RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: Fcc listening? BPL will serve more people? By what measure? BPL is not supposed to be a radiated service. If they could keep it where it belongs they could serve anyone they want. They can't seem to accomplish that.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
For "Pompous Jackass", see 419381 |
|
| reply to dynodb
said by dynodb:Don't get me wrong; I'm not knocking your hobby... just saying I don't get it. I LIVE in Minnesota and don't want to talk to strangers here in person, thus don't have a desire to talk to them on the radio  Seriously, the ham radio people have a point... but so do the PBL people. The latter will serve more people, but the ham folks were there first. If BPL actually used the spectrum, they would perhaps have a valid claim to the frequencies. The kicker is they don't use the frequencies, they merely radiate into wireless spectrum as a byproduct of the service. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Bright House
| reply to Tzale
It's going to be hilarious when the finally move into a densely populated HAM community, and everyone there starts beaming 1.5 kilowatts into the transmission sites. I could see the beams pointing now.
"Hmmm, noisier here, less noise when I put it on the back side of the beam, that must mean the signal is coming from right here. Lets shut down some internet, ::key's up and whistles into mic, knocking everyones modems offline, whilst turning on the neighbors touch lamp::."
I would be right there with em, and I don't even have a Ham license, I will get one when I am moved back into a house, and can actually put up a 200ft antenna.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. |
|
| reply to PDXPLT
said by PDXPLT:said by rf_engineer: Amateur Radio uses less than 10% of the spectrum potentially affected by BPL. The rest of the users are government, military, maritime, aeronautical, and international shortwave. Regardless if ham radio is involved, the wireless spectrum is a natural resource that we should preserve. The counter argument however, is that most of the time, in most places, that spectrum is going unused: no one is broadcasting on it, and/or no one is listening (e.g., maritime frequencies far from water). In the minds of those advocating "spectrum policy reform", if it is unused, it is being wasted. Just statically allocating chunks of spectrum for certain permanent, fixed uses, because in the 1930's there was no way to make radios and other devices "smart" and flexible, is an anchronism, they say. They argue that accounting for modern technology that can do things like detect the location of a device, access a database of licensees, listen for spectrum occupation, etc., the utilization of spectrum can be increased. Spectrum, by the way, that remains the property of the American people (in the U.S., at least), even when a license is granted to certain entities. Go to the FCC website and do a search on "Spectrum Policy Task Force Report" for more background, and and insight into where spectrum regulation is going. The old "Command and Control" model of exclusive licensees is going away. You're already seeing the first steps of this: The recent unlicensed allocation in the 3700 MHz band, previously only used by satellite base stations on the east and west coasts. The FCC figured that unlicensed devices could now be built that would be smart enough to figure out if they are anywhere near these base stations. Another example: the 5 GHz Wi-FI devices that now operate in a band allocated to military radar, provided that they check for a rader signal first. Another example is the NPRM on operation of unlicensed devices in TV channels that aren't being used locally (the only real chance for rural broadband, IMHO). When it comes ot BPL, most of the notorious problems have been centered around Mannassas, and a couple of trials from one particular equipment provider. And they've been such jerks about it by not fixing things. It's unfortunate. I've talked to a utility guy that say they've been doing it for years, quietly, just not for internet access, and with a carefully engineered balanced transmitter, not the cheap single-ended lossy ground return system used in the noisey deployments (which is used because it's cheap and easy). And there have been no interference complaints in Cinncinati, either. If no licensed users are complaining, by definition there can be no "harmful interference" as defined by the FCC. "harmful interference" requires that a licensed user be actually interfered with in a material manner, not just the theoretical possibility of interference. I'm all for use/reuse of spectrum, when it makes sense. BPL "using" spectrum is like a factory "using" a body of water by polluting it. "Smart" devices that are broadbanded using HF radio spectrum is problematic due to ionspheric propagation which is continually changing and the fact that communications on these bands can often take place with signal levels just slightly above the noise floor. VHF, UHF, and microwave are a different story.
