Mike Terry wrote:
Why are there so few on topic postings on this newsgroup? Is shortwave dying
like stamp collecting and other hobbies of the past?

The real question is: Will discussions of the death of shortwave ever
die? I'm in my 40s and people have been announcing the death of
shortwave ever since I can remember. Seriously, I remember it going
back at least as far as the late 60s, when I was just a kid. We hear
this tired old song over and over and over, and the people who sing it
just never seem to get tired.

If only I had that kind of stamina!!! These people should be out there
competing in triathlons or something.

Steve

That propaganda bits got really, really old. I wouldn't go back to that
for anything.

On 4 Aug 2005 06:53:32 -0700, wrote:

That propaganda bits got really, really old. I wouldn't go back to that
for anything.

So you think propaganda has gone away?

Michael Lawson wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...

John S. wrote:

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:


In article , Mike Terry wrote:


Why are there so few on topic postings on this newsgroup? Is

shortwave dying

like stamp collecting and other hobbies of the past?

Yes, and Google has invested $100,000,000 to kill it. Boycott

Google if

you want to keep listening to shortwave radio.



Huh??? Where did you get that notion. Please tell us what project

to

kill shortwave google is investing $100,000 in. And what could
possibly be their motivation.



Google dumped $10Million into BPL, which, it is feared, in most

areas,

may end HF listening.


Doesn't mean it will succeed, tho. 10 Mil to Google is a
drop in the bucket.

--Mike L.





BPL has not been of checkered success in other countries. But FCC has
made a commitment to it. Short of a sudden burst of good sense, they're
not likely to back down, especially with the enormous commercial money
being poured into it.

My question is: How does BPL perform with electrical noise on the
same line. The further out a line runs from the hub, the more noise it
can pick up from switching, appliances, other electronic devices. We're
all familiar with the huge noise output of an SCR dimmer. That's because
of the enormous switching generated by the On/Off switching of the SCR.
Since BPL is targeting rural users, where Edison can run on very long
lines which are more susceptible to picking up, and radiating noise from
high current transients, transients of surprisingly rich harmonic
content, how's this going to affect digital devices taking down data
bursts which may contain harmonics from these switching transients? Even
modems are affected by low level noise on the line, which can create
errors, and eventually disconnections. AC lines can be dramatically
more noisy.


I don't hold out a great deal of hope for the commercial success of
BPL, but I don't suspect anyone in a position to change things will
admit that until the damage HF usage has been compromised.

D Peter Maus wrote:
John S. wrote:
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

In article , Mike Terry wrote:

Why are there so few on topic postings on this newsgroup? Is shortwave dying
like stamp collecting and other hobbies of the past?

Yes, and Google has invested $100,000,000 to kill it. Boycott Google if
you want to keep listening to shortwave radio.



Huh??? Where did you get that notion. Please tell us what project to
kill shortwave google is investing $100,000 in. And what could
possibly be their motivation.



Google dumped $10Million into BPL, which, it is feared, in most areas,
may end HF listening.

But their motivation for investing in a technology like BPL was hardly
to kill shortwave as the OP stated. I think it is safe to say that
shortwave broadcasting is probably close to the bottom of the list of
competitive threats (and opportunities) that Google management is
compelled to deal with.

Not to say that shortwave broadcasting completely escapes the attention
of Google. It is one of a gazzillion entries in their ever expanding
search indices.

John S. wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

John S. wrote:

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:


In article , Mike Terry wrote:


Why are there so few on topic postings on this newsgroup? Is shortwave dying
like stamp collecting and other hobbies of the past?

Yes, and Google has invested $100,000,000 to kill it. Boycott Google if
you want to keep listening to shortwave radio.



Huh??? Where did you get that notion. Please tell us what project to
kill shortwave google is investing $100,000 in. And what could
possibly be their motivation.



Google dumped $10Million into BPL, which, it is feared, in most areas,
may end HF listening.


But their motivation for investing in a technology like BPL was hardly
to kill shortwave as the OP stated. I think it is safe to say that
shortwave broadcasting is probably close to the bottom of the list of
competitive threats (and opportunities) that Google management is
compelled to deal with.

Not to say that shortwave broadcasting completely escapes the attention
of Google. It is one of a gazzillion entries in their ever expanding
search indices.



SW isn't even on the radar for Google's involvement in BPL.
Collateral damage at best. But damage nonetheless. The point of the
original poster, is that, taken as a whole, Google is dumping money into
a project that will kill HF listening in many areas. Whether targeted or
collaterally, is irrelevant.

