rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to amigo_boy
Re: Fanatics
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 |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| 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 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 |
|
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? |
|
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. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| 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. Dictation is 120-140 WPM. But, I know how radical radio hobbiests ascribe superhuman powers to themselves. If we stick with dictation, that means you've chosen to consume 10x bandwidth for only a 4-5x gain.
Anyone except the most biased hobbyists (which, frankly, reminds me of a cult) would admit that the choice to use voice is because "it's easy. To heck with signal-to-noise ratios, intelligibility, using *only* the power necessary to be heard, etc."
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 It's extremely pragmatic when only one person complains. That was the observation I made at the beginning of this thread. But, the cultists couldn't accept it.
said by rf_engineer :On second thought, please don't. This debate isn't worth my time. I understand you don't know how to deal with this. Hobby radio is a walking contradiction. It's to be preserved because it serves a national interest. But, when only 30 (or 60) turn out to serve a national interest, it's because a majority of hobbyists don't concern themselves with emergency preparedness. Interference is to be opposed ... unless it's the hobbyists choosing to consume 10x bandwidth using voice comm which requires a lower signal-to-noise ratio to be intelligible. Pragmatism is to be shunned ... unless it's to get the dwindling license numbers back up (then, jettison Morse code, which, according to you, nobody took seriously anyway, which means most hobbyists chose less efficent, more interference-prone (and causing) voice communications due to pragmatism.
I think you guys could live with FRS and CB radio services.
Mark
|
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by amigo_boy :I think you guys could live with FRS and CB radio services. 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. Your morse code versus voice/bandwidth arguments are so nonsensical they aren't even worth commenting on. And you're pitting a wired network whose media pollutes wireless spectrum versus national and international services whose media is the wireless spectrum. If you can't grasp that concept and why it's wrong, there's little hope for you understanding any argument I'm going to present. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| 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. Emergency communications in the sense of 30 or 60 people?
said by rf_engineer :Your morse code versus voice/bandwidth arguments are so nonsensical they aren't even worth commenting on. 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.
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to rf_engineer
said by rf_engineer :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? 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 |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :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. Emergency communications in the sense of 30 or 60 people? said by rf_engineer :Your morse code versus voice/bandwidth arguments are so nonsensical they aren't even worth commenting on. 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. You're making a non sequitor argument. Bandwidth isn't the only consideration when choosing a particular mode. If conditions allow it, voice is perfectly fine. If I have to explain to you why voice would be better than code in certain situations, this is hopeless and not worth getting into. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by rf_engineer : Bandwidth isn't the only consideration when choosing a particular mode. If conditions allow it, voice is perfectly fine. 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?).
Mark |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to amigo_boy
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 What's your point with the 30 to 60 comment that you've mentioned several times? If an event or situation requires only 30 or 60 people and that's who shows up, WHO CARES? If out of 650,000 US amateurs, only 1% participate in emergency preparedness, that's still 6,500 citizens that can help. But again, you still can't get it through your thick skull that HF is more than amateur radio.
On your "pragmatic choices" argument, it's so irrelevant to the discussion. And the argument itself is flawed as you're still not considering the information being transmitted within the bandwidth. If it takes me 60 seconds to transmit a message in CW versus 10 seconds using voice, it makes sense to use wider bandwidth voice. (And then there's the whole thing about training proficient traffic-handling CW operators which pretty much blows the bandwidth argument out of the water.) Just like the "99 complaints from one person" argument, you're selectively picking and choosing facts to support your position. |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by rf_engineer : Bandwidth isn't the only consideration when choosing a particular mode. If conditions allow it, voice is perfectly fine. 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?). 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. On top of this, HF is the only spectrum that can provide worldwide communications with no infrastructure. And finally, BPL is for the most part unnecessary and obsolete. Cable and DSL coverage is more ubiquitous and cable and fiber provide more bandwidth. To sum it up, you favor a technology that hasn't gotten off the ground in ten years, has less than 10,000 subscribers in the US after five years of promotion, has questionable scalability, has a habit of missing promises and projections, has a tenuous business model, and formidable competition to ruin a worldwide communications medium. Yea, that sounds like a winner of a "pragmatic choice"....where do I sign up??? |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| 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. That's not true. See:
»Catch up on the truth
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. Then the marketplace will resolve it.
said by rf_engineer :To sum it up, you favor a technology that hasn't gotten off the ground in ten years, No. I oppose blind extremism.
Mark
|
|
