said by PDXPLT :

Actually, this isn't BPL. The whole regulatory philosophy for all Part 15 unlicensed devices is exactly that - Part 15 devices are allowed to "dump garbage wherever and whenever" as long as no one notices. The FCC Rules are quite clear, and precise in their language. Part 15 devices are prohibited from causing "harmful interference", not "no interference whatsoever" or "no theoretically possible interference".

For most of the HF spectrum (except for navigation and other life-critical uses), if no one complains, then by legal definition, no harmful interference occurs. Up to this point, the number of harmful interference complaints from non-ham HF users is very rare. Therefore, harmful interference to these portions of the spectrum has rarely occured.

Bottom line, the idea that licensed users have exclusive use of the spectrum ended long ago. That started happening when the first version of Part 15 was published. Some legacy spectrum users refuse to admit it; e.g., the ARRL lawyers continue to argue to this day that the FCC has no authority to permit operation of any equipment under Part 15. But it is part of a long-term trend pushed by the FCC to allow more flexible and, in their view, more efficient use of spectrum. Another step in this direction is multiple classes of licensed users; e.g., Primary Users and Secondary Users (who look like unlicensed users to Primary's, but look like traditional licensed user to Part 15 devices).

Go to the FCC website and look up "spectrum policy task force report" to see what's happening along these lines. The old, 20th century concept of rigid, exclusive-use "command and control" licensing will be going away more and more.

said by amigo_boy :

Which means you're making a pragmatic choice to sacrifice available bandwidth, potential for interference (higher transmitted power to be heard), and require a higher signal-to-noise ratio because "all those things aren't the only consideration."

said by amigo_boy :

Including the fact that you're a licensed hobbyist who stands to lose something. I stand to lose nothing either way.

said by rf_engineer :

From a wireless spectrum standpoint, BPL is akin to being allowed to dump garbage wherever and whenever as long as no one notices.

said by amigo_boy :

Including the fact that you're a licensed hobbyist who stands to lose something. I stand to lose nothing either way.

I'm glad we've cleared that up. I don't know why it was such a difficult concept for you. It does call into question how you view your "facts." :D

Mark

said by Transmaster :

(youtube clip)
I just tracked down what Amigo-boy considers good use of band width. :)

said by amigo_boy :

I think that pretty much sums up the "noise problem." :o

said by amigo_boy :

That's not true. See:

»Catch up on the truth

said by amigo_boy :

Then the marketplace will resolve it.

said by amigo_boy :

No. I oppose blind extremism.

said by rf_engineer :

If BPL actually used the wireless spectrum you might have a valid argument, but it doesn't, it just pollutes it and makes it unusable for actual users of the spectrum.

said by rf_engineer :

BPL is for the most part unnecessary and obsolete. Cable and DSL coverage is more ubiquitous and cable and fiber provide more bandwidth.

said by rf_engineer :

To sum it up, you favor a technology that hasn't gotten off the ground in ten years,

said by amigo_boy :

Which means you're making a pragmatic choice to sacrifice available bandwidth, potential for interference (higher transmitted power to be heard), and require a higher signal-to-noise ratio because "all those things aren't the only consideration."

But, if the rest of society makes similarly calculated choices you act like you've been victimized. The ARRL has approved BPL (when done right). But, we don't hear about that from the hobbyists. All we hear is "bad, bad, bad...." as they choose to make pragmatic choices (that effectively reduce the usability of their frequencies) *all day long*.

You're argument is that you're not reducing the usability because voice could be *more* useable. But, I think you understand perfectly the point I'm making. (I.e., that BPL could be more useable than your voice use. It's a matter of pragmatic degrees isn't it?).

said by amigo_boy :

I think non-hobbyist HF users can speak for themselves. Why do you believe otherwise? What makes hobbyists a "canary in the cage?" To me, it seems like they're just using non-hobbyist users to their advantage. Hitching a ride on their coattails, while claiming it's the non-hobby users who are actually hitching a ride on the coattails of the hobbyists.

That's what makes these discussions so predictable. Hobby radio is said to be about national preparedness. But, when only 30 (or 60) people turn out for an event, it's because "not all hobbyists are involved in national preparedness." When it's pointed out that the number of hobbyists are dwindling, the hobbyists point to non-hobby licensed uses (as if those people can't speak for themselves.). Hobbyists complain about interference, but are remarkably silent about their own "pragmatic" choices to use 5x more bandwidth, and require more transmitted power than is necessary and a higher signal-to-noise ratio than is necessary to communicate.

If it were hobbyists doing it to themselves, they'd be ok with it.

Mark

Mark

said by rf_engineer :

Bandwidth isn't the only consideration when choosing a particular mode. If conditions allow it, voice is perfectly fine.

said by moonpuppy :

My inclination is supported by facts.

said by amigo_boy :

Emergency communications in the sense of 30 or 60 people?

