Re: Ham's arent complaining ? in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20174978 en Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:11:59 EDT Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:11:59 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20222798 RadioDoc : Enjoy the overpriced, underpowered, erratic service, baby.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20222798 Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:38:16 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20215223 gefflong : still not worried about it. Bring on the BPL, baby.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20215223 Mon, 24 Mar 2008 01:29:59 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20192346 W1RFI :
You're still talking about license holders, not active participants. I've encountered quite a few license holders who aren't active. They renew their licenses because there's no requirements attached to renewal. Looking at total licenses seems meaningless to me.
Of course it would, because your premise is based on your claim that the number of hams is decreasing, or soon to suffer a precipitous decline, based only on your undocumented belief that hams are all old and that not sufficient newcomers are getting licensed to replace them.

The number of total licenses is the best available data. Anything else you are presenting is an anecdote of one.

Also, I believe it's incorrect to say the 10-year renewal has been with us for a long time. It's only been 16 years. If the demographics of license holders is skewed toward older generations (as it appeared to me 15 years ago) we wouldn't see the effect of that for awhile yet.
The effect of the change from a 5-year renewal to a 10-year renewal will be completely manifest after 15 years. There are about 20,000 new hams entering the service every year, and if we look at the 650,000 licensees, it is manifestly clear that these are not all people in their sunset years. The effect you are predicting at some unspecified point in the future has not showed up yet.

The interesting data would be the ages of license holders (as a bell curve).
Then develop the data and defend your postulate. Defending it on the basis of information you haven't presented is not a good defense. If all you are saying is that it would be interesting, I agree. One can interpret information they don't have to mean nearly anything they want to claim it to be.

The "Act Up" crowd says hobby radio should be protected for responding to the natural disaster every 2-3 years.
Can you cite the source for your premise that Amateur Radio contributes to disaster communication only every 2-3 years? I see far more news stories about emcomm than you apparently do.

I think VHF work satisfactorily. You only have to go 20-50 miles to the nearest point that other services are available (Internet, telephone, etc.). A relay net would work fine for that.
If you are talking a true network, you are presuming that whatever relay points that exist from the point of communication are intact in a disaster area that encompasses a wide geographical area. That is a flawed assumption. While VHF can be used to communicate directly over a 50 mile path, it requires optimum equipment, antennas and locations that may not be needed.

If VHF is to be used, and you believe that spectrum should be set aside for BPL, relocate VHF users to different spectrum if needed. A frequency of 100 MHz or 150 MHz works just about the same. The same 50 MHz difference is night and day between 10 MHz and 60 MHz.

HF spectrum is unique in that it is the only spectrum that can be used for worldwide communication without the use of intervening technology. If BPL were the only way to provide broadband to the masses, and HF were the only spectrum that could be used for BPL, I could understand some thinking what I believe to be still unthinkable, and that would be to sacrifice HF communications services for BPL. But at 0.008% of the broadband lines in the country, based on the last FCC report, after 7 years of trying to make inroads, it is pretty clear to me that BPL is not so universally applicable that it would be worth making any such sacrifice.

To get a good look at one utility's impression of BPL:

»p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/coaae_bp···port.pdf

Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Lab]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20192346 Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:43:15 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20183996 amigo_boy :
said by W1RFI See Profile :

Not really significant enough for you to base that argument on, Mark, IMHO.
You're still talking about license holders, not active participants. I've encountered quite a few license holders who aren't active. They renew their licenses because there's no requirements attached to renewal. Looking at total licenses seems meaningless to me.

Also, I believe it's incorrect to say the 10-year renewal has been with us for a long time. It's only been 16 years. If the demographics of license holders is skewed toward older generations (as it appeared to me 15 years ago) we wouldn't see the effect of that for awhile yet.

