said by amigo_boy :

received 99 complaints from one person

I think that pretty much sums up the "noise problem."

said by rf_engineer :

What is someone to do ...

said by amigo_boy :

I think they key word is "someone." That's been my point all along. Hobby radio is a diminishing interest. Shrinking license holders, and shrinking active participants among those holders.

said by rf_engineer :

The rest of the "someone" is government, military, broadcast, maritime, and aviation.

said by amigo_boy :

This is the "HAMs are the vocal minority defending everyone else" argument. I think those other groups are capable of speaking for themselves. In the case of Tasmania, they didn't.

said by rf_engineer :

Politics trumped engineering, physics, and reality. (Does that sound like the FCC?)

said by rf_engineer :

if BPL will cause localized interference for a typical amateur receiver, there's nothing magical about the receivers of other HF licenses that will make the interference not exist.

said by rf_engineer :

From a wireless spectrum standpoint, BPL is akin to being allowed to dump garbage wherever and whenever as long as no one notices.

said by amigo_boy :

No. It sounds like reality. That's what happens when you have a shrinking interest group. It's the same thing that would happen if we set aside parks and national forests, and fewer people used them. (Expect parking lots and condos despite the protestations of a shrinking "open spaces" group.).

said by rf_engineer :

if BPL will cause localized interference for a typical amateur receiver, there's nothing magical about the receivers of other HF licenses that will make the interference not exist.

said by amigo_boy :

Evidently, in the topic under discussion, it didn't exist for more than one person.

said by rf_engineer :

From a wireless spectrum standpoint, BPL is akin to being allowed to dump garbage wherever and whenever as long as no one notices.

said by amigo_boy :

[The sound of one hand clapping? If a tree falls in the forest, and (relatively speaking) nobody hears it, did it make a sound?

said by rf_engineer :

there is no shrinking interest in HF spectrum (especially after 9/11).

said by amigo_boy :

Really? I've been hearing the number of license holders has been going *down*. That's one of the reasons Morse Code was dropped as a requirement, to bring more people in. (I've also heard the active participation of license holders is down.).

said by rf_engineer :

I said interest in HF spectrum, not Amateur Radio. HF is more than Amateur Radio.

said by amigo_boy :

Ah. So, we're back to the "hobbyists are a vocal minority saving everyone else" argument.

It's so predictable.

said by rf_engineer :

So what is your position then? HF is worthless because it's just a bunch of hobbyists or it's a valuable public resource?

said by amigo_boy :

I think non-hobbyist HF users can speak for themselves. Why do you believe otherwise? What makes hobbyists a "canary in the cage?" To me, it seems like they're just using non-hobbyist users to their advantage. Hitching a ride on their coattails, while claiming it's the non-hobby users who are actually hitching a ride on the coattails of the hobbyists.

That's what makes these discussions so predictable. Hobby radio is said to be about national preparedness. But, when only 30 (or 60) people turn out for an event, it's because "not all hobbyists are involved in national preparedness." When it's pointed out that the number of hobbyists are dwindling, the hobbyists point to non-hobby licensed uses (as if those people can't speak for themselves.). Hobbyists complain about interference, but are remarkably silent about their own "pragmatic" choices to use 5x more bandwidth, and require more transmitted power than is necessary and a higher signal-to-noise ratio than is necessary to communicate.

If it were hobbyists doing it to themselves, they'd be ok with it.

Mark

Mark

said by rf_engineer :

And future generations be damned, I want my cheap ...

said by amigo_boy :

[blink] [blink] Isn't that what's happening with the lowering of license standards, eliminating the requirement for Morse Code? Essentially encouraging a 10x consumption of precious bandwidth with voice?

What happened to the beloved "future generations" you're so concerned about? Or, does it only matter when *your* ox is being gored?

Mark

said by rf_engineer :

Many, many amateurs learned morse code just to pass the test only to never use it again.

said by amigo_boy :

Which is an example of the very pragmatism that has radical hobbyists upset. People learned Morse Code only to consume *10* times more bandwidth with voice. Morse is more intelligible under adverse conditions, but hobbyists (according to you) chose to use more bandwidth, and less intelligible communications (communications requiring a higher level of signal to noise to be intelligible.).

But, the rest of the population makes a similar pragmatic choice, and very same hobbyists claim to be victims.

said by rf_engineer :

The practical limit for most reasonably proficient CW operators is 30 to 50 WPM. What is the speed of voice, 300 WPM (I'm guessing)? Using more bandwidth isn't necessarily evil, you have to consider the amount of information being transmitted.

said by rf_engineer :

tell me how pragmatic it is to place an RF signal on a unshielded media that was designed for 60 hertz energy transmission

said by rf_engineer :

On second thought, please don't. This debate isn't worth my time.

said by amigo_boy :

I think you guys could live with FRS and CB radio services.

said by rf_engineer :

I think that statement and the paragraph above it sums up how little you know about HF or Amateur Radio or emergency communications for that matter.

said by rf_engineer :

Your morse code versus voice/bandwidth arguments are so nonsensical they aren't even worth commenting on.

said by amigo_boy :

Emergency communications in the sense of 30 or 60 people?

