 
WiseOldNerd
De gustibus non est disputandum
Premium
join:2001-11-25
Newport, OR | Don't Hold Your Breath Martin and the other Republican sycophants will hold out as long as possible since they have no interest in doing things correctly only in doing what their paymasters have ordained.
--
My perception is REALITY | |
|  | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
edit:
April 26th, @11:37AM
| Re: Don't Hold Your Breath ARRL won on 2 items:
- that the FCC should not have refused to provide some FCC studies that said BPL could cause serious interference.
- that the FCC didn't provide a justification for a technical interference criteria it used.
But the FCC won on what I think is a big item:
- the right to allow unlicensed devices to interfere with licensed spectrum. The ARRL wants the FCC to shut down any BPL systems that cause interference. The court said the FCC doesn't have to do that.
So, who really wins here? The FCC didn't follow some procedures it should have. So now all they have to do is cross some T's and dot some I's and they have followed the court ruling. But they still have the right to ignore BPL interference as long as they follow the correct procedures on hearings and notifications.
The ARRL won on 2 points, but lost on 2 points of their complaint: Here is the actual ruling:
»pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/o···2979.pdf
And here is the key part of the ARRL complaint that the ARRL lost and isn't talking about:
First, without acknowledging it, the Commission abrogated seventy years of precedent by invoking section 302 of the Act to authorize the operation of unlicensed devices that could interfere with licensed devices, and by no longer requiring them to cease operation if they actually cause
harmful interference. --
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | jacour
join:2001-12-11
Ypsilanti, MI
·Comcast
| Re: Don't Hold Your Breath The result is not so dismal. The court has the right to rule that the FCC's action is arbitrary and capricious, but they can only rule on what is in the record. Since the record does not contain the redacted technical studies, the ARRL could not make that assertion and the court could not raise the issue sua sponte based on their in camera review of the documents.
Now the case gets remanded and that is where the fun will begin. | |
| | | |
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Don't Hold Your Breath said by jacour  :The result is not so dismal. The court has the right to rule that the FCC's action is arbitrary and capricious, but they can only rule on what is in the record. Since the record does not contain the redacted technical studies, the ARRL could not make that assertion and the court could not raise the issue sua sponte based on their in camera review of the documents. Now the case gets remanded and that is where the fun will begin. I don't think BPL is going anywhere, and the push from the FCC to foster it is quickly evaporating. Somehow I doubt that the issue of BPL will need to come up in the courts again.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | 
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by TK Junk Mail :ARRL won on 2 items: - that the FCC should not have refused to provide some FCC studies that said BPL could cause serious interference. - that the FCC didn't provide a justification for a technical interference criteria it used. But the FCC won on what I think is a big item: - the right to allow unlicensed devices to interfere with licensed spectrum. The ARRL wants the FCC to shut down any BPL systems that cause interference. The court said the FCC doesn't have to do that. So, who really wins here? The FCC didn't follow some procedures it should have. So now all they have to do is cross some T's and dot some I's and they have followed the court ruling. But they still have the right to ignore BPL interference as long as they follow the correct procedures on hearings and notifications. The ARRL won on 2 points, but lost on 2 points of their complaint: Here is the actual ruling: » pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/o···2979.pdfAnd here is the key part of the ARRL complaint that the ARRL lost and isn't talking about: First, without acknowledging it, the Commission abrogated seventy years of precedent by invoking section 302 of the Act to authorize the operation of unlicensed devices that could interfere with licensed devices, and by no longer requiring them to cease operation if they actually cause
harmful interference. You hit the nail on the head. This turns the whole point of licensing on its head. The court, the general public, and certainly the BPL fan boys don't know enough to understand it. Others in the wireless industry may get it, but they won't do anything until it's at their doorstep. The way the law is now written, BPL could legally interfere with your local ambulance, police, or fire company if their emissions are below a certain point, and the BPL carrier can tell the interference victim to go stick it. I think the chances are very, very slim that it will ever happen with where BPL is at now, but if it somehow takes off with this whole grid management movement/"think of the power grid" hype, it could happen. Even worse, it sets a precedence. Could whitespace devices be allowed to run amok on over-the-air TV? What about the next kewl unlicensed technology being touted by well-funded lobbyists with hockey-stick growth charts who decide to use the cellular and PCS bands? Good job, FCC.
