What's that got to do with BPL???

Keith wrote:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:31:17 GMT,
opcom in wrote:

What have you done for Amateur Radio today?
--^^---------------------------------------------------------------

The question is what has the ARRL done to the future of Ham Radio
by hanging on to the Morse Code Requirement? It has killed it.

--
Best Regards, Keith http://kilowatt-radio.org/
==========================================
= http://slrn.org SLRN 0.9.8.0 is out. =
==========================================

Right on --
retired merchant marine R/O
N4GL

GeorgeF wrote:

recalcitrant ham op wrote:

Did you *REALLY THINK* that a couple hundred
aging HF operating tightwad ham radio operators
are going to stop an emerging technology that will
conceivably network home appliances to the internet
and be worth $BILLIONS$ in potential revenue ??

Hams are the least of the problems. There are many other users of the
HF range who will be effected other than hams. Here's just a few:

US Coast Guard makes high use of HF
All branches of the military
Many long distance marine comms are still on HF
TransAtlantic and Pacific Air Traffic Control Comms are HF
(Imagine if the ATC ground station can't hear an Aircraft call is
position).

And that's just a few services who are heavy uses of HF.

George
http://www.MilAirComms.com
With DSL who needs BPL?

You're forgetting that the head of the FCC is Michael Powell -- son of
Colin you-know-who which in turn works for you-know-who.
Do you really think that a fundamental thing like ****ing up the entire HF
spectrum will stand in the way of corporate profits????
N4GL

tommyknocker wrote:

GeorgeF wrote:



recalcitrant ham op wrote:

Did you *REALLY THINK* that a couple hundred
aging HF operating tightwad ham radio operators
are going to stop an emerging technology that will
conceivably network home appliances to the internet
and be worth $BILLIONS$ in potential revenue ??

Hams are the least of the problems. There are many other users of the
HF range who will be effected other than hams. Here's just a few:

US Coast Guard makes high use of HF
All branches of the military
Many long distance marine comms are still on HF
TransAtlantic and Pacific Air Traffic Control Comms are HF
(Imagine if the ATC ground station can't hear an Aircraft call is
position).


And that's just a few services who are heavy uses of HF.

So why is the FCC going through with it? I would think that the heavy
military use of HF (I'm including the Coast Guard as part of the armed
forces) would keep BPL from happening. Mil HF comms pop up on unexpected
freqs at odd times (probably to keep other people from listening) and
interference from 2-30 Mhz would be a big problem, especially at bases
in urban areas like Camp Pendleton and Travis AFB.

George
http://www.MilAirComms.com
With DSL who needs BPL?

Cable modems are faster than DSL yet don't have the interference and
reliability problems of BPL.

Here's what we do --- we built a (legal) KW rig into a van, install a
vertical-
radiating antenna, cut out the roof and replace it with a fiberglass
sheet. Drive directly underneath a power line with BPL running. Run lots
of QSO's, and
have at it. We're legal. Induced RF just might make them think twice
about it.
Yes, I know Ashcrofts boys are reading this --- Hi, muthers -- I live at

the callbook address. Bring some beer when you come visiting.
N4GL

Frank Dresser wrote:

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
link.net...


Sure we will. All we need to is put up KW level beacon stations.

End of BPL.

Dan/W4NTI



Why would that end BPL?

Frank Dresser

For the reasons you give and others, I tend to think this is along the lines
of Y2K. Big panic but...
"tommyknocker" wrote in message
...
GeorgeF wrote:



So why is the FCC going through with it? I would think that the heavy
military use of HF (I'm including the Coast Guard as part of the armed
forces) would keep BPL from happening. Mil HF comms pop up on unexpected
freqs at odd times (probably to keep other people from listening) and
interference from 2-30 Mhz would be a big problem, especially at bases
in urban areas like Camp Pendleton and Travis AFB.

"Walter Treftz" wrote in message
...
Here's what we do --- we built a (legal) KW rig into a van, install a
vertical-
radiating antenna, cut out the roof and replace it with a fiberglass
sheet. Drive directly underneath a power line with BPL running. Run lots
of QSO's, and
have at it. We're legal. Induced RF just might make them think twice
about it.
Yes, I know Ashcrofts boys are reading this --- Hi, muthers -- I live at

the callbook address. Bring some beer when you come visiting.
N4GL



Do you mean the way CBers made channel 5 unwatchable 25 years ago?

