, perhaps there is something of deep meaning and paramount importance which I am failing to see here? John On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 02:29:20 +0000, Dave Heil wrote: John Smith wrote: Dave: The Doc should have warned you, mixing alcohol with your meds can have that effect... when the chemicals and alcohol have worn off, things should return to normal, hopefully... John What effect would that be, "John"--the ability to see you dodging Jim's points? Dave K8MN On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:03:43 +0000, Dave Heil wrote: John Smith wrote: Jim: I don't think I have ever made a statement or post to "reduce testing" or even make it one question easier... You are attempting to sneak in an argument of your own design and form a false to what is being argued. Most, if not all, this is about is dumping morse, an un-needed, under-used, ancient form of communication that a very good portion of amateurs never use... If they have some way of using ~1.72 - 80Mhz for BPL, go for it, at the most they will only interfere with an insignificant number of hobby users... business/corporate america can adapt to other freqs, indeed, the boost on the whole to industry by updating the net will out weigh any negative effects. Military can use satellites... John Wow! That car was really moving fast. Wonder what kind it was. Ohhhhh, it's a *Dodge*. Dave K8MN On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:49:43 +0000, Jim Hampton wrote: John, Since you purport to have a ee degree, you might explain how some signals held below 300 KHz could possibly serve a number of users (say in a neighborhood) at 3 megabaud (or higher) rates? My $29.95 per month ADSL runs from 4,000 kbits to 7,000 kbits per second. I downloaded I.E. 6 at 695 kilobytes per second, so it is not a fluke. Will BPL do as well? BPL isn't going to be used in the countryside; they want to penetrate cities where the cost per user will be cheap. The problem is that cable (Roadrunner) and DSL are running $29.95 per month - oh, DSL is now available (high speed) at $24.95 per month. Of course, satellite can also supply high-speed Internet connections. Perhaps BPL can do it for $10.00 per month? LOL For what it is worth, Len is correct; the BPL runs from just above the AM broadcast band (in the U.S.) to around 80 MHz. Even at, say, 1.8 MHz, there can be considerable radiation. The easiest solution is simply to allow it, but not allow signals any greater than those currently permitted for unintentional radiators. If done, only a small number of amateurs would likely be affected. If I recall properly (and anyone is free to correct these numbers), BPL proponents had argued that BPL, as originally proposed, would only raise the background noise some 10 dB. Ten decibels is, of course, 1 Bell, which is a 10 times increase in power (in this case, noise power). That is quite unacceptable. Period. I know that a large number of folks would like to reduce testing (not just Morse) to as close to zero as possible. My former employer discontinued apprenticeships a while back. Originally, they were 4 year apprenticeships; later, they became 3 year apprenticeships - but the 3 year apprenticeship conferred an associates degree upon graduation. So, the 4 year apprenticeship must have been a watered-down apprenticeship, right? I see where one state in this country is now changing its' education system to take a strong stand against evolution and make some statements encouraging "intelligent design". Speaking of that associate's degree apprenticeship, they stated that it includes a lot of electronic theory. I saw the books. I was surprised that they actually mentioned Norton and Thevenin equivalents, but they were sorely lacking in much detail. No ac theory (forget complex impedance). Simply series and parallel dc circuits. No bridges. No Delta Wye conversions. No multiple dc sources either. Perhaps a maximum of 4 resistors in an extremely simple "circuit". Whilst you and others seem intent on reducing testing (I have no problem with Morse - either for or against), I cannot agree with simplifying the theory/operating/law sections of the testing. I see other areas of the country which are similarly intent on watering down much other than amateur radio. Why, oh why, are we the number 16 nation in the world in broadband penetration (oh, BPL, right?)? We are far from number one with cell phones. We are down around number 20 in life expectancy. Yep, better argue against Darwin. All those liberal left-leaning universities must be the problem. Perhaps we can chase away learned folks the way Germany did 70 years ago or so. Werner Von Bran sure was an asset to our country when he left Germany. Maybe we can return the favor and chase some folks out of this country. I'm beginning to see why some of the hams argue so vehemently. I think it has something more than just Morse behind it. Take a look at what is happening. Read some newspapers (best look outside the U.S. for less-biased reporting). Check some numbers (such as poverty, Internet penetration, life expectancy). No, we are not in bad shape, but nowhere near the top where most folks simply *think* we are. Just because the administration says were are doing well doesn't make it so. Best regards from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
John Smith wrote:
Dave: "Jims' points" are mostly a ploy to inject points which are not even at issue. Yeah, that sneaky Jim--always working a ploy. On BPL? Well there are a lot of test blocks where that is being technically tested, evaluated and data is being recorded. I don't think one needs futurist papers, Sylvia Browne, or some hams opinion--technical data will make it a reality or not... that final data is not available yet... I don't think a bunch of aging hams are going to block a multi-billion dollar a year industry, if it is technically feasibly, I know some of them think so, but rational men viewing them only grin behind their backs--but, as long as they only pay attention to their "net buddy's" they will not have to suffer the embarrassment of coping with reality... A bunch of aging hams who are federally licensed trumps Part 15 users each and every time. Some of those supposed rational, grinning men have had to yank their BPL systems down because of interference. Or, perhaps there is something of deep meaning and paramount importance which I am failing to see here? "Since you purport to have a ee degree, you might explain how some signals held below 300 KHz could possibly serve a number of users (say in a neighborhood) at 3 megabaud (or higher) rates?" There you go. Dave K8MN |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Dave: "Jims' points" are mostly a ploy to inject points which are not even at issue. Some "crystal-ball papers?" I have never seen "futurists" as being any more accurate then Sylvia Browne, and I am just about as likely to consult with their forecasts (people with the futurist papers) as I am Sylvia Browne, history is created by participating, not reading what others will think it is, or forecast it as being. On CW being dropped? Well, the FCC is asking for logical, reasonable, meaningful, coherent, comments on that subject right now--anyone can read the comments and decide for themselves. Hopefully, the final decision is made without someone hiding in the woodpile with vested interests... and purely on the basis of what is good for american citizens, the hobby of amateur radio and society as a whole... I think someone has woken up to that fact that there is a stagnant air about it now, and it is becoming of such insignificant numbers that the level of regulation it now has is becoming difficult to justify. On BPL? Well there are a lot of test blocks where that is being technically tested, evaluated and data is being recorded. I don't think one needs futurist papers, Sylvia Browne, or some hams opinion--technical data will make it a reality or not... that