The interesting data would be the ages of license holders (as a bell curve).

said by W1RFI See Profile :

The premise that its capability can be replaced by VHF and above is fundamentally flawed.
The "Act Up" crowd says hobby radio should be protected for responding to the natural disaster every 2-3 years. I think VHF work satisfactorily. You only have to go 20-50 miles to the nearest point that other services are available (Internet, telephone, etc.). A relay net would work fine for that.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20183996 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:10:25 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20183917 W1RFI : Then you may want to table the question and speculation for another 9 years, then ask. If 10 years from now, Amateur Radio has withered on the vine, then you will have been the first to have been proven right predicting its demise. The 10-year expiration has been with us some time now, and the effect of the "growth" that occurred when the license went from 5 to 10 years is seen on the graph, as is my estimation of what the graph would be had the 10-year change not happened.

Even with a 5 year expiration, hams have dropped out of ham radio before their license expired since the first license was issued, so there is nothing magical per se about the 10-year licensing. That will inflate the number of licensees by a few percent, based on the average attrition seen. Typically, we are seeing 20,000 new hams per year, and growth is pretty flat, so that means that 2,000 per year drop out. That would put a quick back-of-envelope estimate of the 10-year effect when compared to the 5-year effect at about a difference of 10,000 hams, or about 1.5%. Not really significant enough for you to base that argument on, Mark, IMHO.

In the US, Amateur Radio has allocations from 1.8 MHz through 300 GHz+. The reason is that each part of the spectrum has unique characteristics, and each is optimum for something.

The part of that spectrum that is unique is that which is found below 30 MHz, because these frequencies represent the only spectrum that is capable of long-distance communication without the use of intervening technology. Between any two points, the uniqueness can often be MHz by MHz and hour by hour, as various ionospheric factors can result in a fairly narrow range of spectrum that is optimum between any two points at any particular time. The premise that its capability can be replaced by VHF and above is fundamentally flawed.

Ed Hare, W1RFI]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20183917 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:49:30 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20183554 amigo_boy :
said by W1RFI See Profile :

there are people in industry and ARRL working to actually address the EMC issues, to some good effect.
Good. Because, honestly, most people simply don't care. And, the argument that 20 people along the Northwest coast helped out during recent floods doesn't increase the interest level -- when, maybe 500 should if public service is the primary argument hobbyists use. And, if 500, then why not VHF and relay nets. (And, so the story goes.).

Obviously the responsibility is upon hobbyists to engage their PR with BPL companies, as you are doing and I have applauded you for. I don't see the circle-the-wagons mentality working too well with the average person (playing with their Wii and wondering why someone needs anything else).

said by W1RFI See Profile :

There have been ups and downs over the years, and the latest down represents a drop from the maximum number of licensees of about 5%,
I said "participation" not "licensees." Big difference. I know radio hobbyists who have licenses and do nothing.

Also, if the license doesn't expire for 10 years, it could be some period of time before we see the demographic effects that I was so impressed by. It would be interesting to see the demographics behind license holders. Average age over time, etc.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20183554 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:05:54 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20183499 W1RFI :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

My only point has been that hobby radio isn't sacred. Things change. There are always ways to do things differently.


Hobby radio may not be sacred, but the premise that unlicensed devices must not cause harmful interference to licensed radio services is. BPL operates at levels that locally obliterate all but the strongest signals on any swath of spectrum it uses, over large geographical areas, for long periods of time. For the FCC to "allocate" the only spectrum capable of long distance communication without the need for intervening infrastructure to accomodate unintentional noise from an unlicensed emitter is unrealistic. That would be a pardigm change of monumental proportions, and if it is on that run you are trying to hang your hat, I believe that your goal is quite out of reach.

While you are proposing the unachievable, there are people in industry and ARRL working to actually address the EMC issues, to some good effect. That would be more productive area for you to focus your efforts, if one can call your posts here "efforts." Of course, solving the problem is is near as much fun as stirring up the masses on forums such as this, eh? :-)

quote:
BTW: What's the participation level of hobby radio these days? About 10-15 years ago it looked like it was declining, and headed for serious decline because (to me) it appeared the vast majority of participants were older, and few young folks were entering. If the demographic I saw was true, it looked like participation would decline rapidly in a few years.