I don't know much about BPL, but I think the TV analogy might hold. Given
the bandwidth of BPL, there must be dozens, maybe hundreds of channels on
the powerline. Can every one, or most of them, be wiped out? I'm thinking
somebody came up with some pretty robust ways to deal with interference.

But what if it does stop BPL? BPL isn't being backed because it's a
technically elegant system. It's being backed by politics. Rural areas
were critically important in the last Presidential election, and any
candidiate would love to say something like "MY OPPONENT IS STOPPING ONE
FORM OF HIGH SPEED INTERNET DISTRIBUTION ON BEHALF OF HIS PALS IN THE
TELECOMMUNCATIONS INDUSTRY, BUT I PROMISE TO BRING IT IN, RIGHT ON YOUR
POWER LINE, AS SOON AS I'M ELECTED!!" Of course, that would be a political
misrepresentation, but politicans get away with worse every day. Politics
turns into a numbers game.


How many politicians or bureaucrats are saying anything negative about this
goofy scheme? Politicians may not know physics, but they do know how to
count.

Frank Dresser

I posted something similar to this in a different newsgroup, but I wonder if
based on the logic that the interference could also affect other services
such as emergency services, aircraft frequencies, and even military
frequency allocations, it would seem to me to be important to persuade those
groups to pressure the FCC against the whole BPL thing.....



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
"recalcitrant ham op" wrote in message
...

"opcom" wrote in message
...
This was posted to ARLI, I don't know how many
subscribe, but in spite of the numerous comments
against BPL (transmitting wideband internet data
over power lines, which will destroy the HF radio
spectrum), the FCC seems disposed to encourage
it anyway. evil! evil! just look up BPL on the web. T
the noise from the radiated signals trashed the ham bands thoroughly.

I guess you never heard that money talks and bull**** walks eh?

Did you *REALLY THINK* that a couple hundred
aging HF operating tightwad ham radio operators
are going to stop an emerging technology that will
conceivably network home appliances to the internet
and be worth $BILLIONS$ in potential revenue ??

Jeezehus-H-christ...get F-N real !!

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
link.net...


Sure we will. All we need to is put up KW level beacon stations.

End of BPL.

Dan/W4NTI



Why would that end BPL?

Frank Dresser



The transmission lines are radiators. As such they will also receive.

Power lines are right up next to the rigs. The RF from the radios will
trash the BPL. Probably by causing drop outs and adding lots of extra
delays. Basically it will make BPL useless anywhere near a ham station.

Dan/W4NTI

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Frank Dresser wrote:

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
link.net...


Sure we will. All we need to is put up KW level beacon stations.

End of BPL.

Dan/W4NTI




Why would that end BPL?

Frank Dresser




It would more likely end the legality of 1kw for hams.

Dick


It probably wont take a KW to trash BPL. Just needed to communicate on HF.

Dan/W4NTI

"Frank Todd K3EKO" wrote in message
news:M7Mcb.579252$YN5.415635@sccrnsc01...
Dan/W4NTI wrote:

"Keith" wrote in message
nk.net...

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:31:17 GMT,
opcom in wrote:


What have you done for Amateur Radio today?
--^^---------------------------------------------------------------

The question is what has the ARRL done to the future of Ham Radio
by hanging on to the Morse Code Requirement? It has killed it.


--
Best Regards, Keith http://kilowatt-radio.org/
==========================================
= http://slrn.org SLRN 0.9.8.0 is out.

=======================================


You really are a dumbass ain't ya Kieth? Tell me, in you apparantly
drug
clouded brain. How BPL and CW have anything to do with each other?

Oh never mind. You ain't worth reading anylonger.

Dan/W4NTI


Keith,

Just ignore Dan. Everyone in his mind is a DUMBASS. the only one who
is perfect is HIM, PERIOD.


--
73

Frank K3EKO


Gotta give ya credit Franky me boy....when your right, your right.

But I don't think everyone is a dumbass. Just the people I call
dumbass...like you and Keith.

Dan/W4NTI