Also, while I think it's great the court recognized that the FCC screwed up with the 40dB per decade rule, they've placed it right back in the FCC's hands. They can send out some inept engineer to take measurements on a mission to prove 40dB is right, document it and say "case closed", and easily muck up this issue for the next three or four years. | |
| | | |
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
edit:
April 26th, @05:09PM
| Re: Don't Hold Your Breath said by rf_engineer : Could whitespace devices be allowed to run amok on over-the-air TV? What about the next kewl unlicensed technology being touted by well-funded lobbyists with hockey-stick growth charts who decide to use the cellular and PCS bands? Good job, FCC. I think the point you raise here is the biggest potential problem area. MS, Google, etc who are pushing for unlicensed devices(even if shown to be interfering) in the white spaces could cause a huge problem. But their lobbying power eventually will crush any resistance the FCC has shown so far.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
edit:
April 26th, @05:07PM
| said by TK Junk Mail :But the FCC won on what I think is a big item: - the right to allow unlicensed devices to interfere with licensed spectrum. The ARRL wants the FCC to shut down any BPL systems that cause interference. The court said the FCC doesn't have to do that. Good thing they lost that one. Otherwise, I'd have to stop using this computer. And every other digital device in my house, and so would everyone else in the U.S.
Every radio system is subject to interference. Under Part 15, the FCC allows unlicensed operation as an "overlay" in bands that include licensed operation, so long as the interference from the unlicensed device does not rise to the level of "harmful interference", which is precisely defined in Part 15. But zero interference is impossible.
But this is my big issue with the ARRL: there have clearly been instances of harmful interference to Ham operators from a few BPL deployments, and the ARRL is within their rights to seek to have it rectified. But they've failed to control their overzealous lawyers, who've made absurd arguements. Every filing to the FCC from the ARRL on Part 15 matters (BPL-related and others) has mantained that the Commission has no authority to authorize operation of Part 15 devices. So the ARRL filings maintain that unlicensed use of the spectrum cannot be permitted; e.g., much of the modern world as we know it should not be permitted.
This position is so extreme that the ARRL doesn't even publicize it to their members (most of it would disagree with it), but it's there in black and wihite as the official, under penalty of perjury, position of the ARRL leadership as filed with the FCC.
It sounds like (from the last quote above) pushing this ridiculous, overreaching argment came back to bite them, and as a result they may have lost some protections they, and other licensed users hertofore had under FCC Rules. Way to go, ARRL lawyers. | |
| | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
edit:
April 26th, @09:43PM
| Re: Don't Hold Your Breath said by PDXPLT :said by TK Junk Mail :But the FCC won on what I think is a big item: - the right to allow unlicensed devices to interfere with licensed spectrum. The ARRL wants the FCC to shut down any BPL systems that cause interference. The court said the FCC doesn't have to do that. Good thing they lost that one. Otherwise, I'd have to stop using this computer. And every other digital device in my house, and so would everyone else in the U.S. That's a logical fallacy. Imagine your computer interfered with a communications system. Before you had to rectify the problem by reducing the emission down to a level that didn't interfere or stop operation of the device. What the FCC rules did with BPL was allow it to continue operating if the emission level was dropped by a certain amount even if the interference continued.
Every radio system is subject to interference. Under Part 15, the FCC allows unlicensed operation as an "overlay" in bands that include licensed operation, so long as the interference from the unlicensed device does not rise to the level of "harmful interference", which is precisely defined in Part 15. Precisely? Read the rules and it's far from precise. This was one of the big issues that both sides in the BPL interference debate fought over.