Over decades, all of those who have predicted the rapid decline of Amateur Radio have proven to be wrong. If you started that prediction 10-15 years ago, you are among them. I have previously posted this for you, but you apparently forgot or never looked at it, but this shows the generally steady grown of ham radio over some time. There have been ups and downs over the years, and the latest down represents a drop from the maximum number of licensees of about 5%, although the drop has pretty much stopped and Amateur Radio is in pretty much a steady state, with a slight increase over the past months. The percentage of population is higher than it was 20 years ago.

»p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/hams_vs_population.jpg

I expect that the elimination of Morse code testing in Amateur Radio will continue the slight increase in numbers. The number of licensed hams is about 100 times greater than the number of BPL lines in the last-released FCC broadband report.

There are probably a million CB operators, without individual licenses but licensed as a Service by regulation, in the range used by BPL, perhaps a few million people who at least occasionally listen to shortwave broadcasts, and other users of the shortwave bands. Above 30 MHz, the 49 MHz unlicensed band is also used for walkie talkies, intercoms, baby monitors and similar applications.

Rather than hanging your hopes on getting BPL made primary over all of these other uses of spectrum, you would be better in joining me to help this industry resolve its interference issues.

Or are you enjoying the arguments here too much? :-)

Ed Hare
ARRL Lab
225 Main St
Newington, CT 06111
Tel: 860-594-0318
Email: W1RFI@arrl.org]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20183499 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:44:52 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20182077 RadioDoc : You've got it exactly backward. In an area without normal utilities outbound communications is by low powered battery equipment. The receivers are outside the 'disaster' area where the electricity--and BPL system--would be operational. The interference is not to the transmitters, it is to the receivers, and the BPL interference will drown out those low power radios being depended on by on-site responders in the disaster zone. Get it?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20182077 Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:06:56 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20181861 gefflong :
said by jjeffeory See Profile :

HAM radio is too important to just make the "little HAM radio geeks" go away. It's very useful in the event of a major catastrophic emergency... You know, like hurricanes, large fires, earthquakes, major brown outs, terrorist attacks, etc... 10 years ago I would have laughed at the odds of having 3 of the events happening near the same time, but living through many of them, has changed that thought. You can speak to people very far away with very little power. I think it's stupid to just tell them to go away.
I don't use HAM radio, but for me it is like having a backup plan to communicate across distances in case some other major infrastructure is "fubared". BPL, sounds like crap... If it works and doesn't mess with HAM radio, give it a try, oterhwise it shouldn't be used.
Well, if such a thing DOES happen, then there won't be any "interference" because the BPL service will be down. I'm tired of hearing the same old argument "HAM is too important in a catastrophe". Bottom line... if everything is down and won't work and we have to rely on HAM radio to communicate, then there's not going to be anything interfering now is there?!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20181861 Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:34:45 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20181055 W1RFI : Have these hams contact me, as I would like more firsthand reports. For the most part, the 2nd generation BPL equipment has been shown to be better than the first generation, but ARRL has little experience with Main.net G2 equipment. I sent an email today to the BPL operator, and got back an immediate response and an indication that he will work with me or local hams as needed. If there is interference from the present implementation of the system, we all need to have it on the table.

The article was inaccurate in that there were interference reports from the earlier implementation, but unless we do get reports from hams in the area, or reports of widespread mobile interference, the conclusion will be that the system is operating without major interference problems.

Ed Hare
ARRL
225 Main St
Newington, CT 06111
Tel: 860-594-0318
Email: W1RFI@arrl.org]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20181055 Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:18:39 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20180698 Surfinusa :
said by moonpuppy See Profile :

said by amigo_boy See Profile :

If it became popular and interfered with HF, I doubt radio hobbyists would really want it decided on the basis of sheer numbers either... ;)

My only point has been that hobby radio isn't sacred. Things change. There are always ways to do things differently.

