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.

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.

My 2 ¢

said by Surfinusa :

We have 4cents now.

Wouldn't it be nice if everything worked the way you want it.

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.

said by Surfinusa :

Would be nice if HAM and BPL could co-exist.

Apparently not with current technologies.

said by Surfinusa :

Your right take it with a grain of salt.

Personally I can care less what Hams want or BPL users want.

Trust me I can are less.

said by rf_engineer :

Then why are you here and why should anyone care about your worthless opinions?

said by Surfinusa :

Not sure what your aim or trying to accomplish other than Trolling, stirring up trouble.

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.

said by amigo_boy :

Just use the other frequencies that aren't affected by BPL.

Mark

said by Mactron :

Your many Anti Ham, BPL Cheerleader Biased posts here precede you. No response required.

said by amigo_boy :

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.

said by amigo_boy :

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

said by moonpuppy :

Fine, what other frequencies are useful?

Do your research then get back to us.

said by amigo_boy :

It's been discussed many times before. 2 meter and 70 cm would work fine.

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.

said by amigo_boy :

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

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.

said by amigo_boy :

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

said by moonpuppy :

Sat phones are an extra cost that no one wants to bear (not even the government.)

said by rf_engineer :

Does he pay taxes?

said by moonpuppy :

He might but I doubt he wants the massive increases that come with what he is proposing.

said by amigo_boy :

It shouldn't take that many sat phones. Remember, the bulk of communications would be from radio hobbyists forming relay nets on 2 meter and 70cm back to areas where traditional communication exists. During Katrina, that would have been Baton Rouge?

It would also be possible to have a couple sets of phones and same-day fedex them to the appropriate people for use in the disaster area. Something like that could have occurred in advance of Katrina.

Mark

said by amigo_boy :

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.

said by rf_engineer :

No misdirection. HF can be used for regional communications as well and could be of value in a northwest flood or Katrina situation. Read up on NVIS antennas and learn about 80 and 40 meters.

said by amigo_boy :

Could be of more value. So could additional bandwidth.

Just saying there's nothing sacred about hobby use of HF in emergencies. (But, they may derive a coattail effect from government use, or international treaty.

But, then there's no reason to use public service as PR against interference.).

said by rf_engineer :

Again, I'm at a loss why you and others are so against amateur radio and using a self-trained group of citizens equipping and training themselves at little to no expense to the general public to provide a public service. It would seem like a win-win situation,

said by amigo_boy :

I'm not against it. Just not sold on the win-win aspect. Maybe there should be more responsibility expected for the use of public airwaves. Maybe mandatory participation in emergency or other civil uses. Maybe it's outlived its usefulness and folks can get by with FRS and CBRS.

I'm just not sold on the hobbyist (and it is a hobby, nothing denigrating about that term) argument that the way it is right now is perfect.

said by rf_engineer :

You're a guy with a web browser and a blog login.

said by amigo_boy :

Problem number one. You don't know what I am.

said by rf_engineer :

Bzzzzzt. I do.

said by amigo_boy :

Well, of course you do. Who can argue with the hobbyist's sense of self-importance and super-human powers.