final data is not available yet... I don't think a bunch of aging hams are going to block a multi-billion dollar a year industry, if it is technically feasibly, I know some of them think so, but rational men viewing them only grin behind their backs--but, as long as they only pay attention to their "net buddy's" they will not have to suffer the embarrassment of coping with reality... On amateurs? I think a noticeably number of existing amateurs will be SK before this year is out, more next year, even more the following year, I think that is a graph which points towards the bottom, and will drag the number of general and extra licenses in an almost 1:1 ratio. On what he thinks of me? He can hold any opinion he likes, indeed, if I understand my forefathers meanings and intent, I am supposed to uphold that right of his (and all other americans, even including myself) even if it costs my life and those of my family, neighbors and friends--so why would I then, understanding these principles put forth by those men, move even my little finger to halt him in his pursuits of happiness? Or, perhaps there is something of deep meaning and paramount importance which I am failing to see here? John John, If you have been around this group for over a year, you would have seen links to some of W1RFI's work. There are different BPL standards (apparently) now. A link had been posted in this group quite some time ago (perhaps a year?) which allowed folks to view the video of some of W1RFI's work. What he found was a tremendous amount of interference caused by BPL. Interference that did not stop at the ends of the amateur bands. I have not seen W1RFI post in quite some time. I suspect he is tired of the tirades of some uninformed individuals as well as promises of some as to how advantageous certain unlicensed bands are. Not that information was incorrect, just that much was omitted. A lot of good folks have left this group as the bickering keeps getting worse. You continue to miss the fact that at least some of the BPL that was demonstrated *does* cause harmful interference. You suggest that the fact that it interferes with amateur radio means nothing whilst you neglect that it *does* interfere with other licensed services (I believe I mentioned channel 2 and 3 television, but there are many more services that it can affect). It is posts such as yours that seem more intent upon trolling than engaging in meaningful discussion that tend to upset some folks. By trolling I mean that you post with a leading subject line and ignore a lot of facts (as if BPL couldn't cause a problem with other services). With all due regards, Jim AA2QA |
Jim:
Here is what I think: 1) NO standards have been established. 2) BPL is in a testing phase, we will NOT know anything until this is completed by independent testing laboratories--NOT HAMS--NOT THOSE HOLDING THE LICENSES, PATENTS, MANUFACTURING RIGHTS, ETC, ETC.... 3) Amateurs are over-reacting BEFORE data has been had. 4) All will be decided on its merits. 5) Amateur hobbyists may have to tolerate some interference for the benefit of tens or hundreds of millions. 6) I think they would be idiots to tell us exactly what they were working on and details of the methods, freqs and hardware... if they do, why not just give the technology away? Sorry, that is just how it all looks to me... Frankly, as I have stated, when BPL hits mhz instead of khz--I think it is unworkable--but I AM NOT even knowledgeable enough to know for sure, I think there are guys there working with BPL which will figure it out just fine without us hobbyists interfering... John On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 03:31:41 +0000, Jim Hampton wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Dave: "Jims' points" are mostly a ploy to inject points which are not even at issue. Some "crystal-ball papers?" I have never seen "futurists" as being any more accurate then Sylvia Browne, and I am just about as likely to consult with their forecasts (people with the futurist papers) as I am Sylvia Browne, history is created by participating, not reading what others will think it is, or forecast it as being. On CW being dropped? Well, the FCC is asking for logical, reasonable, meaningful, coherent, comments on that subject right now--anyone can read the comments and decide for themselves. Hopefully, the final decision is made without someone hiding in the woodpile with vested interests... and purely on the basis of what is good for american citizens, the hobby of amateur radio and society as a whole... I think someone has woken up to that fact that there is a stagnant air about it now, and it is becoming of such insignificant numbers that the level of regulation it now has is becoming difficult to justify. On BPL? Well there are a lot of test blocks where that is being technically tested, evaluated and data is being recorded. I don't think one needs futurist papers, Sylvia Browne, or some hams opinion--technical data will make it a reality or not... that final data is not available yet... I don't think a bunch of aging hams are going to block a multi-billion dollar a year industry, if it is technically feasibly, I know some of them think so, but rational men viewing them only grin behind their backs--but, as long as they only pay attention to their "net buddy's" they will not have to suffer the embarrassment of coping with reality... On amateurs? I think a noticeably number of existing amateurs will be SK before this year is out, more next year, even more the following year, I think that is a graph which points towards the bottom, and will drag the number of general and extra licenses in an almost 1:1 ratio. On what he thinks of me? He can hold any opinion he likes, indeed, if I understand my forefathers meanings and intent, I am supposed to uphold that right of his (and all other americans, even including myself) even if it costs my life and those of my family, neighbors and friends--so why would I then, understanding these principles put forth by those men, move even my little finger to halt him in his pursuits of happiness? Or, perhaps there is something of deep meaning and paramount importance which I am failing to see here? John John, If you have been around this group for over a year, you would have seen links to some of W1RFI's work. There are different BPL standards (apparently) now. A link had been posted in this group quite some time ago (perhaps a year?) which allowed folks to view the video of some of W1RFI's work. What he found was a tremendous amount of interference caused by BPL. Interference that did not stop at the ends of the amateur bands. I have not seen W1RFI post in quite some time. I suspect he is tired of the tirades of some uninformed individuals as well as promises of some as to how advantageous certain unlicensed bands are. Not that information was incorrect, just that much was omitted. A lot of good folks have left this group as the bickering keeps getting worse. You continue to miss the fact that at least some of the BPL that was demonstrated *does* cause harmful interference. You suggest that the fact that it interferes with amateur radio means nothing whilst you neglect that it *does* interfere with other licensed services (I believe I mentioned channel 2 and 3 television, but there are many more services that it can affect). It is posts such as yours that seem more intent upon trolling than engaging in meaningful discussion that tend to upset some folks. By trolling I mean that you post with a leading subject line and ignore a lot of facts (as if BPL couldn't cause a problem with other services). With all due regards, Jim AA2QA |
Jim:
