Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| reply to amigo_boy
Re: Outstanding
said by amigo_boy  :said by nasadude :Right now, BPL is less relevant than sat broadband; and we see how well sat broadband is helping. It has to start somewhere. I'd like to have BPL, DSL and cable and muni-wifi available so that I could subscribe to two and use a router with two WAN ports to load balance. Competition is always good. My electric company (Salt River Project) replaced my meter yesterday with a digital meter ("elster"). It's supposed to let them read the meter remotely. It has a LAN ID printed on the front. I meant to ask the installer if it used wifi or BPL. I'm thinking BPL because I didn't see an antenna. Mark Two words, and I could be wrong, Internal Antenna. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·magicjack.com
 ·EarthLink
| said by Cheese :Two words, and I could be wrong, Internal Antenna. You're right. This is what they installed: »www.elsterelectricity.com/en/rex.html
"The REX meter has on-board two-way radio frequency (RF) communications that permit the meter to respond to requests over an unlicensed 900 MHz local area network (LAN). REX meters deployed on the EnergyAxis® System act as repeaters and are self-registering via an A3 ALPHA® meter/collector." Mark |
|
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| said by amigo_boy :said by Cheese :Two words, and I could be wrong, Internal Antenna. You're right. This is what they installed: » www.elsterelectricity.com/en/rex.html"The REX meter has on-board two-way radio frequency (RF) communications that permit the meter to respond to requests over an unlicensed 900 MHz local area network (LAN). REX meters deployed on the EnergyAxis® System act as repeaters and are self-registering via an A3 ALPHA® meter/collector." Mark Awesome  |
|
W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT
| An AMR-equipped meter will allow the utility to save a few dollars on meter-reading costs. Unless it is linked into a network, it can't be used for load shedding or other utility operations.
Of course, I am honor bound to point out that 902-928 MHz is an Amateur Band, with any Part 15 unlicensed opeation being entirely secondary to the licensed service.
Hey, do you think that Amateur users could use that band for all that relaying that Amigo_boy thinks should be done so that BPL can make strong radio noise in the ham bands?
Ed, W1RFI |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
edit:
March 23rd, @11:16PM
| said by W1RFI :I am honor bound to point out that 902-928 MHz is an Amateur Band, ... do you think that Amateur users could use that band for all that relaying that Amigo_boy thinks should be done so that BPL can make strong radio noise in the ham bands? Ed, now you're being intentionally provocative. I've suggested more than once that 2 meter or 70 cm can be used. And, in the event of a disaster, 33 cm wouldn't be affected by local power meters that are out of service. It would also not be affected by propagation (common argument against BPL interference of HF, lower frequencies).
Mark |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by amigo_boy :said by W1RFI :I am honor bound to point out that 902-928 MHz is an Amateur Band, ... do you think that Amateur users could use that band for all that relaying that Amigo_boy thinks should be done so that BPL can make strong radio noise in the ham bands? Ed, now you're being intentionally provocative. I've suggested more than once that 2 meter or 70 cm can be used. And, in the event of a disaster, 33 cm wouldn't be affected by local power meters that are out of service. It would also not be affected by propagation (common argument against BPL interference of HF, lower frequencies). Why do you need BPL? Can't you just use dial up? Dial up is even better than BPL because phone lines are everywhere (you can take cell phones everywhere now). And why do people need the Internet anyway if they can buy p0rn at a bookstore? Magazines are unaffected by power outages and they can withstand coffee spills better than a laptop. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| said by rf_engineer :And why do people need the Internet anyway if ... False analogy. Various access methods to the Internet are commercial. Not public gifts like hobby radio. Hobby radio is akin to a public park (who's users complain that it must be used exactly a certain way, err... until they themselves become pragmatic and ... oh well.).
Mark |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by amigo_boy :said by rf_engineer :And why do people need the Internet anyway if ... False analogy. Various access methods to the Internet are commercial. Not public gifts like hobby radio. Hobby radio is akin to a public park (who's users complain that it must be used exactly a certain way, err... until they themselves become pragmatic and ... oh well.). But what's so important about your access to the Internet? It's really just a hobby for you. You like to post in forums and I'm guessing you probably do some web surfing, IM ur BFFs, and listen to some tunes. That sounds like a hobby to me and not critical to our national infrastructure. The Internet is like a park with free gifts and the majority of what goes on really isn't that important. You can call your friends on the phone rather than IMing them. You can watch TV instead of web surfing. You can turn on the radio to listen to music. You Internet extremist people need to get a grip and realize you don't need the Internet to live and look at some of the alternatives.
(I'm kinda getting the hang of your way of thinking!! This is great! Everything is so much clearer, and now I have simple, wrong answers to everything! If I just keep giving the same wrong answers again and again, they'll become right answers once everyone gets frustrated and gives up talking to me! ) |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| said by rf_engineer :But what's so important about your access to the Internet? It's really just a hobby for you. A hobby I (and *billions*) pay for. Not a grant of *public* airwaves to a tiny minority who insist it must be used as [fill in the blank], but then [fill in the blank] and then... "but we're not being inconsistent. There is purity in pragmatism.".
