John Smith I wrote:
Christopher Cox wrote:

...

This has nothing to do with the Internet or code tapping amateurs.

It has to do with some intellectually devoid engineers challenging the
reality of the Nyquist rate and placing a device on the only radio
frequencys that can be naturally propagated through out the planet.

This group will be beaming porn wirelessly throughout the world, what
an accomplishment. They should feel proud!


Chris


The old failed logic recycled one more time; go keep track of who had
licenses before code was dropped ... eat your lotus blossoms--it always
worked before ...

JS

John,

You are making some poor assumptions. I do not frequent the radio HF
spectrum. While I have operated CW before, it has been years ago,
largely to gain privileges to HF. I make my living in the Voip/Data
world and would like to push broadband consumption like a utility.

That being said, I liken BPL to pee'ing into a stream. While I might not
get my drinking water from it, someone or thing probably does. Just
because BPL is not polluting spectrum I might be using today does not
mean its not polluting someone else. Additionally, BPL's maximum data
rate of 2 Mbps makes it late coming and soon not even considered broadband.

I do not understand why you would fight for something you probably would
not even want in the future. Lets lay down some fiber, or at least
twisted pair.

The facts are old, arguments for BPL vary because of their faulty logic,
not the other way around.

Chris

Christopher Cox wrote:

...

Your ideas are great, IF, and that is a big IF, those lines are open to
cheap access by all and available for use by ALL devices (basically the
cost of repair/maintain). Otherwise BPL should stand vanguard and be
used to remove control from phone companies/BIG_MONEY ...

Regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote in news:fa0lr6$o3q$1
@news.albasani.net:

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

...
It was "your" choice, Google and their BPL, or Ham radio.
Which did you decide?

Geoff.


When the sword challenged the rock, the sword won. When the gun
challenged the sword, the gun won. When the automobile challenged the
horse, the auto won. When the washing machine challenged the
washboard,
the machine won. When tubes challenged the spark-gap xmitter, the tube
won. When penicillin challenged herbs, penicillin won. When the birth
control pill challenged the condom, the pill won.

Now the internet challenges code tapping amateurs ...

Rocks break swords. Any system that leaks RF in one direction will leak
it both ways.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

Dave Oldridge wrote:

...
Rocks break swords. Any system that leaks RF in one direction will leak
it both ways.



And mice scare elephants, but for no good reason and little consequence ...

JS

wrote:

How would I get fined for pointing my antenna to Europe? It legal for
me to point my antenna to Europe, run an amp, and talk all day if
I want to. . .
. . .
So while you are moaning and groaning about the problem, I will
be taking care of it myself in an orderly military manner.
Any problems they have will be due to their own shoddy system
design and line leakage which is a two way street I remind..
Not my gear. So they won't have a leg to stand on if they or even
you complain to the FCC.

Do you really seriously believe that if your amateur operation was
causing a huge company to lose money that the FCC or any other
government entity would take your side?

Boy, have I got news for you!

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

John Smith I ) writes:

... however, the system I
looked at was almost entirely underground to businesses and homes.


An interesting point! And did this underground system radiate at HF??

It seems to me that if a BPL system can be made that doesn't radiate at
HF, then I have no problem with it.

.... Martin VE3OAT

Roy Lewallen wrote in
:

wrote:

How would I get fined for pointing my antenna to Europe? It legal for
me to point my antenna to Europe, run an amp, and talk all day if
I want to. . .
. . .
So while you are moaning and groaning about the problem, I will
be taking care of it myself in an orderly military manner.
Any problems they have will be due to their own shoddy system
design and line leakage which is a two way street I remind..
Not my gear. So they won't have a leg to stand on if they or even
you complain to the FCC.

Do you really seriously believe that if your amateur operation was
causing a huge company to lose money that the FCC or any other
government entity would take your side?

Boy, have I got news for you!

Yes Roy, it is incredibly naive! Just another of the hundreds of false
reasons why 'BPL won't affect me'.

I don't know of the situation in the US, but in Australia, a licence to
transmit on a given frequency does not override another law that in a
very general way prohibits interfering with a telecommunications carriage
service.