300,000 with a 10:1 data compaction is already at 3,000,000... due to the fact we KNOW NOTHING of the data compaction methods they are using (most likely trade secrets) we can't even guess what they are capable of... I'd venture 10megs or more... You guys seem to think in terms of brass keys... John On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 03:29:32 +0000, Dave Heil wrote: John Smith wrote: Dave: "Jims' points" are mostly a ploy to inject points which are not even at issue. Yeah, that sneaky Jim--always working a ploy. On BPL? Well there are a lot of test blocks where that is being technically tested, evaluated and data is being recorded. I don't think one needs futurist papers, Sylvia Browne, or some hams opinion--technical data will make it a reality or not... that final data is not available yet... I don't think a bunch of aging hams are going to block a multi-billion dollar a year industry, if it is technically feasibly, I know some of them think so, but rational men viewing them only grin behind their backs--but, as long as they only pay attention to their "net buddy's" they will not have to suffer the embarrassment of coping with reality... A bunch of aging hams who are federally licensed trumps Part 15 users each and every time. Some of those supposed rational, grinning men have had to yank their BPL systems down because of interference. Or, perhaps there is something of deep meaning and paramount importance which I am failing to see here? "Since you purport to have a ee degree, you might explain how some signals held below 300 KHz could possibly serve a number of users (say in a neighborhood) at 3 megabaud (or higher) rates?" There you go. Dave K8MN |
Jim Hampton wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Dave: "Jims' points" are mostly a ploy to inject points which are not even at issue. Some "crystal-ball papers?" I have never seen "futurists" as being any more accurate then Sylvia Browne, and I am just about as likely to consult with their forecasts (people with the futurist papers) as I am Sylvia Browne, history is created by participating, not reading what others will think it is, or forecast it as being. On CW being dropped? Well, the FCC is asking for logical, reasonable, meaningful, coherent, comments on that subject right now--anyone can read the comments and decide for themselves. Hopefully, the final decision is made without someone hiding in the woodpile with vested interests... and purely on the basis of what is good for american citizens, the hobby of amateur radio and society as a whole... I think someone has woken up to that fact that there is a stagnant air about it now, and it is becoming of such insignificant numbers that the level of regulation it now has is becoming difficult to justify. On BPL? Well there are a lot of test blocks where that is being technically tested, evaluated and data is being recorded. I don't think one needs futurist papers, Sylvia Browne, or some hams opinion--technical data will make it a reality or not... that final data is not available yet... I don't think a bunch of aging hams are going to block a multi-billion dollar a year industry, if it is technically feasibly, I know some of them think so, but rational men viewing them only grin behind their backs--but, as long as they only pay attention to their "net buddy's" they will not have to suffer the embarrassment of coping with reality... On amateurs? I think a noticeably number of existing amateurs will be SK before this year is out, more next year, even more the following year, I think that is a graph which points towards the bottom, and will drag the number of general and extra licenses in an almost 1:1 ratio. On what he thinks of me? He can hold any opinion he likes, indeed, if I understand my forefathers meanings and intent, I am supposed to uphold that right of his (and all other americans, even including myself) even if it costs my life and those of my family, neighbors and friends--so why would I then, understanding these principles put forth by those men, move even my little finger to halt him in his pursuits of happiness? Or, perhaps there is something of deep meaning and paramount importance which I am failing to see here? John John, If you have been around this group for over a year, you would have seen links to some of W1RFI's work. There are different BPL standards (apparently) now. A link had been posted in this group quite some time ago (perhaps a year?) which allowed folks to view the video of some of W1RFI's work. What he found was a tremendous amount of interference caused by BPL. Interference that did not stop at the ends of the amateur bands. I have not seen W1RFI post in quite some time. I suspect he is tired of the tirades of some uninformed individuals as well as promises of some as to how advantageous certain unlicensed bands are. Not that information was incorrect, just that much was omitted. A lot of good folks have left this group as the bickering keeps getting worse. You continue to miss the fact that at least some of the BPL that was demonstrated *does* cause harmful interference. You suggest that the fact that it interferes with amateur radio means nothing whilst you neglect that it *does* interfere with other licensed services (I believe I mentioned channel 2 and 3 television, but there are many more services that it can affect). BPL is proven to interfere with amateur radio services. Proof is available to anyone who seeks it. The idea that it doesn't is a political one, such as faith based science ("Toto, I think we lost Kansas!") global warming (If the world isn't warming up, fine! I'll accept that. Now tell me *how* the atmosphere is coping with the greenhouse gas load) and other bafflegab. Give me scientific reasons, not accuse me of being a liberal or something because I don't agree with your bad politically motivated science. It is posts such as yours that seem more intent upon trolling than engaging in meaningful discussion that tend to upset some folks. By trolling I mean that you post with a leading subject line and ignore a lot of facts (as if BPL couldn't cause a problem with other services). Well, yeah Jim! Lets see we have an "anony- mousie" who is pretty good at spouting off. Lot's of opinions, and ridicule to all who might disagree with (him?). Sounds like a major troll to me. I wonder why Len doesn't have any trouble with this anony-mousie? Seems all the others arouse his ire..... ;^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dave Heil wrote: John Smith wrote: Dave: "Jims' points" are mostly a ploy to inject points which are not even at issue. Yeah, that sneaky Jim--always working a ploy. On BPL? Well there are a lot of test blocks where that is being technically tested, evaluated and data is being recorded. I don't think one needs futurist papers, Sylvia Browne, or some hams opinion--technical data will make it a reality or not... that final data is not available yet... I don't think a bunch of aging hams are going to block a multi-billion dollar a year industry, if it is technically feasibly, I know some of them think so, but rational men viewing them only grin behind their backs--but, as long as they only pay attention to their "net buddy's" they will not have to suffer the embarrassment of coping with reality... A bunch of aging hams who are federally licensed trumps Part 15 users each and every time. Some of those supposed rational, grinning men have had to yank their BPL systems down because of interference. Or, perhaps there is something of deep meaning and paramount importance which I am failing to see here? "Since you purport to have a ee degree, Right. And I'm a pie-eyed greepus! you might explain how some signals held below 300 KHz could possibly serve a number of users (say in a neighborhood) at 3 megabaud (or higher) rates?" There you go. Easy, Dave! Just plug a really fast modem into it! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Michael:
No michael, you are just a character assassin without a victim... You are just a guy telling us you got all the facts, don't collect any data--just listen to you--yep, love that "scientific method" of yours... you sitting in a group of girly-men and they are hanging on your every word... hope nothing knocks you out of your element, you will look as lost as here... John On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:02:52 -0400, Michael Coslo wrote: Dave Heil wrote: John Smith wrote: Dave: "Jims' points" are mostly a ploy to inject points which are not even at issue. Yeah, that sneaky Jim--always working a ploy. On BPL? Well there are a lot of test blocks where that is being technically tested, evaluated and data is being recorded. I don't think one needs futurist papers, Sylvia Browne, or some hams opinion--technical data will make it a reality or not... that final data is not available yet... I don't think a bunch of aging hams are going to block a multi-billion dollar a year industry, if it is technically feasibly, I know some of them think so, but rational men viewing them only grin behind their backs--but, as long as they only pay attention to their "net buddy's" they will not have to suffer the embarrassment of coping with reality... A bunch of aging hams who are federally licensed trumps Part 15 users each and every time. Some of those supposed rational, grinning men have had to yank their BPL systems down because of interference. Or, perhaps there is something of deep meaning and paramount importance which I am failing to see here? "Since you purport to have a ee degree, Right. And I'm a pie-eyed greepus! you might explain how some signals held below 300 KHz could possibly serve a number of users (say in a neighborhood) at 3 megabaud (or higher) rates?" There you go. Easy, Dave! Just plug a really fast modem into it! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Michael Coslo wrote:
Jim Hampton wrote: If you have been around this group for over a year, you would have seen links to some of W1RFI's work. There are different BPL standards (apparently) now. A link had been posted in this group quite some time ago (perhaps a year?) which allowed folks to view the video of some of W1RFI's work. What he found was a tremendous amount of interference caused by BPL. Interference that did not stop at the ends of the amateur bands. He and the ARRL staff have produced detailed reports based on observations and measurements as well as simulations and models. He's also gone around the country banging the drum about BPL. W3RV got him to come to Philly and do his presentation here, to a packed house. I had the pleasure of metting Ed and seeing the presentation. BPL has one and only one selling point: If you have BPL service, you can plug your computer into any power outlet in your house - or your neighbor's house, if it's served - and get a highspeed connection. It's a 'last mile' delivery system, nothing more. I have not seen W1RFI post in quite some time. I suspect he is tired of the tirades of some uninformed individuals as well as promises of some as to how advantageous certain unlicensed bands are. Not that information was incorrect, just that much was omitted. He's also busy as all get-out. Plus too many folks assume that since he works at Hq., that he must march lockstep with ARRL policy. That's not the case at all, but after a while it's clear that some folks are immune to certain facts. A lot of good folks have left this group as the bickering keeps getting worse. Naw, the bickering has always been here. You can find posts five and more years old - from both sides - that look the same as today's. WA6VSE used to among the worst - then he mellowed and became quite well mannered even if you disagree with him totally. I think the change was due to his upgrading to Extra and getting a vanity call....;-) You continue to miss the fact that at least some of the BPL that was demonstrated *does* cause harmful interference. You suggest that the fact that it interferes with amateur radio means nothing whilst you neglect that it *does* interfere with other licensed services (I believe I mentioned channel 2 and 3 television, but there are many more services that it can affect). BPL is proven to interfere with amateur radio services. Proof is available to anyone who seeks it. The idea that it doesn't is a political one, such as faith based science ("Toto, I think we lost Kansas!") global warming (If the world isn't warming up, fine! I'll accept that. Now tell me *how* the atmosphere is coping with the greenhouse gas load) and other bafflegab. Give me scientific reasons, not accuse me of being a liberal or something because I don't agree with your bad politically motivated science. Shall I tell the lightbulb joke again? It is posts such as yours that seem more intent upon trolling than engaging in meaningful discussion that tend to upset some folks. By trolling I mean that you post with a leading subject line and ignore a lot of facts (as if BPL couldn't cause a problem with other services). Better yet, there's the technique of tossing in stuff that's provably wrong. Like misquotes of what people wrote, errors of fact, etc. Well, yeah Jim! Lets see we have an "anony- mousie" who is pretty good at spouting off. Lot's of opinions, and ridicule to all who might disagree with (him?). Sounds like a major troll to me. Please don't feed the trolls. I wonder why Len doesn't have any trouble with this anony-mousie? Seems all the others arouse his ire..... ;^) Because he's against the code test, against the ARRL, against conventional ham radio, and because he *never* disagrees with Len. All anyone has to do is disagree with Len, and they get the treatment. Worse, if the actually prove him wrong about something (like whether it's legal to operate with an expired-but-in-the-grace-period license) he really goes ballistic. So predictable it's not worth bothering about. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Jim:
I don't see the problem as "my being a troll", I see at as anyone you can't shout down. chase away and disagrees with you, "is your definition of a troll", well so be it, others may decide for themselves... you all look like the child who "called wolf" all the time--you have now confused everyone and they are unable to tell a real troll from someone who disagrees with you--childish tactics at best... John On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 03:31:41 +0000, Jim Hampton wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Dave: "Jims' points" are mostly a ploy to inject points which are not even at issue. Some "crystal-ball papers?" I have never seen "futurists" as being any more accurate then Sylvia Browne, and I am just about as likely to consult with their forecasts (people with the futurist papers) as I am Sylvia Browne, history is created by participating, not reading what others will think it is, or forecast it as being. On CW being dropped? Well, the FCC is asking for logical, reasonable, meaningful, coherent, comments on that subject right now--anyone can read the comments and decide for themselves. Hopefully, the final decision is made without someone hiding in the woodpile with vested interests... and purely on the basis of what is good for american citizens, the hobby of amateur radio and society as a whole... I think someone has woken up to that fact that there is a stagnant air about it now, and it is becoming of such insignificant numbers that the level of regulation it now has is becoming difficult to justify. On BPL? Well there are a lot of test blocks where that is being technically tested, evaluated and data is being recorded. I don't think one needs futurist papers, Sylvia Browne, or some hams opinion--technical data will make it a reality or not... that final data is not available yet... I don't think a bunch of aging hams are going to block a multi-billion dollar a year industry, if it is technically feasibly, I know some of them think so, but rational men viewing them only grin behind their backs--but, as long as they only pay attention to their "net buddy's" they will not have to suffer the embarrassment of coping with reality... On amateurs? I think a noticeably number of existing amateurs