 Stewy85Premium
join:2003-01-16
Sharon, WI | Looks Good I would love to have those speeds but not at the sacrifice of ham radio.
--
0111010001110010011101010111010001101000 |
|
 Radio ActiveMy pappy's a pistolPremium
join:2003-01-31
Fullerton, CA | said by Stewy85:
I would love to have those speeds but not at the sacrifice of ham radio.
"From this test data, it is apparent that radio amateur operations in the test neighborhood could cause many homes to lose their Internet connection during the times when the radio amateur is transmitting," the report notes.
It would seem from the above quote that ham radio and BPL are mutually deleterious and incompatible technologies... BPL can take out ham radio and ham radio can take out BPL packets.
5GHz is interesting, though, and I hope that this spectrum will be used instead of HF... The interference potential is much lower and much more easily mitigated.
Ham radio need not sacrificed if 5GHz BPL is utilized versus HF BPL.
All the other radio services in the HF can be saved, too!
--
I once accidentally spilled spot remover on my dog and he disappeared. You know what I hate? Indian Givers... No, I take that back. »www.folsomtech.com |
|
|
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | said by Radio Active:
5GHz is interesting, though, and I hope that this spectrum will be used instead of HF... The interference potential is much lower and much more easily mitigated.
Ham radio need not sacrificed if 5GHz BPL is utilized versus HF BPL.
All the other radio services in the HF can be saved, too!
So wait, you are advocating knocking out everything in the 5Ghz band instead? Tell me, how is that a solution rather than just pushing this problem out of the HAM world and into another person's world ? This "solution" is going to interefere with everything from telephones to data networks and is probably why they aren't putting it in the 2.4Ghz range.
--
Male by birth... Geek by choice
The Center is where its at... |
|
 TomekPremium
join:2002-01-30
Valley Stream, NY | I agree. The article didn't specify if this 5Ghz spectrum won't interfere with any 5.x Ghz devices, like Wifi(a) or new wireless phones.
BPL must find a way to limit their interference to minimum.
I wonder if BPL is causing a lot of interference in urban areas when most of the powerlines are underground.
--
There are 3200 types of people.Those who understand HEX and those who don't. |
|
Radio ActiveMy pappy's a pistolPremium
join:2003-01-31
Fullerton, CA | reply to bmn
The interference at 5GHz is of a lower power, is localized by the nature of RF energy at this frequency and is less likely to impact devices in the rest of the world. The interferences that would occur are much more easily mitigated. There are also ham allocations in this spectrum, so I am not being unfair to others. Wi-Fi at 5GHz is used mostly indoors, and less likely to be severely impacted. Besides, ISM is an unlicensed service, so there are no licensed services being taken out.
I do not advocate taking out ANYTHING at 5GHz or at any other frequency.
But this seems a better choice given the number of licensed services that already reside within HF. The number of unlicensed users in the 5GHz range is quite small in comparison.
--
I once accidentally spilled spot remover on my dog and he disappeared. You know what I hate? Indian Givers... No, I take that back. »www.folsomtech.com |
|
N0JCG
join:2003-07-18
Minneapolis, MN | reply to Stewy85
The allocation at 5Ghz for UNII already takes into account different frequencies for indoor and outdoor use. Any conflicts are likely to be local in nature and can be mitigated by coordination, perhaps by the hardware itself. The bottom line is that there is more than 10 times the bandwidth for broadband up there than in the HF spectrum.
The AMRAD study adds the nail of unreliable to BPL's downside.
HF BPL is unshielded, unlicensed, unreliable and irresponsible. |
|
| reply to bmn
Unlike HF frequencies, at 5GHz, radio waves do not bend around corners or propagate long distances beyond line of sight. This means that any low power RF at that frequency does not go very far, and hence would not wipe out anything unless it was very close to it. |
|
| Both of you have good arguments, however, the article states that 5 Ghz is going to be used with 802.11x devices not BPL so what you are doing is adding to the number of actively radiating devices and increasing the the potential for interference with other users in the band.
Additionally since the original BPL carrier frequencies will still be used to deliver data to the APs you have in effect increased the amount of spectrum required to deliver service to a given population.
If the cell industry operated this way we wouldn't have any data service what so ever from them as they wouldn't have enought spectrum to do it.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber |
|
| reply to N0JCG
Yeah, but what about 5 GHz ISM, which is what is mentioned in the article and is what cordless phones run under? There are not separate distinctions for indoor and outdoor equipment and the upper band of UNII overlaps with that of ISM.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber |
|
N0JCG
join:2003-07-18
Minneapolis, MN | reply to cmaenginsb
The way I understand it, the Corridor system uses the 5GHz UN-II band down the power line and 802.11 into the home. It does not use any HF spectrum. Yes, there is other 802.11 equipment, but the 802.11 band is channelized into 6 channels. Adjacent 802.11 installations should be using different channels anyway; thus no interference at that level.
Supposedly, Corridor tested their 5Ghz system for susceptibility from a amateur transmitter and found no interference (no surprise there!)
Mainline, Ambient, Current, and all the other BPL companies use 2 to 80 MHZ on the power line. That's the part that is bad. |
|