There are good deployments of BPL that have addressed the interference issues, as you cite. However the rules and the FCC's inaction have allowed less technically adept vendors to continue operating systems that if deployed on a wide scale would effectively mean the end of HF communications in the US. Despite the "no harmful interference" rules that protect licensees, the FCC has setup the process to be so slow, clumsy, and unresponsive that in practice it will never work for licensees and will ultimately result in BPL overrunning spectrum. This is if BPL were actually successful and deployed en masse. Will it happen? I don't think it will if you're just looking at Internet access BPL. Grid management is another story; this totally changes the business model for BPL. While you are correct that the FCC can't act on theoretical interference issues, when BPL talking heads are talking theoretically about covering the entire US with BPL in every outlet and are in a trial stage, the theoretical issues that would result have to be fully researched. This research hasn't been fully completed by the FCC and what has been done has essentially been ignored. Even the NTIA's phase two report was never completed or at least it was never publically released. This was to determine if BPL devices deployed on a mass scale would result in increasing the noise floor. The theory in their first report is that this probably wouldn't be an issue until millions of devices were deployed. But one has to ask, how do you recall millions of consumer Part 15 devices and network elements after you realize you have a problem? |
|
Reviews:
·Bright House
| reply to dynodb
said by dynodb:I LIVE in Minnesota and don't want to talk to strangers here in person, thus don't have a desire to talk to them on the radio So you posted because????.... You're talking to a bunch of unknown people right now. The people on the Ham radios will likely share that point with you, which is why HF interference is vital. You can't hear on the other end, you have no-one to talk to. HF travels very far and uses minimal power, so you'd likely find another state or country before you'd be talking to your neighbor. Your point is not very well made. You're on a broadband forum talking about how much you don't get why people want to talk to unknowns. How about this, get a radio with data capability, and scan the band. You'll find some people allow internet access THRU the ham radio. The Ham radio could be nice enough to redeem itself by allowing people to share internet access on repeaters, but I doubt operators want to foot the bill for anonymous internet access.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12
1 edit | reply to RayW
said by RayW:said by Matt:Tzale, good for you! That is quite an accomplishment. It takes all of 15 minutes and a rudimentary understanding of electronics and radio propagation to take the test to become a HAM. You deserve your spectrum.  Progress is progress. Please step aside and let progress take its course. You are better than 99.999% of Americans then. It took my 13 year old daughter about 20 hours of class and about the same amount of home work and two tries to get a license, and she is an 'A' student in school. Most exams have about an 80% pass rate, and I know that some of those people do put forth the effort to ask for help. Step aside? Sure, I wonder if the family of the lady that one of my group called in life flight a few months ago for thinks like you do? Cell phones did not work, but ham radio still did. As I heard, weakly, and possibly not at all if BPL was heavily used in the area that took the call and routed it to the police. Nevermind, pointless.
--
Use the OS tool for the job. |
|
 JDC69Premium
join:2003-03-21
Oakridge, OR
1 edit | reply to Tzale
I understand both sides of this argument and it is not an easy one to resolve. My father was a ham radio operator and as a result I used to go with him to some of the meetings held by the club he was a member of. The ham operators at those meetings were some of the most technically adept individuals I have ever met. Good god those guys could mod any damn thing it seemed like to fit their purposes. My father actually took a regular old 40 channel cb and added a few project boxes that housed some switches and other components (purchased from Radio Shack back when it was a ham operator geared store) and made it into a sideband rig that he used in his work truck. I must say that I applaud the knowledge and ingenuity shown by most ham operators.
The internet community needs to attempt to model itself after the hams. More internet users need to educate themselves about the current technologies and what is and is not possible. Start holding ISP's accountable for their shoddy service and in the case of BPL do away with the companies who are producing inferior equipment that is in turn creating issues for the ham community.
If there are deployments of BPL that are not causing interference or effecting ham operators then these need to be the standard for future roll outs. As consumers we do have the ability to affect whether products and manufacturers succeed in the marketplace. So instead of arguing about this why don't we try working together on a solution? Request that BPL technology be fully tested and certified by an independent entity before it is allowed to reach consumers. This would put an end to the manufacturing of half assed BPL equipment which in the long run would be a win/win situation for all.