Mark |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by amigo_boy :said by rf_engineer :But what's so important about your access to the Internet? It's really just a hobby for you. A hobby I (and *billions*) pay for. Not a grant of *public* airwaves to a tiny minority who insist it must be used as [fill in the blank], but then [fill in the blank] and then... "but we're not being inconsistent. There is purity in pragmatism.". But you can use cable, DSL and fiber, all of which are faster, bigger, and better than BPL and better for your hobby that you pay to do for fun. Your hobby isn't more important than the other non-amateur users of the spectrum like the government and military, the ones that use the majority of the spectrum that BPL interferes with. And it would be more pragmatic to not pay for an Internet hobby and just watch TV instead. And it's not billions, I think there are 30 million DSL, 30 million cable, and about 5,000 BPL users, so it's actually much less than billions (in the US) and is dwindling.
Have I mentioned you can get p0rn in places other than the Internet? |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to W1RFI
said by W1RFI :An AMR-equipped meter will allow the utility to save a few dollars on meter-reading costs. Unless it is linked into a network, it can't be used for load shedding or other utility operations. Of course, I am honor bound to point out that 902-928 MHz is an Amateur Band, with any Part 15 unlicensed opeation being entirely secondary to the licensed service. At least the AMR equipment actually uses the spectrum for communications. As you know, BPL just dumps the energy it leaks in the wireless spectrum, it doesn't even use it for transmitting intelligence.
Hey, do you think that Amateur users could use that band for all that relaying that Amigo_boy thinks should be done so that BPL can make strong radio noise in the ham bands?
No, actually all radio spectrum users should use the Internet instead of wireless so BPL can have all the spectrum from DC to 800 Mhz. By my calculations, BPL could deliver 3 Gbs of bandwidth with this spectrum and be able to compete with FTTH! We have to avoid using 800 Mhz and above so our amigos can talk on their cell phones, use wifi at Starbucks, and get satellite radio - the only wireless services that really matter. Undoubtedly BPL could double its numbers in a year with such bandwidth and break the 10,000 customer barrier!
|
|
W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :Ed, now you're being intentionally provocative. I've suggested more than once that 2 meter or 70 cm can be used. And I suggested another licensed band that could be used. Now it has become prevocative for a licensed user to want to use one of its bands for its intended purpose?
Fortunately, the hostile takeover you appear to be proposing didn't fare too well in the BPL rulemaking. It would be a major paradigm shift, so if you really want to make it happen, you will need to do more than post articles on BBR.
For local communication, 900 MHz would be a technically feasible choice.
The relay scheme you propose to allow BPL to make strong noise on the Amateur bands, however, is not a viable alternative, IMHO. It presumes that in a Katrina-sized event that all of the resources will be readily available in the 30 miles you propose as a relay distance.
Unless augmented by significant additional infrastructure, the relay process would be one of words only, not actual voices, although completing the development of digital voice coudl store and forward. That, however, would sacrifice some real-time aspects that is possible in direct human communication.
Fortunately, under the present regulatory paradigm, licensed users in the Amateur Radio Service do not have to develop new infrastructure and refine technology to be able to communicate in an emergency or for routine communications. Amateurs have allocations on bands across the spectrum, allowing them to choose the unique spectrum that allows them to communicate directly without intervening infrastructure.
It is clear that you think that this should be changed. I think that your view is not likely to prevail. Even the BPL industry disagrees with you. 
Ed, W1RFI |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| said by W1RFI :And I suggested another licensed band that could be used. There was no need to since 2m and 70cm are perfectly suited to medium distance relay nets.
said by W1RFI :The relay scheme you propose to allow BPL to make strong noise on the Amateur bands, however, is not a viable alternative, I suspect it's not viable because it would require more than 20-30 hobbyists participating in a disaster like the Northwest floods.
This is becoming quite predictable. Hobby radio should be protected because it serves a public purpose (once every few years). When it's pointed out that only 20-30 people out of 650k licensees participate, the argument in favor of hobby radio changes to something else.
When it's pointed out that actual active users is less than licensed users, the argument turns into "there are a lot of other users like govt."
To me, what this keeps pointing to is that hobby radio is essentially irrelevant. The spectrum wasn't purchased. It's public space like a public park. If circumstances have changed (and they obviously have in the past 2-3 decades, increasing the options for emergency communications) the public can "taketh away." There's no reason for an irrelevant and relatively *tiny* group of people to force the public to continue on an outdated path which increasingly serves less of a public service.
said by W1RFI :It is clear that you think that this should be changed. Nope. Just that nothing's sacred.
Mark |
|
W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT
| said by amigo_boy :This is becoming quite predictable. Of course. What else do you expect when you completely ignore any information provided to you and blithely go about repeating yourself ad nauseum.
Hobby radio should be protected because it serves a public purpose (once every few years). When it's pointed out that only 20-30 people out of 650k licensees participate, the argument in favor of hobby radio changes to something else. Any and all information ignored that shows that far more than 20 Amateurs participate in EMComm work and that it occurs far more than once every few years.
