Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
| Nice
Ham Radio operators provide a vital service in times of need.
Just a thought though BPL service could be down in case of a disaster so there wouldn't be interference. Possibly at some point they could co-exist. No power no interference. Disaster no Power.
As far as the article interesting reading except it mentioned the FCC administers the Ham exam 35 question test.
Actually it is not the FCC but authorized individuals with a license from the FCC are allowed (2)persons to administer the exam.
And no they don't get paid by the FCC so they are not FCC employees.
Other than that.
Another wonderful Ham to the Rescue story.
I love my Ham.
Lovely |
|
ke4pym
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC
 ·Verizon BroadbandA..
 ·Packet8
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| said by Surfinusa  :Just a thought though BPL service could be down in case of a disaster so there wouldn't be interference. Possibly at some point they could co-exist. No power no interference. Disaster no Power. This isn't entirely true. If BPL is up and running in my disaster-less part of the world, then I'm going to have trouble hearing weak signals from a disaster area because BPL *IS* operational in my back yard. |
|
Mactron
el camino Real
Premium
join:2001-12-16
CM94sv
| reply to Surfinusa
said by Surfinusa :Just a thought though BPL service could be down in case of a disaster so there wouldn't be interference. Possibly at some point they could co-exist. No power no interference. Disaster no Power. So folks are suppose to invest time, money, and effort into something that can only be used when BPL is down ? Pretty hard to setup, test, and regularly verify a setup that's being Jammed by BPL 99.99 % of the time. Your thought needs some more practical thinking I believe.
My 2 ¢
--
If only the Verizon CSRs worked this well.  |
|
kv5e
Ride Free
Premium
join:2001-12-04
Mesquite, TX
1 edit | reply to Surfinusa
said by Surfinusa :Just a thought though BPL service could be down in case of a disaster so there wouldn't be interference. Possibly at some point they could co-exist. No power no interference. Disaster no Power. Poor implementations of BPL affect the HF spectrum which primarily utilizes skywave propagation. The problem with poor implementations of BPL is they make it difficult to hear communications coming in from areas further away where the emergency operations are taking place (need to think three dimensionally here).
Amateur radio is not the only users of the HF spectrum, poor implementations of BPL affect all HF users.
I think the BPL scale of economy wil be limited to SCADA for the electrical providers and they will be using BPL in a way that is sustainable for all.
I would like to address the VOIP statement. VOIP is not limited to the National Information Infrastructure or internet. DStar and other links may be configured with redundant WAN routers and hardened RF links on the PHY layer between gateway nodes. Need to think out of the box a little more as it is IP over some PHY layer and although the NIIS is easy, they are other and redundant solutions.
Craig |
|
Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
| reply to Mactron
said by Mactron :said by Surfinusa :Just a thought though BPL service could be down in case of a disaster so there wouldn't be interference. Possibly at some point they could co-exist. No power no interference. Disaster no Power. So folks are suppose to invest time, money, and effort into something that can only be used when BPL is down ? Pretty hard to setup, test, and regularly verify a setup that's being Jammed by BPL 99.99 % of the time. Your thought needs some more practical thinking I believe. My 2 ¢ We have 4cents now.
Wouldn't it be nice if everything worked the way you want it. |
|
n2ubparrlnet
@comcast.net
| reply to kv5e
DStar is cool technology. I thought about using it as part of my counties Winlink deployment (www.winlink.org), however it would eat a big chuck of my ARES/RACES budget, best bang for the buck was the 1.2ghz radios, but that is short range line of site and in my hilly terrain would require microwave links.. too complicated to the KISS environment you try to work with in during an emergency or disaster.. so I went with a TS-2000 and Pactor 3 which will allow my group to stay in touch via e-mail to the outside world with an RF link 600 - 700 miles away to a PMBO in Nova Scotia. I think I would be better off setting up wireless G on Steroid's than DStar from a cost effective perspective.
Steve
N2UBP
(I've been on the Internet since 1988 and Fidonet.
I've left so many tracks I have nothing to hide.) |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to Mactron
said by Mactron :So folks are suppose to invest time, money, and effort into something that can only be used when BPL is down ? Pretty hard to setup, test, and regularly verify a setup that's being Jammed by BPL 99.99 % of the time. Your thought needs some more practical thinking I believe. Just use the other frequencies that aren't affected by BPL. It will make communication in a disaster more challenging (relay nets, etc.). But, we're always treated to this cheerleading for hobby radio, about how it serves a valuable public service. If that's true, it should be desirable to get more hobbyists engaged as a team.