The ham operators do have a significant place as part of the communication infrastructure in our nation and they really are some of the smartest people you will ever encounter. If my understanding of what they are saying is correct then there are ways to deploy BPL with minimum impact on them. I am all for new technology and I do like the thought of something like BPL where it can reach the masses who have little other chance of ever seeing a broadband connection. So if there is a way to do that without screwing over the ham ops why not get together and make a push for that?
Sorry about the lack of formatting before, I was pressed for time when I originally posted. Hope this edit works out better for you.  |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by JDC69:I understand both sides of this arguement and it is not an easy one to resolve. My father was a ham radio operator and as a result I used to go with him to some of the meetings held by the club he was a member of. The ham operators at those meetings were some of the most technically adept individuals I have ever met. Good god those guys could mod any damn thing it seemed like to fit their purposes. My father actually took a regular old 40 channel cb and added a few project boxes that housed some switches and other components (purchased from Radio Shack back when it was a ham operator geared store) and made it into a sideband rig that he used in his work truck. I must say that I appluad the knowledge and ingenuity shown by most ham operators. The internet community needs to attempt to model itself after the hams. More internet users need to educate themselfs about the current technologies and what is and is not possible. Start holding ISP's accountable for their shotty service and in the case of BPL do away with the companies who are producing trash equipment that is messing with the ham community. If there are deployments of BPL that do not interfere with the ham operators go with the same equipment in future roll outs. As consumers we do have the power to affect things like this as if no one suppots an emerging technology from a manufacturer it is sure to be short lived. So instead of argueing about this why don't we try working together on a solution. Put an end to the companies manufaturing half assed BPL equipment by simply refusing to purchase or use it. The ham operators do have a significant place as part of the communication infrastructure in our nation and they really are some of the smartest people you will ever encounter. If my understanding of what they are saying is correct then there are ways to deploy BPL with minimum impact on them. I am all for new technology and I do like the thought of something like BPL where it can reach the masses who have little other chance of ever seeing a broadband connection. So if there is a way to do that without screwing over the ham ops why not get together and make a push for that? Please repost what you just said ... only ... please use paragraphs.
--
Use the OS tool for the job. |
|
|
|
RayWPremium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
kudos:1 | reply to Matt
Pointless that you are too intelligent, or that I had a valid reason for Ham radio?
To add to a reason for Ham radio, I talked to a doctor today who was in Florida when the tornadoes went through. Yes, the cell phones worked and the power was still on. But you could not use the cell phones (and she had two, Verizon and another) or the land lines because they were overloaded. The outdated and worthless radio was the communications to the hospital from her operations site. Granted it was only about four hours, but to some people that is the difference between being helped and not being helped.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
| reply to Matt
said by Matt:said by JDC69:I understand both sides of this arguement and it is not an easy one to resolve. Please repost what you just said ... only ... please use paragraphs. Can't debate the information, attack the grammar.
Pointless is right. What is your point? |
|
 ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
 ·DSL EXTREME
| said by rf_engineer:Can't debate the information, attack the grammar. No...it's just that the logic train is really hard to follow when it's buried in a clump of text. Just at a glance, trying to read and comprehend your message begins to start a headache.
It's easier to read and follow, that's all. |
|
| said by Thaler:said by rf_engineer:Can't debate the information, attack the grammar. No...it's just that the logic train is really hard to follow when it's buried in a clump of text. Just at a glance, trying to read and comprehend your message begins to start a headache. It's easier to read and follow, that's all. It wasn't my message. Yea, it could use same paragraphs, but I can follow it. |
|
ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·DSL EXTREME
| said by rf_engineer:It wasn't my message. Yea, it could use same paragraphs, but I can follow it. True, for you. Me on the other hand, I just find myself re-reading a lot because the train of thought gets derailed in its formatting. |
|
