View Full Version : BPL poses threat to Public saftey - Fire radio
k3jim
10-12-2003, 03:56 PM
Any Hams who are also firefighters or have access to the local fire Department should enlist their help in fighting BPL due to the heavy use of the 33 and 45 mhz fire service bands by Fire departments. The problem with lack of complaints is that they don't know they are being interfered with. They are not technically savvy and think that there are "blind spots" in the radio coverage. #The broadband interference is not easily recognizable as say an interfering DX station may be. #The fire service is used to dead spots and may not know why they exist. For instance it is well known that when in the vicinity of certain gas station/convenience stores in my area you can't use the radio for a few hundred meters. #The problem is the Point of Sale system (POS) that records the gas transactions the lines running to the pumps are not shielded and radiate computer hash like an antenna. #I am a firefighter /truck engineer for my local fire company and have sent #the following comment on behalf of my fire company. Please feel free to copy it and try and get other Volunteer and paid fire companies to oppose BPL.
"As a member of the Radio committee and Relief Treasurer of the Leo Independent Fire Company, Red Lion, PA, I am writing to oppose the use of exposed or open line BPL. #Our Fire company uses the 33 Mhz. Fire Band for all of it's communications along with fire companies in a 4 county area covering more than 2000 Square miles and 2 million residents in South central PA. #This area is by and large very hilly and the 30-50 Mhz band offers the best coverage in our terrain. In addition volunteer fire companies do not have sufficient resources to replace all of our fire radios in a short period of time. We oppose the use of exposed or open line BPL because of the interference potential to our vital life saving radio communications. #BPL poses a serious potential problem user of the 33 mhz public safety Spectrum. In test areas where this technology has been employed and in Europe where it is being used, SERIOUS interference problems exist on frequency bands that are employed. Currently Cable Services deliver similar services via "Closed Circuit" cables and fiber optics. Leakage of the Cable Services into the HF spectrum are severely dealt with by the FCC. Leakage if BPL into the HF/ Low VHF spectrum will not even be a violation as open wire cannot suppress leaking of RF. If BPL is permitted, it should be only on shielded and filtered lines, similar to those required by the cable TV industry. #RF signals are not supposed to escape from or intrude into the cable TV lines. #Radio signals can coexist with cable signals even on the same frequencies. #Havoc occurs when signals leak into and out of the cables. Unless the FCC can guaranty no interference will exist it is foolhardy to put the public at risk to provide a service that is currently available from at least three other sources. (CABLE, DSL and Direct Broadcast Satellite)"
Jim Walsh
K3JIM
K3jim@hotmail.com
N1PFC
10-13-2003, 07:11 PM
Fire departments aren't the only users of 'low band' frequencies for their communications. Many police departments as well as commercial users reside on them as well. The FCC seems to have forgotten just how many different agencies use the BPL affected frequencies, let along amateur radio by itself.
Kurt
WD8OQX
10-13-2003, 07:36 PM
I posed a similar question on another thread about the possibility of this trash causing someone there life. Here is proof that it could happen.
I'm beginning to see that the best way to combat this is to educate the general public on the matter. Maybe on local access TV? At public gatherings (parades & such). Letters & info to local fire, police, etc. would also help as they would have more "pull".
KB9VNQ
10-13-2003, 08:08 PM
Don't forget that the military uses 30-88 MHz for a lot of its communications as well as everywhere in the HF spectrum. I don't see how the Pentagon could allow something like this to even be considered. BTW, the Illinois State Police use 42 MHz for a good deal of their communications.
Keep it coming, keep it coming. #I see this ground swell of enthusiasm to fight this BPL trash. #The more evidence the better.
West Milford NJ police use 33 mhz as a com frequency. #The ambulance services use 40 something mhz. #I think I will talk with the town on this.
K2WH
kg4gus
10-13-2003, 08:26 PM
I agree folks. Let's keep talking this one up. It seem's like this could be the extra kick that the BPL fight needs. I say this because several rural North Carolina fire departments use the lower VHF freqs. along with NC Highway Patrol using 42.600 thru 42.650 for the majority of there communications.