That's because you know what I said is true. Radio hobbyists choose to use a form of communication (voice) that requires more bandwidth, a higher signal-to-noise ratio, and transmitted power to be intelligible. But, when someone outside the "cult" interferes, it's the end of the world.

You know that's true. You're only response is to say it's not worth commenting on.

said by amigo_boy :

A "biased troll." Ha! I'm the one making baseless accusations. :)

I have no interest in hobby radio, nor BPL. Therefore, I have no reason to be "biased" (as hobbyists do). I might be a troll in the sense that I'm responding to *obvious* bias for no other reason than to challenge the bias. That does not necessarily make me "biased."

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

Bias -- A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.

Do you have an inclination that would inhibit impartial judgment?

Mark

said by rf_engineer :

So what is your position then? HF is worthless because it's just a bunch of hobbyists or it's a valuable public resource?

said by moonpuppy :

Either you have a vested interest or you are trolling.

said by amigo_boy :

As you said, "your posts speak for themselves." But, let's get back to who has a vested interest, shall we?

Mark

said by rf_engineer :

I think that statement and the paragraph above it sums up how little you know about HF or Amateur Radio or emergency communications for that matter.

said by rf_engineer :

Your morse code versus voice/bandwidth arguments are so nonsensical they aren't even worth commenting on.

said by moonpuppy :

So now HAM radio, a government licensed radio service, is a cult now? Talk about grabbing at straws.

said by amigo_boy :

Altruism? An abnormal attraction to shining a light on cults?

Mark

said by moonpuppy :

Really? Then why fight so hard if you have no vested interest?

said by amigo_boy :

I think you guys could live with FRS and CB radio services.

said by amigo_boy :

I have no vested interest either way. You do. So, who's making baseless accusations that you mentioned?

Mark

said by moonpuppy :

It also shows your bias against the amateur radio community.

said by amigo_boy :

But, it helps, doesn't it? :)

Mark

said by amigo_boy :

Wow. A hobbyist web page. I think I'll stick with official reports. The only reports we can agree on is the 99 from one hobbyist.

said by moonpuppy :

You don't need a vested interest in order to be biased. ;)

said by amigo_boy :

I have absolutely no vested interest in BPL or hobby radio. Therefore, you've made a baseless accusation. And, you *do* have a vested interest.

Mark

said by moonpuppy :

Like a broken record, your posts speak for themselves.

said by rf_engineer :

Yea, but if the power goes off in an emergency, so does the BPL interference! Problem solved! I'm so smart. Now where did my mom hide the Xbox? :D

said by amigo_boy :

How am I biased?

said by amigo_boy :

When you answer the above we'll learn who's making baseless accusations.

Mark

said by moonpuppy :

You should also consider the fact that while someone may be biased, as you are,

said by moonpuppy :

making baseless accusations is another matter alltogether.

said by amigo_boy :

I'm calling radio hobbyists biased. I think skepticism is healthy. You should consider it.

Mark

said by moonpuppy :

So you are calling someone a liar? Interesting personal attack.

said by rf_engineer :

Here's a web page that shows several complainants:

said by rf_engineer :

The practical limit for most reasonably proficient CW operators is 30 to 50 WPM. What is the speed of voice, 300 WPM (I'm guessing)? Using more bandwidth isn't necessarily evil, you have to consider the amount of information being transmitted.

said by rf_engineer :

tell me how pragmatic it is to place an RF signal on a unshielded media that was designed for 60 hertz energy transmission

said by rf_engineer :

On second thought, please don't. This debate isn't worth my time.

said by Tzale :

Well your point is null and void since there ARE many hams who DO participate in emergency preparedness, such as myself... I participate in several activities daily related to emergency preparedness.. Just because I've never been "called up" doesn't mean I am not part of the emergency network of this country.

-Tzale

said by amigo_boy :

Which is an example of the very pragmatism that has radical hobbyists upset. People learned Morse Code only to consume *10* times more bandwidth with voice. Morse is more intelligible under adverse conditions, but hobbyists (according to you) chose to use more bandwidth, and less intelligible communications (communications requiring a higher level of signal to noise to be intelligible.).

But, the rest of the population makes a similar pragmatic choice, and very same hobbyists claim to be victims.

said by amigo_boy :

Anyone can fake a video. If it was that bad, why did only one person complain when radio hobbyists are supposedly so numerous?

Mark

said by KA3SGM :

Tzale, just ignore pendejo_boy, the guy isn't worth the bandwidth to argue with.

Someone needs to call his mommy and daddy(s) and tell them junior is messing with the computer again. ;)

said by amigo_boy :

Ah. So, we're back to the "hobbyists are a vocal minority saving everyone else" argument.