So the ARRL filings maintain that unlicensed use of the spectrum cannot be permitted; e.g., much of the modern world as we know it should not be permitted. Bull. The ARRL never claimed that. I believe you've claimed this several times before here. Their problem was that an unlicensed device was essentially given licensed status (the whole Section 301 versus 302 issue). They never claimed unlicensed use of spectrum cannot be permitted.
This position is so extreme that the ARRL doesn't even publicize it to their members (most of it would disagree with it), but it's there in black and wihite as the official, under penalty of perjury, position of the ARRL leadership as filed with the FCC. How do you know of this supposedly "extreme ARRL position" (that you've mischaracterized/manufactured) if they don't publicize it? Also, the ARRL article on their website and weekly mailing links directly to the ruling document and all their previous filings are a matter of public record have been linked to by ARRL articles, so how in the world are members not going to find out about it??????  (talk about a flawed argument)
It sounds like (from the last quote above) pushing this ridiculous, overreaching argment came back to bite them, and as a result they may have lost some protections they, and other licensed users hertofore had under FCC Rules. Way to go, ARRL lawyers.
The rule in question was already on the books so the court order caused licensed users to lose nothing.
Want to see some people at the FCC get uncomfortable? Petition the FCC to apply the 15.611 rule we are talking about in language in all the licensed parts of Title 47 that pertain to the spectrum that BPL can affect. For example, add something like "all licensees must accept, without recourse, harmful interference from an unlicensed Part 15 device with emissions X dB below the Part 15 emissions limit." Technically it would be correct as the rules stand now, it's just tucked away in 15.611 and not in the parts directly pertaining to the BPL-affected licensed services. See how NAB and a bunch of other entities and organizations react  Again, realize this is 100% technically correct and appropriate the way the rule is written. | |
| | | | W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT
| Good thing they lost that one. Otherwise, I'd have to stop using this computer. And every other digital device in my house, and so would everyone else in the U.S. Good thing you are wrong. The FCC rule that was challenged in court was the one that said that if interference is reduced to a level 20 dB below the emissions limits, that will not be considered to be interference to mobile stations. That doesn't make it at all legal for your computer to cause interference to stations licensed radio services.
Every radio system is subject to interference. Under Part 15, the FCC allows unlicensed operation as an "overlay" in bands that include licensed operation, so long as the interference from the unlicensed device does not rise to the level of "harmful interference", which is precisely defined in Part 15. But zero interference is impossible. Part 15 is an underlay, not an overlay, but the gist of what you are saying is correct, although other only interference from BPL to only mobile operation, Part 15 does not define a level that will be considered to be harmful interference. You can consider that to be a good thing, because the level that is in that rule would reduce the range of your cellular telephone by about 50%. Cell phone use is also a mobile technology.
Every filing to the FCC from the ARRL on Part 15 matters (BPL-related and others) has mantained that the Commission has no authority to authorize operation of Part 15 devices. Not quite accurate; those filings maintain that the authorization of unlicensed devices that have a strong and demonstrated potential to cause harmful interference should not be authorized as an unlicensed device. This has been applied to filings related to things like BPL and 10-watt transmitters that have a range of many tens of miles.
So the ARRL filings maintain that unlicensed use of the spectrum cannot be permitted; e.g., much of the modern world as we know it should not be permitted. Incorrect. ARRL filings maintaint that unlicensed use of spectrum cannot be permitted for devices that have a high potential to cause interference.
Let's bring this argument a bit closer to home for you. Do you believe that every telephone pole in your community should have a device that operates on the cellular telephone frequencies at a level that is hundreds of times stronger than the weakest cell signals you can use now to make somewhat reliable telephone calls? Do you think that every pole should have a device that operates on your local TV channels at a level that is lower than the minimum TV signal you can use, but still strong enough to be quite visible on your TV? Those are the analogies that best represent the way BPL systems are built and the impact they have on Amateur, CB and shortwave broadcast spectrum.