From my perspective, there are a lot of hobbyists who are so just for the hobby, not the public service we're always hearing about. Maybe public service participation should be mandatory. That would go a long way to prove there is a responsibility that comes with using the public's airwaves.
This is where those with a vested interest will say the government will be effected by BPL, therefore hobbyists are just riding on the coattails of legitimate users. If that's true, why parade public service around? Just say HF isn't going anywhere, and therefore hobbyists can use it for whatever they want?
Mark |
|
Mactron
el camino Real
Premium
join:2001-12-16
CM94sv
| said by amigo_boy :Just use the other frequencies that aren't affected by BPL. Mark Your many Anti Ham, BPL Cheerleader Biased posts here precede you. No response required.
Why don't don't YOU go use another means of communication other than the Internet...
--
If only the Verizon CSRs worked this well. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
4 edits | said by Mactron :Your many Anti Ham, BPL Cheerleader Biased posts here precede you. No response required. FYI. I'm not pro-BPL. Just not buying the sales job radio hobbyists would like everyone to accept, unchallenged. Hobby radio may serve a valuable purpose. Maybe more should be expected from it. Maybe everyone can get by with FRS and CBRS.
Everything should be on the table. And, question everything. Especially those with a vested interest in the position they want everyone else to accept.
This is about the time someone will say "but it's an international treaty, so you'll have to change that. Until then, leave us alone." Ok. But, like the argument that HF is used by the government (therefore, radio hobbyists are deriving a coattail protection from interference), why go into all the self-ingratiating backslapping about serving a public service? Just say it's protected by an international treaty? Why the sales job? If you're going to put on lipstick, cover blemishes and wear a push-up bra, expect someone to ask questions. 
Mark |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by amigo_boy :said by Mactron :Your many Anti Ham, BPL Cheerleader Biased posts here precede you. No response required. FYI. I'm not pro-BPL. Just not buying the sales job radio hobbyists would like everyone to accept, unchallenged. Hobby radio may serve a valuable purpose. Maybe more should be expected from it. Maybe everyone can get by with FRS and CBRS. You're anti-ham and anti-fact, history has proven that. We've been down the same road again and again arguing with you, so it's no use debating with you leading statements like "maybe everyone can get by with FRS and CBRS". You rarely back up what you say and when you do it's usually your own made up "facts". |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to Surfinusa
said by Surfinusa :said by Mactron :said by Surfinusa :Just a thought though BPL service could be down in case of a disaster so there wouldn't be interference. Possibly at some point they could co-exist. No power no interference. Disaster no Power. So folks are suppose to invest time, money, and effort into something that can only be used when BPL is down ? Pretty hard to setup, test, and regularly verify a setup that's being Jammed by BPL 99.99 % of the time. Your thought needs some more practical thinking I believe. My 2 ¢ We have 4cents now. Wouldn't it be nice if everything worked the way you want it. The "no power, no interference" claim was debunked three or four years ago; it's a rather simplistic and severely flawed argument. Perhaps we should also dismantle our military during peacetime? No war, no military needed, eh?
As others have said, you can't train for emergency communications if there's no spectrum to train with and it's highly unlikely that citizens would spend thousands of dollars on equipment that would only be usable during mass power outages.