D Peter Maus wrote:
John S. wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

John S. wrote:

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:


In article , Mike Terry wrote:


Why are there so few on topic postings on this newsgroup? Is shortwave dying
like stamp collecting and other hobbies of the past?

Yes, and Google has invested $100,000,000 to kill it. Boycott Google if
you want to keep listening to shortwave radio.



Huh??? Where did you get that notion. Please tell us what project to
kill shortwave google is investing $100,000 in. And what could
possibly be their motivation.



Google dumped $10Million into BPL, which, it is feared, in most areas,
may end HF listening.


But their motivation for investing in a technology like BPL was hardly
to kill shortwave as the OP stated. I think it is safe to say that
shortwave broadcasting is probably close to the bottom of the list of
competitive threats (and opportunities) that Google management is
compelled to deal with.

Not to say that shortwave broadcasting completely escapes the attention
of Google. It is one of a gazzillion entries in their ever expanding
search indices.



SW isn't even on the radar for Google's involvement in BPL.
Collateral damage at best. But damage nonetheless. The point of the
original poster, is that, taken as a whole, Google is dumping money into
a project that will kill HF listening in many areas. Whether targeted or
collaterally, is irrelevant.

But the OP's statement was that Google had targeted shortwave, which
was obviously wrong. And that was what I was responding to. It's fine
to change topics, but don't mix up responses.

It's clear that the concerns of SWLs and HAMs are not even being
considered in the decision to push BPL. That neither hobby can rouse
any public, regulatory or legislative interest in the impact of BPL on
amateur use of HF frequencies says a lot about the present state of
those hobbies. That commercial broadcast and utility users of the HF
spectrum apparently haven't registered any significant complaints says
they are (1) Possibly very small in number, (2) unconcerned, (3) ready
to pull out anyway or (4) all of the above.

In china,sometimes, the radio is the only way to know the outside.

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...



BPL has not been of checkered success in other countries. But FCC has
made a commitment to it. Short of a sudden burst of good sense, they're
not likely to back down, especially with the enormous commercial money
being poured into it.

..
BPL has mostly flopped in real world tests in the US, as well. However, I
don't think the FCC has actually made any commitment to BPL. By allowing
BPL, they've put themselves in a win-win position. If it works, millions of
voters get a broadband internet access choice they otherwise wouldn't have.
If BPL falls flat, no politician gets to point his finger at the FCC and
claim "The DSL, cable and satellite interests are running the FCC!!"

The second scenerio would be particularly attractive if the folks at the FCC
were convinced that BPL doesn't really work.



My question is: How does BPL perform with electrical noise on the
same line. The further out a line runs from the hub, the more noise it
can pick up from switching, appliances, other electronic devices. We're
all familiar with the huge noise output of an SCR dimmer. That's because
of the enormous switching generated by the On/Off switching of the SCR.
Since BPL is targeting rural users, where Edison can run on very long
lines which are more susceptible to picking up, and radiating noise from
high current transients, transients of surprisingly rich harmonic
content, how's this going to affect digital devices taking down data
bursts which may contain harmonics from these switching transients? Even
modems are affected by low level noise on the line, which can create
errors, and eventually disconnections. AC lines can be dramatically
more noisy.

Absolutely. And you don't need imagine anything as high tech as a light
dimmer or a switchmode power supply. How about a sparky 'ol vacuum cleaner?
How would BPL perform in a thunderstorm?

And that isn't even considering all the changes in RF reflections as
circuits get switched. Lights go on and off. The neighbor's washing
machine cycles. And the bigger the digital party line, the bigger the
potential problems.


I don't hold out a great deal of hope for the commercial success of
BPL, but I don't suspect anyone in a position to change things will
admit that until the damage HF usage has been compromised.



I don't think the worst case scenerio, thousands of miles of HV power
distribution wires carrying high speed digital signals, was ever practical.
There's interference, there's unpredictable reflections and, even in the
most optimistic case, the available bandwidth won't split among alot of
users and still be high speed.

There are other approaches which promise to cause much less interference,
although I think the real motovation is to minimize BPL's vunerabilities:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/05/23/1/

Frank Dresser

My favorite search engines are www.devilfinder.com and
www.vivisimo.com I have been getting Danny Sullivan's
www.searchenginewatch.com email newsletters for over five years.I
almost never use google anymore.
cuhulin