It sounds like (from the last quote above) pushing this ridiculous, overreaching argment came back to bite them, and as a result they may have lost some protections they, and other licensed users hertofore had under FCC Rules. Way to go, ARRL lawyers.
Criticizing for things that aren't true makes you look uninformed and ridiculous. The court decision does not change the no-harmful-interference provisions of Part 15 at all. It is a setback in that it affirms the FCC's regulatory determination that a level that IS hundreds of times greate than the present median levels of man-made noise will not be considered to be harmful interference ONLY to mobile stations and ONLY to interference from BPL.
If the courts had not made the decision it made, nothing would be different; the rule would still have been on the books.
Ed Hare, ARRL | |
| | | qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
 ·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Vonage
·DSL EXTREME
·EarthLink
edit:
April 26th, @09:28PM
| said by TK Junk Mail :ARRL won on 2 items: - that the FCC should not have refused to provide some FCC studies that said BPL could cause serious interference. - that the FCC didn't provide a justification for a technical interference criteria it used. But the FCC won on what I think is a big item: - the right to allow unlicensed devices to interfere with licensed spectrum. The ARRL wants the FCC to shut down any BPL systems that cause interference. The court said the FCC doesn't have to do that. So, who really wins here? The FCC didn't follow some procedures it should have. So now all they have to do is cross some T's and dot some I's and they have followed the court ruling. But they still have the right to ignore BPL interference as long as they follow the correct procedures on hearings and notifications. The ARRL won on 2 points, but lost on 2 points of their complaint: Here is the actual ruling: » pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/o···2979.pdfAnd here is the key part of the ARRL complaint that the ARRL lost and isn't talking about: First, without acknowledging it, the Commission abrogated seventy years of precedent by invoking section 302 of the Act to authorize the operation of unlicensed devices that could interfere with licensed devices, and by no longer requiring them to cease operation if they actually cause
harmful interference. Based upon the fact that the FCC seems hell bent on CAUSING interference to licensed services, as opposed to MINIMIZING it (which IS their reason for being in existance, after all), I think we ALL should start pirate radio stations that interfere with licensed ones! | |
| | | W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT
| said by TK Junk Mail :And here is the key part of the ARRL complaint that the ARRL lost and isn't talking about: First, without acknowledging it, the Commission abrogated seventy years of precedent by invoking section 302 of the Act to authorize the operation of unlicensed devices that could interfere with licensed devices, and by no longer requiring them to cease operation if they actually cause
harmful interference. The court decision said that the FCC had determined that a reduction in noise of 20 dB below the emissions limits would not be considered to BE interference to mobile operation. That decision may set the bar (too high) for interference, but if harmful interference occurs, it still must be addressed.
Ed Hare, W1RFI@arrl.org | |
| 
Tzale
Ron Paul 2008 - Proud Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
NJ, USA |  Great!
BPL is a lost cause in the U.S...
-Tzale | |
| | NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX | Re: Great! I agree here. WiMax will most likely take it's place as the way to wire up fringe areas. BPL clearly can not compete on the bandwidth front so deployment will be severely limited anywhere there's major ISP's operating already. | |
| | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Quick question: Could BPL be an option for buried power lines? It would seem to be if they are buried the interference issue would be moot?
Granted, most lines aren't buried, and the main idea of BPL was to serve un-served or under-served areas like Rural areas, where the powerlines certainly ARE not buried....
But in towns and cities, there's a lot of buried power these days. Maybe this could work kinda like a RT type deployment to such areas.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| 
PthirusPubis
@comcast.net
 from:
Cabal
| Enough already! The hams have had exclusive use of us taxpayers radio spectrum long enough. Too bad for our little primadonnas but it's time to kick this small group of habitual complainers off the spectrum playground.
