amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to rf_engineer
Re: Fanatics
said by rf_engineer  :What is someone to do ... 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 |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by amigo_boy :said by rf_engineer :What is someone to do ... 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. "Hobby radio" as you put it is slightly less than 10% of the HF radio spectrum affected by BPL. It's even less if you consider the spectrum from 30 to 80 Mhz. The rest of the "someone" is government, military, broadcast, maritime, and aviation. All of these entities continue to use the spectrum and the NTIA in the US has essentially refused to give any of it away (barring five 3 khz channels a few years ago), so it must be of some value. And the fact remains that the laws are in place to reserve this spectrum for license holders. If you don't think this spectrum is worth anything and deserves to be trashed by a wired network that can't keep its energy within its media, please lobby your politicians to remove it as a regulated and licensed band and you'll discover the interest in HF (and low band VHF) is far from diminishing. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by rf_engineer :The rest of the "someone" is government, military, broadcast, maritime, and aviation. 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.
Mark |
|
jay_rm
join:2002-04-12
Netville
 ·Fox Valley Internet
·ViaTalk
| What's the matter "amigo_boy" ? Your portfolio full of energy stocks that made a big investment in a soon to fail broadband mode (BPL) ? Or, is your yearly bonus up for grabs because your team hasn't made a BPL promise come true for management yet...
--
3500/512 5.7 GHz Motorola Canopy Wireless; FoxValley.net
"Peace through superior firepower" |
|
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by rf_engineer :What is someone to do ... 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 Same people in every BPL thread try so hard to badmouth the Amateur Radio service. 
-Tzale |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by rf_engineer :The rest of the "someone" is government, military, broadcast, maritime, and aviation. 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. Your position is the classic "'hobbyists' don't deserve interference protection" argument. That argument has been debunked before as the amateur radio service goes beyond just hobbyist wants and needs and amateurs actually have a minority interest in the affected spectrum.
I'm not as familiar with the Australian situation, but in the US the NTIA did speak up. It was called the Phase 1 Report. The then acting NTIA commissioner put a nice cover letter on the report which glossed over what the report said and FCC Chairman Powell implemented notching for some frequencies but largely ignored most of the report as well which was quite damning. Politics trumped engineering, physics, and reality. (Does that sound like the FCC?)
I think most government agencies lack the wherewithal to recognize and act against such issues like the BPL interference problem. Most amateurs have taken great pains not speak for other groups. However as citizens and taxpayers they have every right to speak to the issue. The technical facts remain; 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. Additionally, the noise floor issues threaten to wreck HF over the long term. If this problem ever occurs, it will be way too late to address it when it's figured out what the root cause is.
From a wireless spectrum standpoint, BPL is akin to being allowed to dump garbage wherever and whenever as long as no one notices. As an amateur I don't want them dumping the garbage in amateur spectrum. As a citizen and technologist, I don't want them dumping it anywhere. The HF spectrum is too valuable to waste on an over-hyped, over-marketed, cheap Internet service that doesn't live up to its technical promises and business objectives. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by rf_engineer :Politics trumped engineering, physics, and reality. (Does that sound like the FCC?) 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. 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. The sound of one hand clapping? If a tree falls in the forest, and (relatively speaking) nobody hears it, did it make a sound?
Mark |
|
W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT
| reply to amigo_boy
Sounds good to your agenda, perhaps, but the reality is:
»p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/hams_vs_···tion.jpg
BPL, on the other hand, according to the latest FCC report on broadband statistics, had gone from 0.011% of broadband lines in the US to 0.006%.
Wanna' compare the number of licensed Amateurs to the number of people using BPL? If that is the criterion you are using, your side loses.
Those 99 complaints remind me of the times my mother used to say "if I've told you once, I've told you 1000 times," followed by whatever she had told me that I was just blowing off.
Is the real fault here the complainant, or the enforcement that never happened?
But I am more than willing to let folks judge for themselves whether the BPL system in Tasmania warranted continued complaints:
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7DfdxjR···ure=user
More info on the Australian and Tasmanian trials:
»reast.asn.au/vk7bplwatch_links.php
Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Lab Manager
225 Main St
Newington, CT 06111
Tel: 860-594-0318
Email: w1rfi@arrl.org
|
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by rf_engineer :Politics trumped engineering, physics, and reality. (Does that sound like the FCC?) 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.). And future generations be damned, I want my cheap parking! That pretty much sums up the mentality of the "BPL is great" minority here on BBR.  And again, there is no shrinking interest in HF spectrum (especially after 9/11). No regulatory agency that I know of has deregulated the spectrum and the laws to protect it in the US are still in place.
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. That was one example that was cited, undoubtedly to cast the amateurs in a bad light. I know from talks in other forums that there was more going on than just this one person. The situation in Australia was more heated than most of the BPL hub bub in the US.
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? And this is the regulatory thread by which the world's "third pipe" hangs by.... |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by rf_engineer : there is no shrinking interest in HF spectrum (especially after 9/11). 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.).
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to W1RFI
said by W1RFI :(youtube clip) Anyone can fake a video. If it was that bad, why did only one person complain when radio hobbyists are supposedly so numerous?
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to rf_engineer
said by rf_engineer :And future generations be damned, I want my cheap ... [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 |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by amigo_boy :said by rf_engineer :And future generations be damned, I want my cheap ... [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 Being tested for morse code doesn't mean you have to use it. Many, many amateurs learned morse code just to pass the test only to never use it again. (The only hardcore requirement for code usage was the long gone novice license which arguably was an introductory entry point and not a long term option for most hams) This dog ain't gonna hunt.
I'd take the time to explain bandwidth and information transmission to debunk your whole "precious bandwidth" and code versus voice argument, but somehow I think it would be a waste of time. |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by rf_engineer : there is no shrinking interest in HF spectrum (especially after 9/11). 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.). I said interest in HF spectrum, not Amateur Radio. HF is more than Amateur Radio. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by rf_engineer :I said interest in HF spectrum, not Amateur Radio. HF is more than Amateur Radio. Ah. So, we're back to the "hobbyists are a vocal minority saving everyone else" argument.
It's so predictable.
Mark |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by W1RFI :(youtube clip) Anyone can fake a video. Sigh
[Upon reflection, I do not wish to post. Take me back!] |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to rf_engineer
said by rf_engineer :Many, many amateurs learned morse code just to pass the test only to never use it again. 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.
Mark |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by rf_engineer :I said interest in HF spectrum, not Amateur Radio. HF is more than Amateur Radio. Ah. So, we're back to the "hobbyists are a vocal minority saving everyone else" argument. It's so predictable. So what is your position then? HF is worthless because it's just a bunch of hobbyists or it's a valuable public resource? |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by W1RFI :(youtube clip) Anyone can fake a video. If it was that bad, why did only one person complain when radio hobbyists are supposedly so numerous? Mark So you are calling someone a liar? Interesting personal attack. |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by rf_engineer :Many, many amateurs learned morse code just to pass the test only to never use it again. 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. You're taking a very simplistic approach. You're not considering the amount of information being transmitted. PSK31 uses even less bandwidth than CW, but it only transmits at 31 baud. 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.
If you want to get into pragmatic choice debates, tell me how pragmatic it is to place an RF signal on a unshielded media that was designed for 60 hertz energy transmission when a national infrastructure of twisted pair copper designed for such a purpose exists. And how pragmatic is it to that this wired network doesn't even use the wireless spectrum...it pollutes it. On second thought, please don't. This debate isn't worth my time. |
|