Just my input http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
W4KVW
10-13-2003, 08:31 PM
The Florida Department of Corrections which I work for uses 45mhz state wide and has for over 25 years.Our communications now are Pretty BAD now so it could NOT get better from these changes.
Clayton
KE4KVW
kg4llq
10-13-2003, 08:40 PM
"FCC Supports Promotion of Broadband Over Power Line Systems #
The UPLC is pleased by the support of the FCC to promote broadband over powerline through its Notice of Inquiry that it initiated today. The UPLC agrees with the commissioners’ sense that the Notice of Inquiry will mark an historic moment, unveiling broadband over powerline as the elusive third wire to the home or business that Congress, the FCC and the states have sought since the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The future of broadband over power lines will be shaped by progressive policies both at the state and federal levels of government. The UPLC applauds the Commission’s leadership towards these goals in initiating its Notice of Inquiry."
The above quote is from the UNITED POWER LINE COUNCIL's (a special interest group which is actively lobbying for BPL) web-site. #Fellow Hams get involved to defeat BPL!!! #Write to the FCC, your congressmen and senators and anyone else who'll listen. #We MUST defeat the BPL proposal before the FCC.
As we know, we HAMS are the first line and last line of defense in the face of natural and man made disasters.
This is the single most important issue facing us today.
We must ALL work together to defeat BPL.
Please,please get involved and act NOW!!
73,
KEN #KG4LLQ
kg4llq
10-13-2003, 08:42 PM
"FCC Supports Promotion of Broadband Over Power Line Systems
The UPLC is pleased by the support of the FCC to promote broadband over powerline through its Notice of Inquiry that it initiated today. The UPLC agrees with the commissioners’ sense that the Notice of Inquiry will mark an historic moment, unveiling broadband over powerline as the elusive third wire to the home or business that Congress, the FCC and the states have sought since the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The future of broadband over power lines will be shaped by progressive policies both at the state and federal levels of government. The UPLC applauds the Commission’s leadership towards these goals in initiating its Notice of Inquiry."
The above quote is from the UNITED POWER LINE COUNCIL's (a special interest group which is actively lobbying for BPL) web-site. Fellow Hams get involved to defeat BPL!!! Write to the FCC, your congressmen and senators and anyone else who'll listen. We MUST defeat the BPL proposal before the FCC.
As we know, we HAMS are the first line and last line of defense in the face of natural and man made disasters.
This is the single most important issue facing us today.
We must ALL work together to defeat BPL.
Please,please get involved and act NOW!!
73,
KEN KG4LLQ
ke1bz
10-13-2003, 08:45 PM
Well, seeing all the problems that BPL pose to the Public Service sector, Military, Ham Radio, SWL and so on, my guess is that the FCC will allow this to happen. Remember, money talks!!!
Someone might want to check what IF frequencys are used by VHF, UHF, and 850 2-way equipment as well to see if a case can be made for direct or harmonic interference. #Check Marine Radar and Microwave too. I seem to remember VHF having 455Khz and 10.7Mhz IF frequencies.....dang, it's been a looonnng time since I cracked the covers on a 2-way rig. #
Last series I worked on was Micor! #Moved on to paging terminals, dispatch consoles, computers and microprocessors. Now I am a management puke in cellular.
ag4rq
10-13-2003, 09:27 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KE4KVW @ Oct. 13 2003,13:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Florida Department of Corrections which I work for uses 45mhz state wide and has for over 25 years.Our communications now are Pretty BAD now so it could NOT get better from these changes.
Clayton
KE4KVW[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Don't forget about FL Dept. of Transportation. They also use 6m for thier comms. I think its around 47 MHz if I remember correctly. I used to be a radio tech for DOT back in the early eighties. BTW, I wonder what FHP uses.