We should use the freq's for more practical things like delivering the Net using BPL. Sheesh, I rather see the spectrum used for home wireless devices. | |
| | satellite68
join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY | Re: Enough already! and where you live is immune from natural/manmade disasters? | |
| | battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | If I give you a hundred bucks do you think you could at least buy a clue? | |
| | 
accounting
join:2008-02-29
Columbus, OH | Sounds like you don't know much about radio spectrum, ham radio, or taxpayer money. You have some learning to do! | |
| | clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
|
While I agree that amateur radio has long outlived its "public service" moniker, the truth of the matter is that amateurs use spectrum that is either far too long in wavelength for your intended purpose, or have such tiny slivers of desired wavelengths that they're worthless for your intended purpose.
Who wants wireless internet access when the antenna is 90' long or the throughput is about the same as ISDN; when only one person is using the system!
As far as BPL is concerned, it's a non-starter. It is at best a white elephant intended to garner investment to build out networks on someone else's dollar so the utilities can have what they've always wanted -- the ability to bill consumers spot market rates for the electricity they consume. | |
| | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| Re: Enough already! said by clickie :While I agree that amateur radio has long outlived its "public service" moniker, I agree.
Mark | |
| | 
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
edit:
April 26th, @02:26PM
| said by PthirusPubis :
The hams have had exclusive use of us taxpayers radio spectrum long enough. Sorry to burst your bubble but with the exception of the 60m band, the Amateur Radio spectrum you are referring to DOES NOT belong to the U.S. taxpayers (in the case of 60m, it is the United States government's frequencies under the auspices of the NTIA). Amateur Radio spectrum is allocated by the International Telecommunication Union (»www.itu.int/net/home/index.aspx) for exclusive use by Amateur Radio Operators and the exclusivity is enforced by treaty. Of course the United States has shown its willingness to disregard established treaties it no longer likes but so far it is honoring its radio treaties.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
| | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| Re: Enough already! I hate to burst your bubble, but you're both wrong. All radio spectrum in the USA is owned by the People of the Uinited States. That's all the people; their tax-paying status has nothing to do with it.
The ITU-R Radio Regulations, which have force of treaty, do allocate certain bands to Amateur Radio service. But that's only a allocation obligation; it does not required transfer of ownership of the spectrum to the licensees. | |
| | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: Enough already! said by PDXPLT :I hate to burst your bubble, but you're both wrong. All radio spectrum in the USA is owned by the People of the Uinited States. That's all the people; their tax-paying status has nothing to do with it. Ownership of HF spectrum gets kind of fuzzy. The Russian Woodpecker comes to mind ( »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Woodpecker ) | |
| | james1
join:2001-02-26
antarctica
| said by PthirusPubis :
The hams have had exclusive use of us taxpayers radio spectrum long enough. Yeah, it belongs to tax payers because the radio spectrum was built with tax money, right? Oh wait, it wasn't.
said by PthirusPubis :
We should use the freq's for more practical things like delivering the Net using BPL.
There is NOTHING "practical" about BPL. You still have to run fiber out into the middle of nowhere, you might as well just finish the run and go right to the house.
said by PthirusPubis :
I rather see the spectrum used for home wireless devices
The frequencies that Ham users use were specifically chosen because they can go for super long distances. Can you imagine what a pain in the ass it will be when your xbox 360 is being turned on by someone on the other side of the city?
I'm not a Ham, so I'm sure they will be able to correct my limited knowledge on the subject. | |
| | 
KA3SGM
- -... ...- -
Premium
join:2006-01-17
West Chester, PA
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
edit:
April 26th, @03:43PM
| said by PthirusPubis :
The hams have had exclusive use of us taxpayers radio spectrum long enough.
Uh, I pay a good share of Taxes myself, that would make ME a Taxpayer TOO.
Maybe the Government should put a Special Tax on Your Ignorance??
said by PthirusPubis :
Too bad for our little primadonnas but it's time to kick this small group of habitual complainers off the spectrum playground. Next time there is some sort of Disaster, be it Natural or Man made, please don't come crying to me that the phone lines are down, and the only thing your Cellphone can do is Display 'No Service' and play some Primitive Video Games like Pong until the battery goes dead.