It's so predictable.

said by rf_engineer :

Many, many amateurs learned morse code just to pass the test only to never use it again.

said by amigo_boy :

Anyone can fake a video.

said by rf_engineer :

I said interest in HF spectrum, not Amateur Radio. HF is more than Amateur Radio.

said by amigo_boy :

Reference please. The article under discussion said they received 99 complaints from one person.

said by amigo_boy :

I'm glad we've established this. Activists use emergency communications as the reason to safeguard hobby radio. Not only are the number of hobbyists down, but those who participate in the reason to safeguard the hobby are even fewer.

That's my whole point.

Mark

said by amigo_boy :

Really? I've been hearing the number of license holders has been going *down*. That's one of the reasons Morse Code was dropped as a requirement, to bring more people in. (I've also heard the active participation of license holders is down.).

said by amigo_boy :

[blink] [blink] Isn't that what's happening with the lowering of license standards, eliminating the requirement for Morse Code? Essentially encouraging a 10x consumption of precious bandwidth with voice?

What happened to the beloved "future generations" you're so concerned about? Or, does it only matter when *your* ox is being gored?

Mark

said by Tzale :

Because like I said before, not every ham is going to be a hardcore emergency volunteer...

said by rf_engineer :

And future generations be damned, I want my cheap ...

said by amigo_boy :

That was the headline of the "HAMs save the day" article here a few days ago.

That would be easy wouldn't it? It wouldn't even take a whole *one* person reporting BPL interference (when there's supposedly 30+ active hobbyists in a sq. mile.).

Mark

said by W1RFI :

(youtube clip)

said by rf_engineer :

there is no shrinking interest in HF spectrum (especially after 9/11).

said by rf_engineer :

This was one example that was cited. I believe there were other complaints from other people.

said by Tzale :

There are 30+ hams in my town, and it's only 1 square mile... So I don't see how you think there are only "30 hams" up and down the coast...

said by Tzale :

Just stop posting

said by amigo_boy :

No. It sounds like reality. That's what happens when you have a shrinking interest group. It's the same thing that would happen if we set aside parks and national forests, and fewer people used them. (Expect parking lots and condos despite the protestations of a shrinking "open spaces" group.).

said by rf_engineer :

if BPL will cause localized interference for a typical amateur receiver, there's nothing magical about the receivers of other HF licenses that will make the interference not exist.

said by amigo_boy :

Evidently, in the topic under discussion, it didn't exist for more than one person.

said by rf_engineer :

From a wireless spectrum standpoint, BPL is akin to being allowed to dump garbage wherever and whenever as long as no one notices.

said by amigo_boy :

[The sound of one hand clapping? If a tree falls in the forest, and (relatively speaking) nobody hears it, did it make a sound?

said by amigo_boy :

False analogy. There are millions of TV viewers and broadband subscribers, with numbers growing every day. If something interfered with either group you'd expect more than 99 complaints from *one* person.

I understand why you don't want to assimilate this point. "30 people up the coast" during floods. One person affected by BPL. Screaming about interference at the same time hobbyists encourage a whopping 10-times consumption of bandwidth (promoting voice over CW Morse code).

Hobby radio is a walking contradiction. It's no wonder the only defense is an endless series of false analogies, and name-calling.

It's time to move on.

Mark

said by amigo_boy :

False analogy. There are millions of TV viewers and broadband subscribers, with numbers growing every day. If something interfered with either group you'd expect more than 99 complaints from *one* person.

I understand why you don't want to assimilate this point. "30 people up the coast" during floods. One person affected by BPL. Screaming about interference at the same time hobbyists encourage a whopping 10-times consumption of bandwidth (promoting voice over CW Morse code).

Hobby radio is a walking contradiction. It's no wonder the only defense is an endless series of false analogies, and name-calling.

It's time to move on.

said by rf_engineer :

Politics trumped engineering, physics, and reality. (Does that sound like the FCC?)

said by rf_engineer :

if BPL will cause localized interference for a typical amateur receiver, there's nothing magical about the receivers of other HF licenses that will make the interference not exist.

said by rf_engineer :

From a wireless spectrum standpoint, BPL is akin to being allowed to dump garbage wherever and whenever as long as no one notices.

said by Tzale :

If your TV server or broadband started disconnecting every couple minutes and your ISP ignored you, what would you do????

said by amigo_boy :

This is the "HAMs are the vocal minority defending everyone else" argument. I think those other groups are capable of speaking for themselves. In the case of Tasmania, they didn't.

said by amigo_boy :

I think they key word is "someone." That's been my point all along. Hobby radio is a diminishing interest. Shrinking license holders, and shrinking active participants among those holders.

Mark

said by amigo_boy :

received 99 complaints from one person

I think that pretty much sums up the "noise problem." :o

Mark

said by rf_engineer :

The rest of the "someone" is government, military, broadcast, maritime, and aviation.

said by amigo_boy :

I think they key word is "someone." That's been my point all along. Hobby radio is a diminishing interest. Shrinking license holders, and shrinking active participants among those holders.

said by rf_engineer :

What is someone to do ...

said by amigo_boy :

received 99 complaints from one person

I think that pretty much sums up the "noise problem."