So, in Australia, it may be that no new legislation is needed to silence
hams who disrupt a BPL system (interfere with a telecommunications
carriage service).

Some of us continue to work on objective measurement of ambient noise
levels and BPL emissions to document to issue, and the risk to BPL
deployments if they are held to lower emissions than they would like.

Right now I am working on documentation of a series of measurements made
prior to BPL deployment in Sydney. Another series will be made after
deployment, and the measurements by an EMC test house and the WIA will be
considered by the carrier, the regulator, and the relevant Australian
standards committee in a more cooperative environment than seems to exist
in some jurisdictions.

Interestingly, the EMC test houses invariably use equipment that is not
capable of measuring ambient noise levels on HF, they are just not
sufficiently sensitive.

This is a worry, especially when rumour has it that ITU-R is working on a
revision of P.372-8 'Radio Noise' that is likely to see an increase in
expected ambient noise levels on HF. The inevitable creep of spectrum
pollution. As part of our study of the site in Sydney, we will be trying
to justify exclusion of the carrier's noisy SMPS on their PayTV equipment
from determination of the ambient noise levels.

OTOH, we have used a Buddipole and FSM to make measurements of ambient
noise levels that are not invalidated by instrument noise. An article
characterising the Buddipole for use with FSM is at
http://www.vk1od.net/buddipole/index.htm .

The fact remains that we hams do not well understand our operating
environment, and sadly, seem to have little interest in it.

Oh well, there will probably be more development of simulators for the HF
experience in the future!

Owen

Martin Potter wrote:

An interesting point! And did this underground system radiate at HF??
...
... Martin VE3OAT

Martin:

It is the house lines which have some amateurs worried, unless you have
an underground home, or all lines are run through properly shielded
conduit (NOT likely!), this is what worries most amateurs ...

Although I use 10/11 meters daily and 80 meters 2/3 times a week, most
of my operations have moved vhf/uhf/shf. I think that is the future.
HF simply servers too few to demand the consideration some wish.

Regards,
JS

On Aug 16, 7:31 pm, Roy Lewallen wrote:


Do you really seriously believe that if your amateur operation was
causing a huge company to lose money that the FCC or any other
government entity would take your side?

Boy, have I got news for you!

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

I don't care if they do or not. They most certainly would not
be able to fine me if I'm not breaking any amateur rules.
What are they going to do, shut down every ham in the area?
There are 143 hams just in my close general area which would
cover the 77096 and 77035 zip codes.. And that's a very small
portion of this town. Maybe within a 5 mile radius?
If I'm not trashing their system, someone else will be.
The FCC will be busy in this area. I suppose they will have to
shut down everyone if they want a clean BPL system.
I don't see it myself. I'd fight them on it if they pressed the
issue with me. And I rarely actually run an amp these days.
If my 100w causes them problems, I'd consider that a personal
problem of the BPL system owners. I actually don't see it
coming to this area anytime soon being we already have cable,
etc.. I don't think it would sell too well, being cable is already
just as fast or faster.
MK

wrote:
On Aug 16, 7:31 pm, Roy Lewallen wrote:

Do you really seriously believe that if your amateur operation was
causing a huge company to lose money that the FCC or any other
government entity would take your side?

Boy, have I got news for you!

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

I don't care if they do or not. They most certainly would not
be able to fine me if I'm not breaking any amateur rules.
What are they going to do, shut down every ham in the area?
There are 143 hams just in my close general area which would
cover the 77096 and 77035 zip codes.. And that's a very small
portion of this town. Maybe within a 5 mile radius?
If I'm not trashing their system, someone else will be.
The FCC will be busy in this area. I suppose they will have to
shut down everyone if they want a clean BPL system.
I don't see it myself. I'd fight them on it if they pressed the
issue with me. And I rarely actually run an amp these days.
If my 100w causes them problems, I'd consider that a personal
problem of the BPL system owners. I actually don't see it
coming to this area anytime soon being we already have cable,
etc.. I don't think it would sell too well, being cable is already
just as fast or faster.
MK

You could be quite right! Perhaps you are special and 5-10 years from
now you can tear up every one of your neighbors BPL and they will love
you! grin

Regards,
JS