But this is all largely a moot point as most of the severely polluting BPL systems have shutdown and Internet access BPL is pretty much withering on the vine as it can't keep up with competing technology. The same marketing and legal drones who were spewing BPL propaganda with similar simple-minded answers back in 2003 and 2004 have moved on to other industries with their hockey-stick growth charts. But feel free to repeat the same material again...we all need a good laugh. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to ke4pym
said by ke4pym :said by Surfinusa :Just a thought though BPL service could be down in case of a disaster so there wouldn't be interference. Possibly at some point they could co-exist. No power no interference. Disaster no Power. This isn't entirely true. If BPL is up and running in my disaster-less part of the world, then I'm going to have trouble hearing weak signals from a disaster area because BPL *IS* operational in my back yard. So very true and it is the biggest point people do not realize. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by Mactron :So folks are suppose to invest time, money, and effort into something that can only be used when BPL is down ? Pretty hard to setup, test, and regularly verify a setup that's being Jammed by BPL 99.99 % of the time. Your thought needs some more practical thinking I believe. Just use the other frequencies that aren't affected by BPL. It will make communication in a disaster more challenging (relay nets, etc.). But, we're always treated to this cheerleading for hobby radio, about how it serves a valuable public service. If that's true, it should be desirable to get more hobbyists engaged as a team. From my perspective, there are a lot of hobbyists who are so just for the hobby, not the public service we're always hearing about. Maybe public service participation should be mandatory. That would go a long way to prove there is a responsibility that comes with using the public's airwaves. This is where those with a vested interest will say the government will be effected by BPL, therefore hobbyists are just riding on the coattails of legitimate users. If that's true, why parade public service around? Just say HF isn't going anywhere, and therefore hobbyists can use it for whatever they want? Mark Fine, what other frequencies are useful?
Do your research then get back to us. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by moonpuppy :Fine, what other frequencies are useful? Do your research then get back to us. It's been discussed many times before. 2 meter and 70 cm would work fine. Of course, it would require hobbyists to really turn out and participate in civil service (forming nets back to undamaged locations where mainstream communications can be performed.). But, that shouldn't be a problem since we're always treated to these stories about hobbyists serving a valuable purpose. We just need to require more.
Mark |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by amigo_boy :said by moonpuppy :Fine, what other frequencies are useful? Do your research then get back to us. It's been discussed many times before. 2 meter and 70 cm would work fine. In your simplistic imaginary world it would be fine. And yes, it's been discussed many times before and you've been questioned many times before on how 2 meters and 70 centimeters could take the place of HF spectrum, considering neither band can travel around the world like HF. Still no answer.
On to the next recycled wrong solution from amigo_boy.... |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by rf_engineer :how 2 meters and 70 centimeters could take the place of HF spectrum, considering neither band can travel around the world like HF. Still no answer. Misdirection. Global communications weren't necessary for the Northwest floods, or Katrina. Just local communication back outside the disaster area where mainstream communications are available.
This is about the time hobbyists talk about extinction events like "Planet-X," meteor hits, nuclear war, etc. Uh huh.
Mark |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by amigo_boy :said by rf_engineer :how 2 meters and 70 centimeters could take the place of HF spectrum, considering neither band can travel around the world like HF. Still no answer. Misdirection. Global communications weren't necessary for the Northwest floods, or Katrina. Just local communication back outside the disaster area where mainstream communications are available. This is about the time hobbyists talk about extinction events like "Planet-X," meteor hits, nuclear war, etc. Uh huh. Mark Wrong again. Katrina affected a very large area where 2m communications (the band with more range than 70cm) would not have been practical or feasible.
Go troll somewhere else.  |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by moonpuppy :Katrina affected a very large area where 2m communications (the band with more range than 70cm) would not have been practical or feasible. Feasible under *your* terms. Terms that include *not* requiring everyone everyone to participate by forming relay nets. Terms that exclude the use of sat phones.
Sure, it would be different. Sure, it would expect more from those who slap themselves on their backs (because a handful volunteered during an emergency). Different isn't necessarily bad. Unless it goes against *your* vested interests.
Mark |
|
Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
| reply to rf_engineer
said by rf_engineer :The "no power, no interference" claim was debunked three or four years ago; it's a rather simplistic and severely flawed argument. Perhaps we should also dismantle our military during peacetime? No war, no military needed, eh? The same marketing and legal drones who were spewing BPL propaganda with similar simple-minded answers back in 2003 and 2004 have moved on to other industries with their hockey-stick growth charts. But feel free to repeat the same material again...we all need a good laugh. Dismantle the military great thinking.
Now if every country would do that.
Would be nice if HAM and BPL could co-exist.
Apparently not with current technologies. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by Surfinusa :Would be nice if HAM and BPL could co-exist. Apparently not with current technologies. It's been said that BPL can notch around hobby frequencies. Even that ARRL has supported such an implementation.
See »Catch up on the truth
You just don't hear that kind of balance because most hobbyists have a "circle the wagons" strategy. "If you give a little, they'll take more." It's understandable. You get that from any special interest group. That's why you have to take things with a grain of salt.
Mark |
|