will be SK before this year is out, more next year, even more the following year, I think that is a graph which points towards the bottom, and will drag the number of general and extra licenses in an almost 1:1 ratio. On what he thinks of me? He can hold any opinion he likes, indeed, if I understand my forefathers meanings and intent, I am supposed to uphold that right of his (and all other americans, even including myself) even if it costs my life and those of my family, neighbors and friends--so why would I then, understanding these principles put forth by those men, move even my little finger to halt him in his pursuits of happiness? Or, perhaps there is something of deep meaning and paramount importance which I am failing to see here? John John, If you have been around this group for over a year, you would have seen links to some of W1RFI's work. There are different BPL standards (apparently) now. A link had been posted in this group quite some time ago (perhaps a year?) which allowed folks to view the video of some of W1RFI's work. What he found was a tremendous amount of interference caused by BPL. Interference that did not stop at the ends of the amateur bands. I have not seen W1RFI post in quite some time. I suspect he is tired of the tirades of some uninformed individuals as well as promises of some as to how advantageous certain unlicensed bands are. Not that information was incorrect, just that much was omitted. A lot of good folks have left this group as the bickering keeps getting worse. You continue to miss the fact that at least some of the BPL that was demonstrated *does* cause harmful interference. You suggest that the fact that it interferes with amateur radio means nothing whilst you neglect that it *does* interfere with other licensed services (I believe I mentioned channel 2 and 3 television, but there are many more services that it can affect). It is posts such as yours that seem more intent upon trolling than engaging in meaningful discussion that tend to upset some folks. By trolling I mean that you post with a leading subject line and ignore a lot of facts (as if BPL couldn't cause a problem with other services). With all due regards, Jim AA2QA |
N2EY:
From my experience here and on the bands, it is obvious the MAJOR MAJORITY of hams are vastly behind the times, I think your small group here, and your "net buddies" are all in agreement, I am also quite sure that hams fearful of what they don't understand are going around crying "wolf." You won't find any in the computer industry with these strange and bizarre views you guys have here... Course, everyone knows, a "hobby amateur license" makes hams some kinda "damn authority", unfortunately, one which makes up the truth... who was that newscaster who got fired for doing that? John On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:12:39 -0700, N2EY wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: Jim Hampton wrote: If you have been around this group for over a year, you would have seen links to some of W1RFI's work. There are different BPL standards (apparently) now. A link had been posted in this group quite some time ago (perhaps a year?) which allowed folks to view the video of some of W1RFI's work. What he found was a tremendous amount of interference caused by BPL. Interference that did not stop at the ends of the amateur bands. He and the ARRL staff have produced detailed reports based on observations and measurements as well as simulations and models. He's also gone around the country banging the drum about BPL. W3RV got him to come to Philly and do his presentation here, to a packed house. I had the pleasure of metting Ed and seeing the presentation. BPL has one and only one selling point: If you have BPL service, you can plug your computer into any power outlet in your house - or your neighbor's house, if it's served - and get a highspeed connection. It's a 'last mile' delivery system, nothing more. I have not seen W1RFI post in quite some time. I suspect he is tired of the tirades of some uninformed individuals as well as promises of some as to how advantageous certain unlicensed bands are. Not that information was incorrect, just that much was omitted. He's also busy as all get-out. Plus too many folks assume that since he works at Hq., that he must march lockstep with ARRL policy. That's not the case at all, but after a while it's clear that some folks are immune to certain facts. A lot of good folks have left this group as the bickering keeps getting worse. Naw, the bickering has always been here. You can find posts five and more years old - from both sides - that look the same as today's. WA6VSE used to among the worst - then he mellowed and became quite well mannered even if you disagree with him totally. I think the change was due to his upgrading to Extra and getting a vanity call....;-) You continue to miss the fact that at least some of the BPL that was demonstrated *does* cause harmful interference. You suggest that the fact that it interferes with amateur radio means nothing whilst you neglect that it *does* interfere with other licensed services (I believe I mentioned channel 2 and 3 television, but there are many more services that it can affect). BPL is proven to interfere with amateur radio services. Proof is available to anyone who seeks it. The idea that it doesn't is a political one, such as faith based science ("Toto, I think we lost Kansas!") global warming (If the world isn't warming up, fine! I'll accept that. Now tell me *how* the atmosphere is coping with the greenhouse gas load) and other bafflegab. Give me scientific reasons, not accuse me of being a liberal or something because I don't agree with your bad politically motivated science. Shall I tell the lightbulb joke again? It is posts such as yours that seem more intent upon trolling than engaging in meaningful discussion that tend to upset some folks. By trolling I mean that you post with a leading subject line and ignore a lot of facts (as if BPL couldn't cause a problem with other services). Better yet, there's the technique of tossing in stuff that's provably wrong. Like misquotes of what people wrote, errors of fact, etc. Well, yeah Jim! Lets see we have an "anony- mousie" who is pretty good at spouting off. Lot's of opinions, and ridicule to all who might disagree with (him?). Sounds like a major troll to me. Please don't feed the trolls. I wonder why Len doesn't have any trouble with this anony-mousie? Seems all the others arouse his ire..... ;^) Because he's against the code test, against the ARRL, against conventional ham radio, and because he *never* disagrees with Len. All anyone has to do is disagree with Len, and they get the treatment. Worse, if the actually prove him wrong about something (like whether it's legal to operate with an expired-but-in-the-grace-period license) he really goes ballistic. So predictable it's not worth bothering about. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Jim:
W1RFI? The arrl hitman against BPL? That guy? Krist, look at his call! The guy has RFI on the brain, probably thinks alien spacecraft is causing a lot of interference on the band too! Oh yeah, sounds like a real unbiased guy to be giving advice alright... Get real! John On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 03:31:41 +0000, Jim Hampton wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Dave: "Jims' points" are mostly a ploy to inject points which are not even at issue. Some "crystal-ball papers?" I have never seen "futurists" as being any more accurate then Sylvia Browne, and I am just about as likely to consult with their forecasts (people with the futurist papers) as I am Sylvia Browne, history is created by participating, not reading what others will think it is, or forecast it as being. On CW being dropped? Well, the FCC is asking for logical, reasonable, meaningful, coherent, comments on that subject right now--anyone can read the comments and decide for themselves. Hopefully, the final decision is made without someone hiding in the woodpile with vested interests... and purely on the basis of what is good for american citizens, the hobby of amateur radio and society as a whole... I think someone has woken up to that fact that there is a stagnant air about it now, and it is becoming of such insignificant numbers that the level of regulation it now has is becoming difficult to justify. On BPL? Well there are a lot of test blocks where that is being technically tested, evaluated and data is being recorded. I don't think one needs futurist papers, Sylvia Browne, or some hams opinion--technical data will make it a reality or not... that final data is not available yet... I don't think a bunch of aging hams are going to block a multi-billion dollar a year industry, if it is technically feasibly, I know some of them think so, but rational men viewing them only grin behind their backs--but, as long as they only pay attention to their "net buddy's" they will not have to suffer the embarrassment of coping with reality... On amateurs? I think a noticeably number of existing amateurs will be SK before this year is out, more next year, even more the following year, I think that is a graph which points towards the bottom, and will drag the number of general and extra licenses in an almost 1:1 ratio. On what he thinks of me? He can hold any opinion he likes, indeed, if I understand my forefathers meanings and intent, I am supposed to uphold that right of his (and all other americans, even including myself) even if it costs my life and those of my family, neighbors and friends--so why would I then, understanding these principles put forth by those men, move even my little finger to halt him in his pursuits of happiness? Or, perhaps there is something of deep meaning and paramount importance which I am failing to see here? John John, If you have been around this group for over a year, you would have seen links to some of W1RFI's work. There are different BPL standards (apparently) now. A link had been posted in this group quite some time ago (perhaps a year?) which allowed folks to view the video of some of W1RFI's work. What he found was a tremendous amount of interference caused by BPL. Interference that did not stop at the ends of the amateur bands. I have not seen W1RFI post in quite some time. I suspect he is tired of the tirades of some uninformed individuals as well as promises of some as to how advantageous certain unlicensed bands are. Not that information was incorrect, just that much was omitted. A lot of good folks have left this group as the bickering keeps getting worse. You continue to miss the fact that at least some of the BPL that was demonstrated *does* cause harmful interference. You suggest that the fact that it interferes with amateur radio means nothing whilst you neglect that it *does* interfere with other licensed services (I believe I mentioned channel 2 and 3 television, but there are many more services that it can affect). It is posts such as yours that seem more intent upon trolling than engaging in meaningful discussion that tend to upset some folks. By trolling I mean that you post with a leading subject line and ignore a lot of facts (as if BPL couldn't cause a problem with other services). With all due regards, Jim AA2QA |
Jim:
First of all, compaction is MUCH more important than bandwidth, with out data compaction you would shortly be out of bandwidth... First of all, binary trees is one super method of compacting data... if you understand the simple concept of binary trees, and especially in relationship to data compaction, much of this "I can't believe it!" will quickly disappear. Indeed, your head should become filled with "what if?" and you will start trying to figure out ways to do it yourself, wondering why you didn't do it before! This will probably lead you to homebrewing a couple of hardware devices and experimenting with a friend... and, a good starting place just happens to be those "junk" discarded "USRobotics Courier Modems" everyone seems to think is a joke... there is better equip but my access to state of the art equip is rather limited for experimenting, but I do hunt electronics surplus dealers with a keen eye... ya never know what might just be in the next box in the corner... John On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:49:43 +0000, Jim Hampton wrote: John, Since you purport to have a ee degree, you might explain how some signals held below 300 KHz could possibly serve a number of users (say in a neighborhood) at 3 megabaud (or higher) rates? My $29.95 per month ADSL runs from 4,000 kbits to 7,000 kbits per second. I downloaded I.E. 6 at 695 kilobytes per second, so it is not a fluke. Will BPL do as well? BPL isn't going to be used in the countryside; they want to penetrate cities where the cost per user will be cheap. The problem is that cable (Roadrunner) and DSL are running $29.95 per month - oh, DSL is now available (high speed) at $24.95 per month. Of course, satellite can also supply high-speed Internet connections. Perhaps BPL can do it for $10.00 per month? LOL For what it is worth, Len is correct; the BPL runs from just above the AM broadcast band (in the U.S.) to around 80 MHz. Even at, say, 1.8 MHz, there can be considerable radiation. The easiest solution is simply to allow it, but not allow signals any greater than those currently permitted for unintentional radiators. If done, only a small number of amateurs would likely be affected. If I recall properly (and anyone is free to correct these numbers), BPL proponents had argued that BPL, as originally proposed, would only raise the background noise some 10 dB. Ten decibels is, of course, 1 Bell, which is a 10 times increase in power (in this case, noise power). That is quite unacceptable. Period. I know that a large number of folks would like to reduce testing (not just Morse) to as close to zero as possible. My former employer discontinued apprenticeships a while back. Originally, they were 4 year apprenticeships; later, they became 3 year apprenticeships - but the 3 year apprenticeship conferred an associates degree upon graduation. So, the 4 year apprenticeship must have been a watered-down apprenticeship, right? I see where one state in this country is now changing its' education system to take a strong stand against evolution and make some statements encouraging "intelligent design". Speaking of that associate's degree apprenticeship, they stated that it includes a lot of electronic theory. I saw the books. I was surprised that they actually mentioned Norton and Thevenin equivalents, but they were sorely lacking in much detail. No ac theory (forget complex impedance). Simply series and parallel dc circuits. No bridges. No Delta Wye conversions. No multiple dc sources either. Perhaps a maximum of 4 resistors in an extremely simple "circuit". Whilst you and others seem intent on reducing testing (I have no problem with Morse - either for or against), I cannot agree with simplifying the theory/operating/law sections of the testing. I see other areas of the country which are similarly intent on watering down much other than amateur radio. Why, oh why, are we the number 16 nation in the world in broadband penetration (oh, BPL, right?)