Your misinformation is intentional, IMHO.
If circumstances have changed (and they obviously have in the past 2-3 decades, increasing the options for emergency communications) the public can "taketh away." The public can taketh away, but primarily by influencing the national treaty that has established the primary use of the spectrum under discussion as being allocated to the Amateur Radio Service.
Get back to us when you have completed changing that. Everyone will be most interested in how it turns out.
Ed, W1RFI |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
edit:
March 24th, @03:34PM
| said by W1RFI :far more than 20 Amateurs participate in EMComm work and that it occurs far more than once every few years. How many? And, how often?
What I was referring to was the news reports of 20-30 hobbyists performing communications during the recent Northwest flood. That was portrayed (in this forum) as the reason to protect hobby radio.
Most reasonable people would wonder how significant that is relative to the 650k licensees (which isn't representative of actual active users). If public service is a selling point, perhaps it should be mandatory.
said by W1RFI :Your misinformation is intentional, IMHO. Ditto.
said by W1RFI :Get back to us when you have completed changing that. Everyone will be most interested in how it turns out. Be careful what you wish for. It seems to me like hobbyists would be better served by looking for ways to be more relevant today, including mandatory service. Taunting the public to go further in disrespecting their hobby seems counter-intuitive to me.
Mark |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by amigo_boy :said by W1RFI :far more than 20 Amateurs participate in EMComm work and that it occurs far more than once every few years. How many? And, how often? What I was referring to was the news reports of 20-30 hobbyists performing communications during the recent Northwest flood. That was portrayed (in this forum) as the reason to protect hobby radio. Most reasonable people would wonder how significant that is relative to the 650k licensees (which isn't representative of actual active users). If public service is a selling point, perhaps it should be mandatory. said by W1RFI :Your misinformation is intentional, IMHO. Ditto. said by W1RFI :Get back to us when you have completed changing that. Everyone will be most interested in how it turns out. Be careful what you wish for. It seems to me like hobbyists would be better served by looking for ways to be more relevant today, including mandatory service. Taunting the public to go further in disrespecting their hobby seems counter-intuitive to me. We haven't taunted the public; ironically it seems to be your focus to taunt us. While the amateur service may not garner the same recognition and respect it did in the past, I think it's far from disrespect. You've mischaracterized the focus on the BPL interference issues as public taunting or protecting self interests. This has been an often used tactic against movements which brought to light environmental, industry, or government atrocities; movements that ultimately were right and brought about much needed change. Granted, the BPL interference issue isn't to that level, but you and others have used the same smear tactics in an effort to discredit valid arguments.
Mandatory public service may sound good on paper but in reality it's logistically difficult to administrate. The beauty of the amateur service is that it's not just Emcomm; there's also an educational and personal growth aspect. As the regulations state, one of the purposes is to advance the radio art. Being an amateur doesn't necessarily have to include public service. It's a multi-faceted activity that can be either a service or a hobby and can benefit you personally or the public.
People like you amaze me. Amateur radio is one of the few resources these days that are free and given to the public to enjoy. It's something that you or anyone can do, yet you seem to be bent on seeing it destroyed and indifferent to the value it provides others. It's unfortunate as I've seen this attitude from others here and seems to be a common theme coming from those who want cheap broadband and really couldn't give a damn about much else. |
|
W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by W1RFI :Get back to us when you have completed changing that. Everyone will be most interested in how it turns out. Be careful what you wish for. I think it highly unlikely that we will see you any time soon as a member of the US delegation to the ITU, seeking to change the international treaties that continue the Amateur Radio Service. That is a lot more work than continually referring to a licensed radio service as "a hobby" on an Internet discussion board. A lot can talk that talk, but very few walk it.
If I am wrong, say hello to the ARRL staff who do participate.
Ed, W1RFI |
|
W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by W1RFI :far more than 20 Amateurs participate in EMComm work and that it occurs far more than once every few years. How many? And, how often? A snapshot from a list I compiled in 2006:
More articles about Amateur Radio and emergency communications:
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/04/21/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/0···02/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/04/07/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/04/05/3/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/03/13/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/03/09/4/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/02/28/4/?nc=1
»www.whitehouse.gov/reports/katri···x-b.html
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/12/15/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/11/30/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/1···01/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/11/11/3/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/features/2005/···/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/1···01/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/1···01/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/10/24/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/10/21/3/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/10/20/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/10/19/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/10/11/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/10/07/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/1···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/1···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/1···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/30/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/28/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/23/6/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/22/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/19/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/14/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···01/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/12/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···03/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···05/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···06/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/02/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/01/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/01/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···01/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/08/30/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/08/29/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/08/26/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/08/25/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/08/20/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/08/03/7/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/29/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/27/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/27/1/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/20/4/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/15/3/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···04/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/07/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/05/18/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/28/4/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/08/4/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/06/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···01/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···01/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···01/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/01/04/2/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/1···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/1···00/?nc=1
»www.arrl.org/news/features/2004/···/1/?nc=1
A bit more than every 2 or 3 years like one poster misrepresented here...
Ed, W1RFI |
|
