BPL vs MW & LW
 

Will BPL be prohibited at LW and MW frequencies? If so, can sub-harmonics still
QRM those bands?

"RFCOMMSYS" wrote in message
...
Will BPL be prohibited at LW and MW frequencies? If so, can sub-harmonics
still
QRM those bands?


No such things as subharmonics. The fundamental cannot produce frequencies
lower than itself. However, who knows what strange QRM the modems themselves
will produce..

Some reports are claiming it will run from 2 MHz to 80 MHz.
I wouldn't worry much about BPL it wont survive. It's a poor and
flawed technology and not economically viable.

On 15 Nov 2004 00:59:20 GMT, (RFCOMMSYS) wrote:

Will BPL be prohibited at LW and MW frequencies? If so, can sub-harmonics still
QRM those bands?

JuLiE Dxer wrote:

Some reports are claiming it will run from 2 MHz to 80 MHz.

80 MHz? American TV starts at 66 MHz or so. Do the morons at the FCC
know that BPL will interfere with American TV channels 2-5? I wonder how
the folks at all the TV stations on channels 2,3,4, and 5 will feel once
BPL blanks their signals? Or is this a way to force a move to digital
TV?

I wouldn't worry much about BPL it wont survive. It's a poor and
flawed technology and not economically viable.

On 15 Nov 2004 00:59:20 GMT, (RFCOMMSYS) wrote:

Will BPL be prohibited at LW and MW frequencies? If so, can sub-harmonics still
QRM those bands?




----== 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 =---

know that BPL will interfere with American TV channels 2-5? I wonder how
the folks at all the TV stations on channels 2,3,4, and 5 will feel once
BPL blanks their signals? Or is this a way to force a move to digital
TV

one of our digital tv stations here is assigned to channel 2.

so BPL will interfere with the new digital tv .

In article ,
"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote:

"RFCOMMSYS" wrote in message
...
Will BPL be prohibited at LW and MW frequencies? If so, can
sub-harmonics
still
QRM those bands?


No such things as subharmonics. The fundamental cannot produce
frequencies lower than itself. However, who knows what strange QRM
the modems themselves will produce..

Yes that is true that the fundamental by itself will not produce
harmonics of lower frequency but the fundamental is being modulated by
data so mixed products of variable data transmitted mixing with the
carrier will produce frequency energy above and below the fundamental.
If you have long strings of ones or zeros the mixed frequencies will be
as low as the inverse of the period of low frequency data rates.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

" 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.


I bet it will survive since the FCC is in the pocket of the electricity
and
power industries.


Is that a rhetorical bet or an actual bet? You could drop your entire net
worth into the stock of BPL power companies and suppliers. One of the
suppliers has dropped from a high flyer to a penny stock. Your confidence
in BPL is certainly much higher than the professional investors. Just
think, if you're right, you could prove the "experts" wrong AND make
yourself rich!! Sweet!!!

Frank Dresser

"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

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

"Telamon" wrote
Yes that is true that the fundamental by itself will not produce
harmonics of lower frequency but the fundamental is being modulated by
data so mixed products of variable data transmitted mixing with the
carrier will produce frequency energy above and below the fundamental.
If you have long strings of ones or zeros the mixed frequencies will be
as low as the inverse of the period of low frequency data rates.
____________

The spectrum occupied by a data pulse is dependent on the rise and fall
times of the pulse, not on the pulse duration. If the rise and fall times
are constant, spectral bandwidth also will be constant. Only the
distribution of energy within that spectrum will vary for pulses of
different lengths (half-amplitude durations).

A familiar example of this is the "click" created in radios when a nearby
electric light is switched on or off. When the switch contacts make and
break, they create a current transition across a short time interval --
which generates a wideband RF spectrum. This RF energy is radiated by the
AC wiring, and some of it is received and detected by the radio.

RF

Visit http://rfry.org for FM transmission system papers.

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.

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.

I just remembered when the cable leak interference started here at my home.

Early last year, I still recieved AM and shortwave as normal,from home, without
any of that type of interference, no buzzing.

Then later last year, the cable company came and switced all of their wires
around to fiber-optic cable to improve reception.

Well, that's what the cable guys working on the lines said they were doing,
switching the cable to fiber-optic cable.

And that was right when I started having the cable leakage problems, from home.

Ever since they switched to fiber-optic cable is when I started having all of
the interference problems of buzzing on AM and shortwave radio when listening
from home, making the bands almost totally useless.

I'm guessing the other cable companies in the area are also using "fiber-optic
cable".

"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.

In article ,
"Richard Fry" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote
Yes that is true that the fundamental by itself will not produce
harmonics of lower frequency but the fundamental is being modulated by
data so mixed products of variable data transmitted mixing with the
carrier will produce frequency energy above and below the fundamental.
If you have long strings of ones or zeros the mixed frequencies will be
as low as the inverse of the period of low frequency data rates.
____________

The spectrum occupied by a data pulse is dependent on the rise and fall
times of the pulse, not on the pulse duration. If the rise and fall times
are constant, spectral bandwidth also will be constant. Only the
distribution of energy within that spectrum will vary for pulses of
different lengths (half-amplitude durations).

Snip

Yes and that would be the case for NRZ data or non return to zero data.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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".

"Telamon" wrote

Yes and that would be the case for NRZ data or
non return to zero data.
___________

Once past the pulse transition, NRZ "data" is nothing but a different value
of DC -- the bandwidth of which is infinitely small.

If NRZ data is amplitude modulated onto a carrier via a DC-coupled
modulator, then the effect is to change the amplitude of the carrier from
one steady-state value to another. The occupied spectrum is infinitely
small for steady-state carriers.

For frequency modulation, DC-coupled NRZ data will change the carrier from
one frequency to another, each of which will be infinitely small during
steady-state conditions.

RF

"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
:(

Brenda Ann Dyer wrote:

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


I shielded all my antennas two years ago. As a very strange
coincidence, I haven't received a signal since..I mean, just what are
the odds of THAT happening??

Now you tell me that cable is even BETTER shielded. Just what are they
paying for? Is there some sort of trick 3-D effect if you stare at the
screen long enough? Whatever it is, it sure doesn't work for me...and
yes, I've tried squinting.





mike (..i think i'm going snow blind..) II

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.

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 =---