Maybe if your Cellphone has a Camera Built-In, you could take some pictures of your miserable situation as well, but because your Phone has No Service, don't plan on sending them to anyone.
If you want to make a case that you are Immune to any type of Disaster Happening to You, then tell me that Category 5 Hurricanes Don't make Landfall, Earthquake's and Tornadoes are a myth, and that Terrorists don't Fly Airplanes into Buildings.
That list could go on and on, with Blizzards, Widespread Power Outages, ect....
said by PthirusPubis :
We should use the freq's for more practical things like delivering the Net using BPL. Sheesh, I rather see the spectrum used for home wireless devices. When the power lines fail, so would your precious BPL.
Sorry, your BPL is SOL ... --- .-..
As for home wireless devices, that is what ISM bands are used for, things like WiFi and Bluetooth come to mind.
If you want your Wii remote to turn on the Coffee Maker in the Morning, or Flush Your Toilet for you, go talk to the engineers that design these types of devices.
Rest assured that there are plenty of Public Unlicensed radio bands available to furnish you with Internet service and to Automate your S#itter 
In the end, when Disaster strikes, I'll have a working line of Radio Communication, an ample amount of supplies, and a Semi-Automatic rifle to make sure that that line of Radio Communication isn't disrupted.
Enjoy waiting in long lines for some Bottled Water, and a few cans of Spam to hold you over for the next few weeks.
Maybe you could barter your BPL modem for Shelter, that would be about fair, trade your BPL modem for a seat at the Superdome 
Gotta love these completely "Off The Wall" ANON posters, always good for a nice laugh.
--
"Lithium is no longer available on credit" | |
| | | Mike_343
I Need Speed.
join:2001-07-05
Dyer, IN
| Re: Enough already! ah your receivers and transmitters requrie power right? You think you will have a endless supply of power and fuel?
Don't try to make it look like you would be better off then anyone who isn't a ham operator in a disaster because you rely on 1 thing that could and probably would be very limited. Fuel to power your generator. | |
| | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: Enough already! said by Mike_343 :ah your receivers and transmitters requrie power right? You think you will have a endless supply of power and fuel? Don't try to make it look like you would be better off then anyone who isn't a ham operator in a disaster because you rely on 1 thing that could and probably would be very limited. Fuel to power your generator. An endless supply of power and fuel isn't needed, just enough to get through the time period that primary communications are down and the need is to pass short messages regionally or nationally. A five gallon can of gas and a battery properly managed can run an amateur station for quite awhile.
The advantage of amateur radio preparedness isn't about having power when others don't, and dismissing amateurs due to power issues is a gross oversimplification of the issues at hand. Amateur Emcomm is really about not depending on any other telecommunications infrastructure. The big problem with cellular these days is that the majority of it depends on copper landline telco facilities. There's a push to move to fiber and microwave backhaul due to upcoming 4G bandwidth needs, but aerial fiber is still as susceptible to disasters as copper facilities.
So what is your emergency plan? An H3, a cell phone, and a gas tanker? | |
| | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| Re: Enough already! said by rf_engineer :So what is your emergency plan? An H3, a cell phone, and a gas tanker? Why overcomplicate what is a relatively simple alternative? Satellite cell phones. Or, 2-meter and 70cm which are good for about 50 miles? With 650k hobbyists supposedly eager to perform a civic duty, forming relay nets wouldn't be so bad.
But, I understand the most vocal hobbyists oppose any change to the status quo. Se la vie.