BTW: What's the participation level of hobby radio these days? About 10-15 years ago it looked like it was declining, and headed for serious decline because (to me) it appeared the vast majority of participants were older, and few young folks were entering. If the demographic I saw was true, it looked like participation would decline rapidly in a few years.

Mark
When you fully understand how many users would be affected (not just the HAMS) then you are allowed to speak on the subject. Otherwise, your rantings are like a 5 year old.
I don't know why we keep on disputing this. There will always be people who don't like HAMS and those that do.

I am for Ham Radio operators. Anyone who feels different, that's there opinion. I feel HAM RADIO still has good uses.

But anyone who doesn't see it my way I won't keep taking up useless time on trying to dispute it or explain it to them.

At this point this thread is like beating a dead horse.


I am not in disagreement with you.

Don't let anyone get you fired up. :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20180698 Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:10:58 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20180574 moonpuppy :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

If it became popular and interfered with HF, I doubt radio hobbyists would really want it decided on the basis of sheer numbers either... ;)

My only point has been that hobby radio isn't sacred. Things change. There are always ways to do things differently.

BTW: What's the participation level of hobby radio these days? About 10-15 years ago it looked like it was declining, and headed for serious decline because (to me) it appeared the vast majority of participants were older, and few young folks were entering. If the demographic I saw was true, it looked like participation would decline rapidly in a few years.

Mark
When you fully understand how many users would be affected (not just the HAMS) then you are allowed to speak on the subject. Otherwise, your rantings are like a 5 year old.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20180574 Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:45:20 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20179656 amigo_boy :
said by W1RFI See Profile :

0.008% of the broadband access lines in the US were BPL. I don't think Amigo-Boy really wants this decided on the basis of sheer numbers...
If it became popular and interfered with HF, I doubt radio hobbyists would really want it decided on the basis of sheer numbers either... ;)

My only point has been that hobby radio isn't sacred. Things change. There are always ways to do things differently.

BTW: What's the participation level of hobby radio these days? About 10-15 years ago it looked like it was declining, and headed for serious decline because (to me) it appeared the vast majority of participants were older, and few young folks were entering. If the demographic I saw was true, it looked like participation would decline rapidly in a few years.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20179656 Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:58:03 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20179370 W1RFI : According to the last-released FCC report on broadband statistics, 0.008% of the broadband access lines in the US were BPL.

I don't think Amigo-Boy really wants this decided on the basis of sheer numbers...

Ed, W1RFI]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20179370 Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:11:42 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20179360 alphapointe : Nice callsign. :D I like it!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20179360 Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:09:42 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20179286 W1RFI : He has done the research, or at least read all of the responses to the same old argument he keeps posting. No matter what is said in response, he keeps repeating that mantra ad nauseum.

Ed, W1RFI]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20179286 Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:56:00 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20178436 moonpuppy :
said by Austinloop See Profile :

Over a period of time and numerous threads concerning BPL, amigo child has proved that he knows nothing. He has an irrational dislike for amateur radio, for what reason, who knows. It is pointless to discuss anything with him.
Yep, he is just trolling. He has no clue on how radio communications work. Furthermore, he has no idea how the military procures equipment and how some specs are non-negotiable. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20178436 Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:19:19 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20178323 Austinloop : Over a period of time and numerous threads concerning BPL, amigo child has proved that he knows nothing. He has an irrational dislike for amateur radio, for what reason, who knows. It is pointless to discuss anything with him.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20178323 Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:56:32 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20177869 moonpuppy :
said by 53059959 See Profile :

who cares about ham radio, emergency services and military- they can be moved to a different spectrum. BPL and the internet is way more important then that crap, out with the old in with the new. we'll put you ham radio guys in a museum
More rantings from a little child who knows not what he is talking about. :uhh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20177869 Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:13:09 EDT Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20177816 contsole : Boeing has expressed concern to the FCC about BPL interference to long distance airline communication. That's an unlicensed service interfering with a critical licensed service. That's enough for me.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20177816 Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:57:44 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20177718 53059959 : who cares about ham radio, emergency services and military- they can be moved to a different spectrum. BPL and the internet is way more important then that crap, out with the old in with the new. we'll put you ham radio guys in a museum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20177718 Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:15:06 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20176113 moonpuppy :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

said by moonpuppy See Profile :

Military communications are 90% encrypted.
Non sequitur. We're talking about augmenting the 30 hobbyists who participated after the Washington floods if they are unable to form nets with 2 meter and 70 cm. Remember? It's not for any other use.

