Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to rf_engineer
Re: Fanatics 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 |
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·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 |
|
| 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???  |
|
Reviews:
·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
|
|
| said by amigo_boy: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 No, it's true. You can't escape the laws of physics. BPL will emit whatever frequencies it's using. Notching isn't a silver bullet, it just moves the interference to other frequencies and carriers will undoubtedly turn off notching anyways once capacity becomes an issue. ARRL has been working with a few vendors for quite awhile and some vendors have better systems than others; it's no news flash to those of us who have been following BPL. By the way, Motorola pulled out of Access BPL.
said by amigo_boy: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. And as we've seen with this article, it is.
said by amigo_boy: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. Call it what you like in an effort to discredit us, but most of us have been studying BPL longer than you've been a member here and understand it quite well. Several of us have actually seen systems in operation and have measured emissions (I can identify chipsets by listening to the sounds and identify some systems by looking at the equipment on the pole). It seems you're here more to pick a fight than actually debate anything of substance. If you don't favor BPL then you're really wasting your time here. |
|
 wolfoxGentle Wolfox
join:2002-11-27
Dunnellon, FL | I see Marky-boy hasn't taken up my invitation, preferring to believe what politicians tell him rather than what REAL world science does. You're arguing with a fool, rf_engineer - please do not let him drag you too down to his level. Mark, my original invitation stands:
»BPL is not goin to help people who save lifes
What have you read so far?
--
The RIAA killed my legal webcast. Sadly it will never be mourned... |
|
W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT | reply to amigo_boy
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." Your position is flawed on its face, Mark. Voice communication contains FAR more than the words it uses. It contains emotion and inflection and other things that often communicate at least as much information as the words themselves. It is like the difference between communicating via keyboard and communicating over the telephone. In terms of transmitted information, there are things that are communicated by voice that can't be communicated any other way.
Your premise that those that use voice modes via radio are doing so to increase their susceptibility to interference is pretty ridiculous.
Ed Hare, W1RFI |
|
