Re: HaMs are now Safe! in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r13986062 en Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:59:01 EDT Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:59:01 EDT Re: HaMs are now Safe! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13986454 KB2PSM : Fiberguy, with all due respect Moon Puppy has provided many salient details and responses regarding BPL in many other BPL based threads. Like you, he has been an active member of these discussions/debates, although on different sides of the issue.

If anything, it has been many of the BPL advocates that have made baseless and emotional claims devoid and evasive of the facts.

Although on opposite sides of the spectrum (pun intended!), I enjoy reading/disagreeing with your opinions since you are not a BPL troll.

Be well,
Rob


said by fiberguy See Profile:

MP - nice one liners.. now, can you post reasons why for your comments?
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13986454 Tue, 26 Jul 2005 09:39:06 EDT Re: HaMs are now Safe! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13986062 moonpuppy : Sure, I can post responses. BUT will you even read them?

Seems most of the pro BPL crowd do nothing but yell about the benefits of a new medium to deliver high speed access but fail to recognize the problems with this particular technology.

So let's dive into to my comments:

quote:
Again, it is not just HAM radio that gets interfered with.


This is a fact. BPL (with the possible exception of the Corridor System) does pollute the frequencies used not only by Ham Radio but by other commercial and military entities. Even the FCC mandates that BPL systems may not be located close to certain military locations. Amateur Radio uses only 4Mhz total bandwidth under 30MHz.

Notching can only hide the problem so much. While one user may be safe, others will suffer.

quote:
Some people choose to live in certain areas and those areas don't have broadband for a myriad of reasons.


Fact is some people prefer to live in certain areas and, in fact, there was a huge discussion on here about the availability of broadband in general (no just BPL.) Cities will get it first followed by areas with a high density of those likely to get it.

quote:
quote:
Unlucky= those who get high priced broadband with no competition.

This happens with or without BPL.


Again, how many times do we still see areas with just one provider and all those "franchise agreements" that won't let anyone else in? What about phone companies that won't upgrade COs because cable is already there?

Even with the price drops of DSL, cable has not lowered their rates at all. Cable is upgrading the speed, Verizon is going to FIOS, and others are looking into faster forms of DSL. I doubt BPL can catch up PLUS (much to my disappointment) there won't be a cheaper, lower speed tier for casual users (email checking, web browsing, non-geek crowd.) ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13986062 Tue, 26 Jul 2005 08:15:39 EDT Re: HaMs are now Safe! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13985613 fiberguy : MP - nice one liners.. now, can you post reasons why for your comments?

Who else, other than Ham radio operators...
Why is it a good thing it's failing......

You are good for this type of post but you really offer nothing when you do this other than a simple opinion and we all know people have one.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13985613 Tue, 26 Jul 2005 04:02:39 EDT Re: HaMs are now Safe! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13983063 moonpuppy :
said by P Ness See Profile:

LOL...guess the .00005% of the people who use HAMS radio's and other radio signals that were interfered with are now safe...lucky you guys.
Again, it is not just HAM radio that gets interfered with.

said by P Ness See Profile:

Unlucky = those who cannot get broadband
Some people choose to live in certain areas and those areas don't have broadband for a myriad of reasons.

said by P Ness See Profile:

Unlucky= those who get high priced broadband with no competition.
This happens with or without BPL.

said by P Ness See Profile:

Guess its a good thing this did not work right? :uhh:
Actually, it is a good thing it is failing. Thanks for playing. :p]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13983063 Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:36:18 EDT Re: HaMs are now Safe! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13981066 RayW :
said by P Ness See Profile:

LOL...guess the .00005% of the people who use HAMS radio's and other radio signals that were interfered with are now safe...lucky you guys.
Need to do a bit more research. I did a search for all the active registered hams in my town of about 62000 people, about 263. 0.4% is just a 'tiny' bit more than the percent you quote. That is just Hams, who comprise a small fraction of the myriad other private and public licensed radio operators.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13981066 Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:09:18 EDT Re: HaMs are now Safe! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13980734 sabersaw : It was never a viable solution to begin with. But yes, it is a good thing not to pollute fragile RF spectrum.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13980734 Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:27:10 EDT HaMs are now Safe! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13980661 P Ness : LOL...guess the .00005% of the people who use HAMS radio's and other radio signals that were interfered with are now safe...lucky you guys.

Unlucky = those who cannot get broadband

Unlucky= those who get high priced broadband with no competition.

Guess its a good thing this did not work right? :uhh:
--
www.stopfcc.com I do not think the government needs to restrict free speech especially on a device that has an off knob.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13980661 Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:18:11 EDT