? We are far from number one with cell phones. We are down around number 20 in life expectancy. Yep, better argue against Darwin. All those liberal left-leaning universities must be the problem. Perhaps we can chase away learned folks the way Germany did 70 years ago or so. Werner Von Bran sure was an asset to our country when he left Germany. Maybe we can return the favor and chase some folks out of this country. I'm beginning to see why some of the hams argue so vehemently. I think it has something more than just Morse behind it. Take a look at what is happening. Read some newspapers (best look outside the U.S. for less-biased reporting). Check some numbers (such as poverty, Internet penetration, life expectancy). No, we are not in bad shape, but nowhere near the top where most folks simply *think* we are. Just because the administration says were are doing well doesn't make it so. Best regards from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "John Smith" wrote in message ... Len: I must admit, I am not aware of any of that, attempts to use HF on power lines, or even VHF... but I have not kept up at all... that doesn't sound wacky, it sounds impossible to me... However, I would't even attempt to get a 1.750Mhz signal down power wiring, the capacitance between windings, shielding in all those xfrms along the way, underground power lines, ground shielding in between windings, wiring wound around in conduit boxes, etc, etc... My first degree was in EE. From what I remember, take a damn idiot to expect those freqs to go any distance at all--the capacitive loading is going to start looking like a direct short to ground I would expect! Especially at 80Mhz! And that, even if the modem puts out a 1KW output! There are some remote 60Hz users out there. The inductance of that wiring is going to look staggering to multi-Mhz signals, I would think--no one is going to be able to control the impedance of that feedline. Really, I would have to see it to believe it, will keep my eyes open, now you have me interested. Now, 300Hz to vlf is great, and there would be tolerable line attenuation due to impedance from line inductance, the resistance of the wire would then become one of largest losses, if not the largest. In special cases, where line length ended up being a resonate or near-resonate length, might even have a signal in need of attenuation at the ISP. I have no idea what-so-ever of how "long wire antennas" of that magnitude behave like... and as a transmission line! Krist, I am worried about how much signal I am getting though 250+ feet of aging coax! John |
N2EY placed fingers to the keyboard and typed, " I think the change was due to his
upgrading to Extra and getting a vanity call....;-)" To which John Smith thought, "Sometimes you slay the monster, sometimes the monster slays you..." John On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:12:39 -0700, N2EY wrote: I think the change was due to his upgrading to Extra and getting a vanity call....;-) |
|
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Jim: Here is what I think: 1) NO standards have been established. 2) BPL is in a testing phase, we will NOT know anything until this is completed by independent testing laboratories--NOT HAMS--NOT THOSE HOLDING THE LICENSES, PATENTS, MANUFACTURING RIGHTS, ETC, ETC.... 3) Amateurs are over-reacting BEFORE data has been had. 4) All will be decided on its merits. 5) Amateur hobbyists may have to tolerate some interference for the benefit of tens or hundreds of millions. 6) I think they would be idiots to tell us exactly what they were working on and details of the methods, freqs and hardware... if they do, why not just give the technology away? BPL will benefit no one. In the markets large enough for it to have a chance of flying, consumers already have a choice among several competing technologies (phone, DSL, cable, WI-FI, and satellite), some of which are better than BPL. To compete, it will have to be as cheap as phone and as fast as cable. Won't happen. To cover operating costs, it will cost in the same range per month as DSL or cable with NO advantages and several disadvantages to the actual users. See it isn't just throwing the signal on the power line and then having a special modem at the consumer end. Substantial investments in hardware are required. There has to be a signal booster every mile or so OR the signal has to run via cable almost up to the consumer and then be shifted to the power line. In addition, every transformer has to have a bypass installed for the broadband signal. While we need to keep alert to the problem potential in BPL, I'm not too excited about it as there are independent industry analysts showing that it will be a loser due to financial considerations even if the system is mature and fully "loaded" to achieve the lowest possible price. Besides the speed at which Dad will drop BPL when Junior interferes with his ballgame on TV or radio would make your head spin. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: Jim Hampton wrote: {snip} BPL has one and only one selling point: If you have BPL service, you can plug your computer into any power outlet in your house - or your neighbor's house, if it's served - and get a highspeed connection. It's a 'last mile' delivery system, nothing more. The plug into the outlet thing is kind of a day late and a dollar short IMO. My desktop computers are plugged into the walls, but all of the family laptops are wireless. So it might be a hard sell to tell someone that they will just have to plug into the wall socket to get their internet, when they now don't have to connect to anything! I hadn't really considered that before but I can see where the wireless home network is going to diminish the value of "plugging into any electrical outlet" sales pitch. Many of my friends, as well as myself, have wireless networks for the laptops and desktops. BPL is going to lose a lot of ground here as by the time they get deployed, if they get deployed, will be a late entry into that game. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... The plug into the outlet thing is kind of a day late and a dollar short IMO. My desktop computers are plugged into the walls, but all of the family laptops are wireless. So it might be a hard sell to tell someone that they will just have to plug into the wall socket to get their internet, when they now don't have to connect to anything! Your laptops would likely continue wireless via your home network. But just like now, somewhere you'd need to "plug in" to connect to your ISP. |
From: John Smith on Thurs 11 Aug 2005 11:04
Jim: W1RFI? The arrl hitman against BPL? That guy? Krist, look at his call! The guy has RFI on the brain, probably thinks alien spacecraft is causing a lot of interference on the band too! Oh yeah, sounds like a real unbiased guy to be giving advice alright... Get real! Another history lesson, John. Ed Hare (W1RFI) is a lead spokesperson for the ARRL on radio interference matters affecting radio amateurs. He got enthused about that job (he gets paid for what he does) enough that he got a vanity call to reflect his work. In truth, Ed Hare doesn't have much experience in metrology anywhere else but at the ARRL "laboratory." He does possess enough smarts to analyze data and find sources of information from those WITH experience in metrology. FOR the ARRL he appears to be doing a good job. However, the ARRL is not the be-all and end-all of any BPL problems' information. ARRL has actually hired a commercial firm to do RFI measurements at one Market Test location. ARRL website used to have a link to download that report, may still be there (haven't looked myself). The ARRL has (or had at any rate) several links to other sites which DO have quantitative data on RFI problems. A REAL source of information on BPL is in the Comments to the FCC from 2003 to 2004 on the FCC's NOI (Notice of Inquiry) into "industry suggestions on measurement methods of RFI in the field." That alone touched off a tirade, a flood of angst by radio amateurs against BPL's very existance...without a whole lot of "suggestions on measurement methods." Lost to the majority of Commenters is the FACT that the FCC COULD NOT FORBID the existance of BPL. All the FCC could do is to determine if RFI exceeded a regulatory-set power level and regulate the service-provider aspect of BPL providers. The FCC has since done that and is refining some of its regulations. The Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) is handling Access BPL. On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 