Mark
Wrong, the military has specs that need to be met for equipment to be considered. Encryption is one of them. You brought up why not let the military take charge. Well, they need communications that can be encrypted.

And keep ducking the question I asked. Here it is again.

"Why do public service people use radios instead of cell phones?" Here is a clue: cell phones are cheaper per unit but they still use radio...why?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20176113 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:10:46 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175526 amigo_boy :
said by moonpuppy See Profile :

Military communications are 90% encrypted.
Non sequitur. We're talking about augmenting the 30 hobbyists who participated after the Washington floods if they are unable to form nets with 2 meter and 70 cm. Remember? It's not for any other use.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175526 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:15:42 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175512 moonpuppy :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

said by moonpuppy See Profile :

As for security issues with dolling out weapons, you would know that all communication equipment goes through similar security measures especially since most have cryptographic additions that are more HIGHLY controlled than any personal weapons.
Aren't you comparing apples to oranges? Why would satellite phones for use during rare emergencies require encrypted communications? They would only be used to augment hobbiests' VHF nets (which aren't encrypted).

Mark
Military communications are 90% encrypted. They even use a separate frequency for their air traffic control and use the civilian frequencies only when they are in civil airspace. Almost every single radio they have in their inventory has to have encryption capabilities. That's how they work.

Now answer the question I posted earlier.

"Why do public service people use radios instead of cell phones?"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175512 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:12:31 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175480 amigo_boy :
said by moonpuppy See Profile :

As for security issues with dolling out weapons, you would know that all communication equipment goes through similar security measures especially since most have cryptographic additions that are more HIGHLY controlled than any personal weapons.
Aren't you comparing apples to oranges? Why would satellite phones for use during rare emergencies require encrypted communications? They would only be used to augment hobbiests' VHF nets (which aren't encrypted).

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175480 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:06:58 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175425 moonpuppy :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

said by moonpuppy See Profile :

And again, it costs much more than that.
And again, you have no idea of the comparative costs. I think what's being established is that you're so biased by your hobby that you're unable to see the validity of *any* reasonable compromise.

Remember, the number of purchased Iridium phones would be much less than the number of M16s. It's not like they'd be issued to every soldier. And, they wouldn't require the special security oversight inherent with weapons (and the public safety issues which arise due to their theft).

I could insult you by saying "try again" or "you need to study more before...". But, I feel no need to since I'm mot a partisan.

Mark
You are partisan. You can't see past your point of view.

And again, you still have no clue how communications work.

Here is a simple thing for you to consider. Why do public service people use radios instead of cell phones? When you can answer that question, you will understand why sat phones are a very bad idea.

As for security issues with dolling out weapons, you would know that all communication equipment goes through similar security measures especially since most have cryptographic additions that are more HIGHLY controlled than any personal weapons.

Keep trying. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175425 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:53:01 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175314 amigo_boy :
said by moonpuppy See Profile :

And again, it costs much more than that.
And again, you have no idea of the comparative costs. I think what's being established is that you're so biased by your hobby that you're unable to see the validity of *any* reasonable compromise.

Remember, the number of purchased Iridium phones would be much less than the number of M16s. It's not like they'd be issued to every soldier. And, they wouldn't require the special security oversight inherent with weapons (and the public safety issues which arise due to their theft).

I could insult you by saying "try again" or "you need to study more before...". But, I feel no need to since I'm mot a partisan.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175314 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:24:28 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175284 moonpuppy :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

said by moonpuppy See Profile :

Again, how much more in taxes are you willing to spend for this conversion?
Again, not more than the price of an M16.