Concerning receiver IF frequencies, I know that one (1) dual bander and my 70cm rig both use 21.x Mhz. for their first IF and the standard IF for satellite receivers is 70 Mhz. While this would initially indicate there might be a problem, you should recall that there is shielding in most radios to prevent leakage into these IF frequencies.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Well, seeing all the problems that BPL pose to the Public Service sector, Military, Ham Radio, SWL and so on, my guess is that the FCC will allow this to happen. Remember, money talks!!!
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I agree that "Money Talks". In comments made by Commissioner Abernathy and reported in QST magazine it seems to indicate that the FCC is ready to scrap the traditional model that protects specifically allocated services in favor of a model that will encourage new technologies purely on economic grounds. My best guess is that some within the FCC now feel that there is sufficient Hi VHF/ UHF frequency space to accomodate all the users that would be displaced by this particular new technology. You must remember that direct broadcast satellites now exist that could be used to permit all broadcasting to be moved, thus freeing the waste land of HF and Lo VHF for new technologies. I get the distinct impression that this move will eliminate many problems of interference now faced by the Commission in a way that will just make them moot.
There is no longer a need for HF/VHF broadcasting and emergency communications. These needs can be filled by more efficient use of UHF and microwave signals. Amateur Radio is not a valuable service despite the proven track record of this service in the time of need. We have multiple allocations above 50 Mhz. that are seriously under utilized. Now, I do not subscribe to this philosophy, but I can see the argument being made and the benefit that elimination of HF broadcasting and amateur communications might bring when purely monetary benefit is the driving force behind changes like that proposed for BPL and RF Tag technologies. I have seen complaints against the traditional allocation model in the RF Technology literature for many years. It just could be that someone has finally started to listen to these complaints and has decided the old model is passe and should be revisited and replaced. I certainly hope not, but I can see the MBA bean counters making a strong economic case for a new model.
Ken
AE1X:kes
KG6SOF
10-13-2003, 10:09 PM
California highway patrol is located from 39-43mhz, with only a few 154mhz channels. I dont see that they have much choice but to stay in this area, as it offers them the best range and is used in the entire state so the upgrade cost and cost of new repeaters to get the same covarage would be millions more than they have in ther currently shrinking budgets.
If something is to be done the FCC should act now before more money is spent in the development BPL, as we all know the more money spent on new tech, the harder it is to pull the plug.
Nebraska State Patrol and most counties here also still use 30 and 40 MHZ.
Most broadcasters also intend to move thier digital services to thier original channels once simulcasting ends thus causing a potential problem for low end of VHF TV.
N1PFC
10-13-2003, 10:57 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB9VNQ @ Oct. 13 2003,13:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't forget that the military uses 30-88 MHz for a lot of its communications as well as everywhere in the HF spectrum. #I don't see how the Pentagon could allow something like this to even be considered. BTW, the Illinois State Police use 42 MHz for a good deal of their communications.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I was refering to the communications that the FCC regulates. Government comms are under NTIA (which has already raised its concerns in the public comments on BPL).
So when the satelites go down, municipal planners can't justify added expenses for new radio systems and dont move their radios, ham operators and government agencies lose their HF bands due to interference from BPL, how are they supposed to communicate if something breaks?
Something will break, it always does. I've run enough contests to know that something ALWAYS breaks. And then, what is your backup plan if it does break and you need to send a message from Massachusetts to Georgia? No HF, that's gone. VHF nets through NTS? Sure the message will get there but it will take MUCH longer than it would if it was sent over an HF net.
I'd say that we are regressing to a certain extent if we lose the ability to use HF. There ends up being a much heavier reliance on intermediaries to get the message through, and that introduces many more points of failure into a communications system. Just look at the power outage in New York a couple of months ago. Sporadic cell phone coverage due to cell sites being out and the huge number of people placing calls.
I'm all for moving users into new teritory and using new technology, but completely removing usability of the old systems is rediculous in my mind. Heck even the State Police in MA which has gone to a Motorola trunk system, STILL has the low band radios in the cruisers because the trunk does break from time to time. So the MA State Police will lose their backup system.
Another issue to add to the problem.