03:31:41 +0000, Jim Hampton wrote: If you have been around this group for over a year, you would have seen links to some of W1RFI's work. There are different BPL standards (apparently) now. A link had been posted in this group quite some time ago (perhaps a year?) which allowed folks to view the video of some of W1RFI's work. What he found was a tremendous amount of interference caused by BPL. Interference that did not stop at the ends of the amateur bands. Slight correction, Jim. Ed Hare didn't find out all this "tremendous amount of interference" all by himself. OTHERS found it and reported it. Government agencies have made quantitative measurements to a high metrology accuracy and documented that...such is publicly available. Ed Hare pointed to the sources of information. The ARRL itself did very little but publicize the matter. Certain localities (a club organization in Iowa) have done far more in their own area in terms of effort and maintaining high metrology standards as well as reporting it. "Tremendous amount" is a very subjective statement. Subjective statements aren't good for regulation law. The law should state some exact limit levels on that interference, including the general method (peak v. average, measurement bandwidth, comparison against known physical standards, etc). Some of those exact limit levels will be argued and they may be arbitrary...but they will be far more correct that using the subjective "tremendous amount." A lot of good folks have left this group as the bickering keeps getting worse. True, but irrelevant to the subject thread... :-) You continue to miss the fact that at least some of the BPL that was demonstrated *does* cause harmful interference. You suggest that the fact that it interferes with amateur radio means nothing whilst you neglect that it *does* interfere with other licensed services (I believe I mentioned channel 2 and 3 television, but there are many more services that it can affect). Those radio services (including broadcasting) have been noted and explained by industry/business groups involved in those HF and low-VHF services on the FCC NOI. It isn't the job of the ARRL to safeguard anything but the wishes of its membership. It is posts such as yours that seem more intent upon trolling than engaging in meaningful discussion that tend to upset some folks. By trolling I mean that you post with a leading subject line and ignore a lot of facts (as if BPL couldn't cause a problem with other services). "Trolling" seems to be the essence of many folks' participation in here...including some of your own postings! :-) Insofar as "some folks" are concerned, it's NOT everyone's job (or goal in life) to placate them, to commisserate, to capitulate to their mighty opinions. [especially true about the PCTA extras in here] If you don't like controversy, newsgroups are NOT for you! On the same token, postings should have some semblance of civility which is often thrown aside by some. John posts provocatively but he is also civil (as much as possible) to his 'opponents,' most of whom have NOT bothered with much civility in denigrating him. I give John credit for talking back to these other anony- mousies (and identifiables) who have increased the intolerable noise level in this newsgroup. bpl rfi |
Dee:
I say, if it is technically possible, we WILL have it, if not, we WILL NOT have it--I hear "authority hams" on the bands--I avoid them--what they say just doesn't matter... if you really want to look into that crystal ball, look much harder--radio and tv WILL BE over the internet, so will your landline phone... no one is going to have to worry about interference to the bands now existing, even now, many radio stations simulcast and can be heard on your computer, I listen to east coast am stations all the time, if I had a faster connection, I'd watch some internet tv... SDP is a free program which does internet radio quite nicely, audio is superb... BPL will be in testing for years, somewhere along the way the guy with the right idea will show up and/or the technology will advance, the rest will be history... John On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:18:51 -0400, Dee Flint wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... Jim: Here is what I think: 1) NO standards have been established. 2) BPL is in a testing phase, we will NOT know anything until this is completed by independent testing laboratories--NOT HAMS--NOT THOSE HOLDING THE LICENSES, PATENTS, MANUFACTURING RIGHTS, ETC, ETC.... 3) Amateurs are over-reacting BEFORE data has been had. 4) All will be decided on its merits. 5) Amateur hobbyists may have to tolerate some interference for the benefit of tens or hundreds of millions. 6) I think they would be idiots to tell us exactly what they were working on and details of the methods, freqs and hardware... if they do, why not just give the technology away? BPL will benefit no one. In the markets large enough for it to have a chance of flying, consumers already have a choice among several competing technologies (phone, DSL, cable, WI-FI, and satellite), some of which are better than BPL. To compete, it will have to be as cheap as phone and as fast as cable. Won't happen. To cover operating costs, it will cost in the same range per month as DSL or cable with NO advantages and several disadvantages to the actual users. See it isn't just throwing the signal on the power line and then having a special modem at the consumer end. Substantial investments in hardware are required. There has to be a signal booster every mile or so OR the signal has to run via cable almost up to the consumer and then be shifted to the power line. In addition, every transformer has to have a bypass installed for the broadband signal. While we need to keep alert to the problem potential in BPL, I'm not too excited about it as there are independent industry analysts showing that it will be a loser due to financial considerations even if the system is mature and fully "loaded" to achieve the lowest possible price. Besides the speed at which Dad will drop BPL when Junior interferes with his ballgame on TV or radio would make your head spin. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net... "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... The plug into the outlet thing is kind of a day late and a dollar short IMO. My desktop computers are plugged into the walls, but all of the family laptops are wireless. So it might be a hard sell to tell someone that they will just have to plug into the wall socket to get their internet, when they now don't have to connect to anything! Your laptops would likely continue wireless via your home network. But just like now, somewhere you'd need to "plug in" to connect to your ISP. But once you have a wireless router, then it doesn't usually matter where in the house you have it as none of the computers need to be connected directly to it. Thus the "plug it into any power outlet" for the ISP becomes moot, i.e. it has no extra sales value over a cable, DSL, etc connection. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Dee: I say, if it is technically possible, we WILL have it, if not, we WILL NOT have it--I hear "authority hams" on the bands--I avoid them--what they say just doesn't matter... if you really want to look into that crystal ball, If it is economically viable, it will happen. If it is not, it won't. Technology is seldom the driving force as to whether or not something is implemented. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dee Flint" wrote Thus the "plug it into any power outlet" for the ISP becomes moot, i.e. it has no extra sales value over a cable, DSL, etc connection. I think the "plug it into any power outlet" notion is a marketing play to the idea of not needing another phone line, coax, fiber, or other "pipe" out to the world. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:52 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com