Mark
And again, it costs much more than that.

Until you are willing to open up that pocketbook of yours, this change will not happen and it won't be cheap. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175284 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:19:14 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175275 amigo_boy :
said by moonpuppy See Profile :

Again, how much more in taxes are you willing to spend for this conversion?
Again, not more than the price of an M16.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175275 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:16:19 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175237 moonpuppy :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

said by moonpuppy See Profile :

A mobile unit cannot communicate with a satellite easily.
As I said, I never had a problem with my Iridium phone.

Mark
But you fail to realize the extended costs. The service costs monthly even if it is not used. Currently, the military does not pay for spectrum and neither does public service. Again, how much more in taxes are you willing to spend for this conversion?

Now, you also forget the millions needed to put up even more satellites for all these new phones that have to go out to everyone. Who is going to maintain them? NASA? Even more millions in repairs if they need to fix them. XM Radio paid $15 million for their sats and 2 have failed. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175237 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:10:14 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175215 amigo_boy :
said by moonpuppy See Profile :

A mobile unit cannot communicate with a satellite easily.
As I said, I never had a problem with my Iridium phone.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175215 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:03:02 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175186 moonpuppy :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

said by moonpuppy See Profile :

VHF is line of sight which becomes extremely difficult in mountainous regions.
That's why there could be a mixture of VHF hobbyists and satellite services.

Mark
A mobile unit cannot communicate with a satellite easily. HF can be made mobile very easily.

Plus, anytime you start mixing frequencies and modes, you lose reliability of communication and it becomes a bad game of "telephone."

Until you do a bit more research, you won't understand how radio communications work. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175186 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:56:53 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175141 amigo_boy :
said by moonpuppy See Profile :

VHF is line of sight which becomes extremely difficult in mountainous regions.
That's why there could be a mixture of VHF hobbyists and satellite services.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175141 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:43:48 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175097 moonpuppy :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

said by moonpuppy See Profile :

As the frequency goes up, the distance goes down. Long range communications are possible in HF and not so much in VHF or higher.
Relays and nets? It's all relative, right?

Mark
Nope, it is not. Again, you know nothing of what you are talking about. A relay is only as good as the furthest distance it can reach. As it stands now, HF is the ONLY set of frequencies that can cover this country. Not 50Mhz nor anything higher in the amateur spectrum. VHF is line of sight which becomes extremely difficult in mountainous regions. You do realize we have mountains in this country right?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175097 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:33:51 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175068 amigo_boy :
said by moonpuppy See Profile :

As the frequency goes up, the distance goes down. Long range communications are possible in HF and not so much in VHF or higher.
Relays and nets? It's all relative, right?

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175068 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:28:39 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175063 moonpuppy :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

said by moonpuppy See Profile :

Do you even know what occupies the HF spectrum?
One question at a time please. That's not what I asked. Why can't higher frequencies be used for the emergency services which we're told is the benefit of hobby radio?

Mark
That question directly relates to your question. Moving everyone up will cost billions. It is not just amateur radio that would need to move.

As the frequency goes up, the distance goes down. Long range communications are possible in HF and not so much in VHF or higher. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175063 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:27:31 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175019 amigo_boy :
said by moonpuppy See Profile :

Do you even know what occupies the HF spectrum?
One question at a time please. That's not what I asked. Why can't higher frequencies be used for the emergency services which we're told is the benefit of hobby radio?

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175019 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:17:34 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175011 moonpuppy :
said by amigo_boy See Profile :

said by moonpuppy See Profile :

BPL affect more than just HAM radio. It affects frequencies up to 80Mhz.
Ok, but what I was getting at is: why can't higher frequencies be used for the stated "emergency services" which hobby frequencies are supposed to be protected for?

Mark
Do you even know what occupies the HF spectrum? It runs the gamut from commercial operators all the way to the military. Try telling the military they have to move. Add to that, we as taxpayers have to pay higher taxes for all government and military users to swap out all their radios with new ones. That won't be cheap.