With the overall lack of maintenance that the local power grid receives (for example, the major outage of a few months ago), relatively poor connections are going to be all over the place.
These poor connections dont mean much to the power system - the low frequency power will just go thru - but to the RF riding along, they have the potential to cause reflections all over the system.
With those reflections come harmonics. Radiated Harmonics.
If we're talking, say, 48.6 MHZ BPL signal, that lands the third harmonic in the middle of the two meter band.
If you have a 30.85 MHZ BPL signal, the fifth harmonic ends up in the middle of the 154 MHZ LMR band, which is where my local fire company has their radios.
And that's before we even talk about the interaction of power factor correction capacitors and the power line inductance, the effect of BPL signals trying to go thru transformers, etc etc etc.
Its a bad, bad idea....
Just Say No to BPL
Jon
W2MC
kcrt4719
10-13-2003, 11:35 PM
Shoot- I hope this BPL doesn't happen. With all the power lines on top of me I won't be able to let my good buddies know about the county mounty out on Route 52! I may not even be able to modulate with my old runnin' buddy over the mountain! Although if I ask nicely they might turn on their foot-warmers so they can hear me.
Threes to all
KCRT4719- Big Sambo
West Virginia CB'ers Convention
k1sce
10-13-2003, 11:49 PM
So far most of the dialog has been what BPL will do to our HF bands. #My question is, what will our transmitters do to BPL and home computers, especially if I'm running 1.5 KW? Will part 15 apply. Do they (BPL and computers) have to accept interference whether harmful or not.
thnks
Jim
The county I live in here in Michigan, and the neighboring county just annexed and built a new 911 system. The old frequencies were 34 mhz for police and 46 mhz for Fire. They have went to the 800 mhz band, trunked and coded. One of the officails quoted in the local paper as saying the hi-band was desirable as Internet over Powerlines would destroy communications at the present frequencies. Another problem...Skip from California bothered us in the daytime and early evening. This Move to the Hi-band was expensive for our counties, something like 3 grand for the radio each and another undisclosed amount for the computor. Each car and fire truck has a rig, with a "repeater" scrambled to the hand held used outside of the vehicle. It appears as if officals no more than we do??? Fight BPL
WD8OQX
10-14-2003, 12:14 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k1sce @ Oct. 13 2003,16:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So far most of the dialog has been what BPL will do to our HF bands. #My question is, what will our transmitters do to BPL and home computers, especially if I'm running 1.5 KW? Will part 15 apply. Do they (BPL and computers) have to accept interference whether harmful or not.
thnks
Jim[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This & other question like it were discussed in an eariler thread.
PPL and BPL on the Defensive
Hope you find your answers there.
73 # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k1sce @ Oct. 12 2003,17:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So far most of the dialog has been what BPL will do to our HF bands. #My question is, what will our transmitters do to BPL and home computers, especially if I'm running 1.5 KW? Will part 15 apply. Do they (BPL and computers) have to accept interference whether harmful or not.
thnks
Jim[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Maybe nothing! How about if the FCC decreed your transmitter as the source of interference to BPL? How about if the FCC decided amateur radio has to go althogether? Sound impossible? I'm not so sure.
Amateur radio, rules and regulations are not sacrosanc (spelling?) so changing our existing rules and regulations could be in the offing. Basically making you the amateur the guilty party.
K2WH
Here's another voice added to the BPL Opposition List!
Take a look at the article from todays ZDNet "Anchor Desk", written by Dave Coursey. Well written. See link below. Copy and paste to go to the article. Looks like
there's more opposition than just the concern about
Amateur Radio ! ! #Thank goodness.
http://ct.com.com/click?q=2d-OxQyIbKoNPqkucJuIypgkzMHQk9R
WA9SVD
10-14-2003, 01:57 AM
We need to address the problem on a MUCH larger scale. If it comes down to "Hams vs. Broadband," the general public is most likely to say "Ham Radio is a hobby. Give us BPL!"