That's because you know what I said is true. Radio hobbyists choose to use a form of communication (voice) that requires more bandwidth, a higher signal-to-noise ratio, and transmitted power to be intelligible. But, when someone outside the "cult" interferes, it's the end of the world.

You know that's true. You're only response is to say it's not worth commenting on.

said by rf_engineer :

Bandwidth isn't the only consideration when choosing a particular mode. If conditions allow it, voice is perfectly fine.

said by amigo_boy :

Which means you're making a pragmatic choice to sacrifice available bandwidth, potential for interference (higher transmitted power to be heard), and require a higher signal-to-noise ratio because "all those things aren't the only consideration."

But, if the rest of society makes similarly calculated choices you act like you've been victimized. The ARRL has approved BPL (when done right). But, we don't hear about that from the hobbyists. All we hear is "bad, bad, bad...." as they choose to make pragmatic choices (that effectively reduce the usability of their frequencies) *all day long*.

You're argument is that you're not reducing the usability because voice could be *more* useable. But, I think you understand perfectly the point I'm making. (I.e., that BPL could be more useable than your voice use. It's a matter of pragmatic degrees isn't it?).

said by rf_engineer :

If BPL actually used the wireless spectrum you might have a valid argument, but it doesn't, it just pollutes it and makes it unusable for actual users of the spectrum.

said by rf_engineer :

BPL is for the most part unnecessary and obsolete. Cable and DSL coverage is more ubiquitous and cable and fiber provide more bandwidth.

said by rf_engineer :

To sum it up, you favor a technology that hasn't gotten off the ground in ten years,

said by amigo_boy :

That's not true. See:

»Catch up on the truth

said by amigo_boy :

Then the marketplace will resolve it.

said by amigo_boy :

No. I oppose blind extremism.

said by amigo_boy :

Which means you're making a pragmatic choice to sacrifice available bandwidth, potential for interference (higher transmitted power to be heard), and require a higher signal-to-noise ratio because "all those things aren't the only consideration."

said by rf_engineer :

From a wireless spectrum standpoint, BPL is akin to being allowed to dump garbage wherever and whenever as long as no one notices.

said by PDXPLT :

Actually, this isn't BPL. The whole regulatory philosophy for all Part 15 unlicensed devices is exactly that - Part 15 devices are allowed to "dump garbage wherever and whenever" as long as no one notices. The FCC Rules are quite clear, and precise in their language. Part 15 devices are prohibited from causing "harmful interference", not "no interference whatsoever" or "no theoretically possible interference".

For most of the HF spectrum (except for navigation and other life-critical uses), if no one complains, then by legal definition, no harmful interference occurs. Up to this point, the number of harmful interference complaints from non-ham HF users is very rare. Therefore, harmful interference to these portions of the spectrum has rarely occured.

Bottom line, the idea that licensed users have exclusive use of the spectrum ended long ago. That started happening when the first version of Part 15 was published. Some legacy spectrum users refuse to admit it; e.g., the ARRL lawyers continue to argue to this day that the FCC has no authority to permit operation of any equipment under Part 15. But it is part of a long-term trend pushed by the FCC to allow more flexible and, in their view, more efficient use of spectrum. Another step in this direction is multiple classes of licensed users; e.g., Primary Users and Secondary Users (who look like unlicensed users to Primary's, but look like traditional licensed user to Part 15 devices).

Go to the FCC website and look up "spectrum policy task force report" to see what's happening along these lines. The old, 20th century concept of rigid, exclusive-use "command and control" licensing will be going away more and more.

said by amigo_boy :

I think they key word is "someone." That's been my point all along. Hobby radio is a diminishing interest. Shrinking license holders, and shrinking active participants among those holders.

Mark

said by amigo_boy :

received 99 complaints from one person

I think that pretty much sums up the "noise problem."

Mark

said by amigo_boy :

I think that pretty much sums up the "noise problem."

said by RayW :

And lastly, amigo seems to think that only hams care about the HF/low VHF frequencies. I can assure him that if BPL interferes with the military, it will be shut down. The military uses a lot of that spectrum for many things, and they will not put up the interference as people who have interfered with PAVE PAWS are finding out. And yes, there are bases in areas that are surrounded by city that could have issues with BPL, my base is. In my building we are actively using portions of 3-30 MHz, 50-120 MHz, and other freqs up and down the band. One of our 3-30 MHz antennas is an omni directional antenna so you know (well, those who understand the field do) amigo will cause interference to what we do. And you can be assured that even though the military does not make the news like the ARRL, they are watching what is going on. They are just slower because the military is a bureaucracy with a chain of command that has to be followed with a bunch of irksome rules to follow on how they do things.

said by moonpuppy :

Here is a cool fact for you. Between 1.8Mhz (lower limit of our 160 meter band) and 30Mhz (what is considered the upper limit of the HF band), amateur radio uses a mere 4Mhz total. And this is not in one area, it is spread out over several sections.

Kinda funny how he mentions CB would suffice yet it has the most inefficient transmission modes.