And don't think you can confine BPL just to the HAM radio sections because it is not enough space.

Try again.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20175011 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:16:00 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20174978 amigo_boy :
said by moonpuppy See Profile :

BPL affect more than just HAM radio. It affects frequencies up to 80Mhz.
Ok, but what I was getting at is: why can't higher frequencies be used for the stated "emergency services" which hobby frequencies are supposed to be protected for?

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20174978 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:06:00 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20174938 moonpuppy : BPL affect more than just HAM radio. It affects frequencies up to 80Mhz.

Please do some more research before you spout off what you clearly know nothing about. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20174938 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:55:30 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20174792 amigo_boy :
said by jjeffeory See Profile :

HAM radio is ... very useful in the event of a major catastrophic emergency...
It's all relative. Hobbyists sacrifice the quality of their frequencies in the name of personal enjoyment and expanding their participants. A good example is eliminating morse code. 10 years ago the argument for retaining it is exactly the same argument used today against BPL. It was the only thing that could reliably communicate in an emergency (when your microphone is damaged, etc.). It communicates in a smaller band with less power. Etc., etc. And, without it, the riff-raff would get licenses and the hobby hands would sound like CB.

But, it went by the wayside. Now you have people using more power than is required to communicate. Just talking over others. Etc.

Which bands does BPL affect? HF only? It sounds like it because people say the problem with BPL is propagation. But, I'm not sure.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20174792 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:17:23 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20174348 RadioDoc : I'll put money on there being more hams now than there would ever be rural broadband customers served by BPL even without the technical restrictions. So I agree, why are we catering to a very very very small less than 1% group of people? A group even smaller than the three quarters of a million amateur radio operators in the US alone. Considering that there are multiple, better ways to get relatively slow broadband access to people BPL is at best a bad technology.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20174348 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:30:22 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20174090 jjeffeory : HAM radio is too important to just make the "little HAM radio geeks" go away. It's very useful in the event of a major catastrophic emergency... You know, like hurricanes, large fires, earthquakes, major brown outs, terrorist attacks, etc... 10 years ago I would have laughed at the odds of having 3 of the events happening near the same time, but living through many of them, has changed that thought. You can speak to people very far away with very little power. I think it's stupid to just tell them to go away.
I don't use HAM radio, but for me it is like having a backup plan to communicate across distances in case some other major infrastructure is "fubared". BPL, sounds like crap... If it works and doesn't mess with HAM radio, give it a try, oterhwise it shouldn't be used.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20174090 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 13:31:33 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20173907 wvcaver : BPL SUCKS !!!!!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20173907 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 12:52:34 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20173805 jc100 : Umm... Because if this were done on a large scale, it'd effect a lot more than 1 percent. Still, ham operators are probably the minority but this technology just sucks. Find better ways to give internet if you ask me. Wimax for one or satellite via the balloons sounds more feasible.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20173805 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 12:27:19 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20173673 BF69 :
said by AnOldGuy See Profile :

well - I live about 30 miles from Princeton and the hams that I know there are complaining. Seems that they have experienced interference and as with most of the other BPL trials it has been swept under the table by the FCC.
BS and who cares. God why are we catering to a very very very small less than 1% group of people? that's why t takes forever for technology to advance becaus every single group that might complain has to be sattisfied which is IMPOSSIBLE. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Ham operators can find a new hobby.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20173673 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:56:41 EDT Re: Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20173632 AnOldGuy : well - I live about 30 miles from Princeton and the hams that I know there are complaining. Seems that they have experienced interference and as with most of the other BPL trials it has been swept under the table by the FCC.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20173632 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:46:36 EDT Ham's arent complaining ? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20173543 Surfinusa : If this works maybe finally BPL will get off the ground. And Ham radio operators can live with BPL ( if it really works ). Sure hope so. Time will tell if Ham radio's have interference in all states if it really does get implemented.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20173543 Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:25:03 EDT