"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

" Radio Flyer" wrote in message
.. .


It's true, It will cover the tv bands up to 80 MHZ except for 74.8-75.3


Gee, that's something to think about, isn't it? I mean ABC, CBS, NBC and
FOX aren't in a big panic about BPL, are they? Why the hell should SWLs
worry more than the networks?

BPL looks like another Y2K crisis, to me.


TV stations aren't concerned (yet) about BPL because the signal levels
needed to receive snow free television are on the order of 50 times higher
than those to receive a listenable signal on a good HF receiver (20uV for
HF, and 1000uV for television). In addition, most homes are now wired for
cable, which is much better shielded than your basic HF antenna.

"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote in message
...



TV stations aren't concerned (yet) about BPL because the signal levels
needed to receive snow free television are on the order of 50 times higher
than those to receive a listenable signal on a good HF receiver (20uV for
HF, and 1000uV for television).

If you're saying most TVs are getting much higher signal levels than most
radios, I'll agree. But BPL radiation will go up with frequency and will be
much higher at 60 Mhz than it will be at 5 Mhz.


In addition, most homes are now wired for
cable, which is much better shielded than your basic HF antenna.




That may or may not be true in the proposed BPL areas. BPL is supposed to
be most attactive for outlying areas without DSL and cable acess.

Interference aside, BPL would be a slick solution if it's reliable.
However, there hasn't been much evidence that BPL can deliver wide bandwidth
to a significant number of customers over a long period of time.

Frank Dresser

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:23:49 GMT, "Frank Dresser"
wrote:

Interference aside, BPL would be a slick solution if it's reliable.
However, there hasn't been much evidence that BPL can deliver wide bandwidth
to a significant number of customers over a long period of time.

Now, I have seen just the opposite reported. Speeds lower than
typical, contemporary DSL/Cable with more susceptibility to
intereference. To note, it wont really be able to increase its
throughput once big companies like Verizon have mostly implemented
their FIOS (fiber) service at opening speeds at 5 Mbps downstream,
15Mbps and 30 Mbps downstream options as well. The techonology wont
allow for it to be competitive business-wise. This all works against
the money greedy pigs at the FCC/Power Companies' lies about QRM on
the RF spectrum slated to be used.

Brenda Ann Dyer wrote:

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

" Radio Flyer" wrote in message
.. .


It's true, It will cover the tv bands up to 80 MHZ except for 74.8-75.3


Gee, that's something to think about, isn't it? I mean ABC, CBS, NBC and
FOX aren't in a big panic about BPL, are they? Why the hell should SWLs
worry more than the networks?

BPL looks like another Y2K crisis, to me.

TV stations aren't concerned (yet) about BPL because the signal levels
needed to receive snow free television are on the order of 50 times higher
than those to receive a listenable signal on a good HF receiver (20uV for
HF, and 1000uV for television). In addition, most homes are now wired for
cable, which is much better shielded than your basic HF antenna.

Well of course. Why would one want a HF antenna to be shielded?

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Brenda Ann Dyer wrote:

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

" Radio Flyer" wrote in message
.. .


It's true, It will cover the tv bands up to 80 MHZ except for
74.8-75.3


Gee, that's something to think about, isn't it? I mean ABC, CBS, NBC
and
FOX aren't in a big panic about BPL, are they? Why the hell should
SWLs
worry more than the networks?

BPL looks like another Y2K crisis, to me.

TV stations aren't concerned (yet) about BPL because the signal levels
needed to receive snow free television are on the order of 50 times
higher
than those to receive a listenable signal on a good HF receiver (20uV for
HF, and 1000uV for television). In addition, most homes are now wired for
cable, which is much better shielded than your basic HF antenna.

Well of course. Why would one want a HF antenna to be shielded?

dxAce
Michigan
USA

You may want it to be shielded when BPL is nationwide

Radio Flyer wrote:


"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Brenda Ann Dyer wrote:

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

" Radio Flyer" wrote in message
.. .


It's true, It will cover the tv bands up to 80 MHZ except for
74.8-75.3


Gee, that's something to think about, isn't it? I mean ABC, CBS, NBC
and
FOX aren't in a big panic about BPL, are they? Why the hell should
SWLs
worry more than the networks?

BPL looks like another Y2K crisis, to me.

TV stations aren't concerned (yet) about BPL because the signal levels
needed to receive snow free television are on the order of 50 times
higher
than those to receive a listenable signal on a good HF receiver (20uV for
HF, and 1000uV for television). In addition, most homes are now wired for
cable, which is much better shielded than your basic HF antenna.

Well of course. Why would one want a HF antenna to be shielded?

dxAce
Michigan
USA

You may want it to be shielded when BPL is nationwide


That may not help. BPL will interfere with SW and TV signals BEFORE they
get to the antenna. I don't think BPL will cause "snow" as we know it,
from all descriptions the interference is a bunch of clicking and
buzzing noises. Try watching TV while the picture is cutting in and out
because of BPL. I think that once BPL is shown to affect TV (as I
believe it will) the networks will be falling all over themselves to
protest.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In addition, most homes are now wired for
cable, which is much better shielded than your basic HF antenna.

not true. My radio scanner proves that the cable companies are not shielded.

Even when driving to the next county over, which is a different cable company,
I still pick up the cable tv transmissions on my scanner, through the air.

And even driving to the next city over, which is a third cable company, I still
pick up the transmissions through the air.

NOne of them are shielded.

It ruins trying to listen to the communications bands on a bunch of frequencies
above 30 MHZ.

Reporting it doesn't do any good, as all of the cable companies refuse to fix
it.

"Stereophile22" wrote in message
...
In addition, most homes are now wired for
cable, which is much better shielded than your basic HF antenna.

not true. My radio scanner proves that the cable companies are not
shielded.

Even when driving to the next county over, which is a different
cable company,
I still pick up the cable tv transmissions on my scanner, through
the air.

And even driving to the next city over, which is a third cable
company, I still
pick up the transmissions through the air.

NOne of them are shielded.

It ruins trying to listen to the communications bands on a bunch of
frequencies
above 30 MHZ.

Reporting it doesn't do any good, as all of the cable companies
refuse to fix
it.

Tell them you're getting their programming for free because
they have leaky systems. That'll change their tune real
fast. Time Warner locally has been well known for being
exceptionally greedy about that sort of thing.

--Mike L.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:40:42 -0500, "Michael Lawson"
wrote:

Tell them you're getting their programming for free because
they have leaky systems. That'll change their tune real
fast. Time Warner locally has been well known for being
exceptionally greedy about that sort of thing.

More likely they'll threaten to sue your ass for "theft of
services".

HF, and 1000uV for television). In addition, most homes are now wired for
cable, which is much better shielded than your basic HF antenna.

In addition to the cable leak interfering with listening to communications
above 30 MHZ, it also interferes with listening to AM broadcast and shortwave
bands even worse because of all of the buzzing caused by it on AM and
shortwave.

Just to make s ure that the problem wasn't in my radio, I also checked my other
radios (AM and FM bands).

The buzzing was still present on the AM radio on every radio I have. So the
problem was definitely not in my radio.

When I do get far enough out oif the area, the buzzing stops and AM can be
picked up mnormally.

However, I normally don't drive out of the area that far.

I usually stay either at home or within the area.