Mark | |
| | | | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: Enough already! said by amigo_boy :said by rf_engineer :So what is your emergency plan? An H3, a cell phone, and a gas tanker? Why overcomplicate what is a relatively simple alternative? Satellite cell phones. Or, 2-meter and 70cm which are good for about 50 miles? With 650k hobbyists supposedly eager to perform a civic duty, forming relay nets wouldn't be so bad. One thing I can say about you is you're consistent. Always a simple, easy to understand, well-packaged, parroted wrong answer to every problem. The relay net idea you brought up before, several times I think. It's impractical, inefficient, and unnecessary considering the spectrum is there to do national and international communications on HF already. But maybe if you keep mentioning it and click your heels together, it will somehow work, just like BPL will somehow take off in 10 years and still be competitive like you suggested last time. Satellite phones are horribly expensive and I can't recall ever seeing anyone mention a mass deployment of them in emergency management areas. And for some reason the military and federal government still holds on to their HF spectrum allocations despite satellite supposedly making HF "overcomplicated" and arguably obsolete years ago. Hmmmm....why is that? | |
| | | | | | | W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT
| Re: Enough already! said by rf_engineer :One thing I can say about you is you're consistent. That's one way of putting it.
Discussion with Mark appears to be one way; he wants to pontificate, and nothing said to him has influenced his position in any way. No matter what argument is offered, it will not not be considered when he posts in the next thread... and the next... and the next.
His position and choice of words seems to be intended to inflame more than discuss.
As the old saying goes, don't feed the trolls.
If I saw a glimmer of anything that resembled dialogue here, I would think that he intends this to be a discussion. I do not; I see the same things you do; parrotting and reparrotting the same position.
Ed Hare, W1RFI | |
| | | | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| said by Mike_343 :ah your receivers and transmitters requrie power right? You think you will have a endless supply of power and fuel? Don't try to make it look like you would be better off then anyone who isn't a ham operator in a disaster because you rely on 1 thing that could and probably would be very limited. Fuel to power your generator. Actually I do not need fuel for my radios. I have some solar panels and batteries that will work just fine for days), assuming that the area I am calling to can hear my weak signal and something like BPL does not mask it since in an emergency operation people do not run the power guzzling 1.5 KW amplifiers, they run 5-100 watts. At 100 Watts without the solar panels one battery will last about 4-5 hours when I am contesting (a lot of talking).
Our emergency wagon has spent several days of 24/7 contesting using just the batteries and solar panels. So we really do not care if the power is out (unless it is the middle of winter or the top of summer).
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| said by PthirusPubis :
The hams have had exclusive use of us taxpayers radio spectrum long enough. Too bad for our little primadonnas but it's time to kick this small group of habitual complainers off the spectrum playground.
We should use the freq's for more practical things like delivering the Net using BPL. Sheesh, I rather see the spectrum used for home wireless devices.
If you're a citizen of the US or most any country in the world, you can use the spectrum, so it's not like anyone is keeping you from using it.
BPL doesn't use the spectrum, it just pollutes it, so saying we should "use" it for BPL is a severely misguided and misinformed opinion. Regarding your wish to use the spectrum for home wireless devices, there's already over 300 Mhz available in the 2.4 and 5.8 Ghz bands for home wireless devices and the regulations allow for up to four watts of transmitter power. The HF spectrum you want is a meager 30 Mhz and you're limited to milliwatts of power. Also, 2.4 and 5.8 are good for short distance communications from several feet to several miles. HF goes thousands of miles. For these reasons it's rather silly to want to use HF spectrum for home wireless devices or let BPL pollute it and make it useless.
Perhaps you should do a little more research before weighing in on BPL or wireless regulatory issues. | |
| | | W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT
| Re: Enough already! said by rf_engineer :said by PthirusPubis :
The hams have had exclusive use of us taxpayers radio spectrum long enough. Too bad for our little primadonnas but it's time to kick this small group of habitual complainers off the spectrum playground.
We should use the freq's for more practical things like delivering the Net using BPL. Sheesh, I rather see the spectrum used for home wireless devices.
If you're a citizen of the US or most any country in the world, you can use the spectrum, so it's not like anyone is keeping you from using it. The spectrum that the FCC BPL rules cover is 1.7 to 80 MHz. This includes Amateur Radio, shortwave broadcast, Citizens Band, 49 MHz (used for some baby monitors, walky talkies, doorbells, alarm systems) and broacast television.
All of this spectrum is open to all to use, and there is nothing exclusive about even Amateur Radio. Any member of the public that wants to use it is free to do a moderate amount of studying and pass a test on its regulatory, operational and technical aspects.
An analogy could be found in boating. Not every member of the public operates small boats. A test is needed in most states to operate a power boat. Would it be at all logical to state that boats should no longer enjoy exclusive use of lakes and that it would be a better use of that lake to allow it to be polluted with trash and sewage?
Of course not, and it is no more logical to call Amateur Radio "exclusive" than it is to call the operation of a motor boat exclusive.
Ed Hare, W1RFI | |
| | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by PthirusPubis :
The hams have had exclusive use of us taxpayers radio spectrum long enough. Too bad for our little primadonnas but it's time to kick this small group of habitual complainers off the spectrum playground.
We should use the freq's for more practical things like delivering the Net using BPL. Sheesh, I rather see the spectrum used for home wireless devices.
Another clueless person posting anonymously.
If you had any technical knowledge, you would know you would not want the frequencies being interfered with in your house.
Try again and this time try reading a book. | |
| | |
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Re: Enough already! said by moonpuppy :said by PthirusPubis :
The hams have had exclusive use of us taxpayers radio spectrum long enough. Too bad for our little primadonnas but it's time to kick this small group of habitual complainers off the spectrum playground.
We should use the freq's for more practical things like delivering the Net using BPL. Sheesh, I rather see the spectrum used for home wireless devices.
Another clueless person posting anonymously. Isn't it funny, complaining about hams using taxpayers' spectrum...and they're taxpayers? The FCC just auctioned off a bunch of the taxpayers' spectrum (UHF TV) for about $19B. In order for taxpayers to use it, they'll have to pay a monthly fee to Verizon, AT&T, or a handful of other wireless carriers. I wonder what the $19B will be used to pay for....oil company tax breaks ($18B)? The amateur radio spectrum can be used by any citizen of the US; all you have to do is pass a test. About the only other spectrum that is truly used by taxpayers without shelling out $$$ for a license is CB and WiFi (2.4 / 5.8 Ghz). | |
| | | |
accounting
join:2008-02-29
Columbus, OH | Re: Enough already! Exactly. Well said! | |
| nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | the FCC sez technical facts?
we don need no stinkin' technical facts! | |
| nokiatech
join:2000-10-18
Stuart, FL | I for one love having the hams around during hurricanes. They bring me sandwiches. | |
| | 
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Corona, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: I for one love having the hams around during hurricanes. What're the distance limits of BPL anyway, and what changes are required to enable BPL on a power network? Honestly, if the cost is high enough, might as well buy up spectrum for WiMax, or try FTTN deployment. BPL not only interferes with ham radio, but a host of other unlicensed consumer devices. IMHO, it's just an overhyped technology that, so far, has shown nothing but epic failures in its limited deployment. I mean, it's OK for in-home ethernet bridging, but, over miles of high-voltage cabling and substations? I don't think so.. | |
| | james1
join:2001-02-26
antarctica | said by nokiatech :They bring me sandwiches. Ham sandwiches? | |
| | |
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Corona, NY | Re: I for one love having the hams around during hurricanes. apparently (no) pun intended | |
| nevtxjustin
join:2006-04-18
Dallas, TX
| Cost of BPL deployment My original thinking was BLP could never be profitable compared to the wireless ISP. One $3,000 WISP tower site can serve 100 square miles. Compare that cost to the bypass devices at every transformer along the road.
But then I realized how adamant the Bush administration was pushing BPL and how electric companies might eventually get special federal grant monies to pay for this failed model of broadband.
Not to suggest the government has ever made financial investment errors in judgment. Cough... | |
| qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA | All we have to do... Alol we have to do is all get 1000 watt sideband sets and endlessly call CQ on the BPL frequencies that also are ham frequencies. It will totally kill their service. | |
| |
See 19 replies to this post | |
| | |
|
|
Court Agrees with ARRL in FCC BPL Issue