We need to contact the Public Service Departments in our area. That's Fire, Police, Ambulance Services, etc. and CLUE THEM IN! THEY need to file a format comment against the interference potential. I darte say the majority of Highway Patrol, State Police, (or whateveer the agency's title in your state) uses frequencies between 30 and 50 MHz for some of their communications.
If the head of each State's Police Agency filed a comment against BPL, as well as hundreds of Fire Departments, Cities, Towns, etc. filed against BPL, it would mean a lot mour that a hundred or two hundred of Amateur Radio Operators.
Are the Public Service Agencies even aware of the potential problem? A California Highway Patrol Officer in the desert may hear his office with no problem, but if that office can't hear HIM (or HER) because of BPL than all is lost anyway!
W3EMA
10-14-2003, 03:15 AM
Your post hits the spot. I am a NCS op for an emergency/wx net and am also a firefighter, officer and PIO for my fire company.
Many fire dperatments radios operate on low band and our portables and fire company owned repeaters are used as local command and work frequencies. Sometimes we have problems with communications and broadbad over powerlines would hurt us as just another way to create problems for firefighters.
n9kpn
10-14-2003, 04:18 AM
Instead of making fun of CB, why not enlist the help of the millions of CB users?
Nah, it would never work. Too many amateurs don't want "that element" on their side.
-------------------------------information---------------------
Before I form my opinion I will need more information than just hear say.
I will need facts, figures and measurements. I will need information as to any cause to interfere with any communications of any type.
As of now I have no proof of anything to set up a negative attitude in regards to BPL. Therefore how can I set up enough proof for the argument against the BPL.
Again, I need facts and figures to set up a case and as yet have seen none as why the BPL will cause interference to my communications. I need positive proof.
Give me facts and figures and I will be ready and on your side, but as of now I have nothing to argue about.
I have hopes that you see my point of view.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # #-------
KD5HIY
10-14-2003, 05:49 AM
Lets do a play. Ill be the FCC and one group be for BPL, another group be against BPL. OK here we go. # # # # I'll start the bid off, you have the most money, now you do, back to you, and now back to you. It seems to be the person with the most money has a good chance of winning. Unfortunatly the world is controlled by money, not by intelligence and common sense. It's an ugly fight between dirty temporary politicans and the clean long living world.
Chris
KD5HIY
73
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif3--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w6th @ Oct. 13 2003,22http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif3)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">-------------------------------information---------------------
Before I form my opinion I will need more information than just hear say.
I will need facts, figures and measurements. I will need information as to any cause to interfere with any communications of any type.
As of now I have no proof of anything to set up a negative attitude in regards to BPL. Therefore how can I set up enough proof for the argument against the BPL.
Again, I need facts and figures to set up a case and as yet have seen none as why the BPL will cause interference to my communications. I need positive proof.
Give me facts and figures and I will be ready and on your side, but as of now I have nothing to argue about.
I have hopes that you see my point of view.
-------[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
See the web page:
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/
and particularly the link (also on the above page)
http://216.167.96.120/BPL_Trial-web.mpg
Jon
W2MC
kd5sdi
10-14-2003, 11:56 AM
I really dont think that this is what it is being made out to be. I believe the interference part, but I just simply do not believe that with the problems Japan and other places are having that it will ever become a thing that is invoked large scale. This debate reminds me of some time back when a company wanted the two meter band for sattellite uplink frequencies for sattellite internet. They didn't get it and the computer industry probably has more money than anyone else. So it really isn't about money, its about the sensibility, or lack thereof, of whoever is running the show at the FCC
wb6bcn
10-14-2003, 12:58 PM
K2WH:
Are you wanting to say "sacrosanct" (Sacrad, Inviolable)?
aa1mn
10-14-2003, 01:07 PM
K3JIM,
Not for nothing but the premise of your post is entirely incorrect. The "heavy use" of 33 - 45 MHz frequencies by both fire and police departments does not exist. Most of the frequencies in this range are old, abandoned channels.
The majority of police, fire and other civil service frequencies are now located in the 440 or 800 frequency range. Having family members and friends who work with and are associated with fire department and other civil service departments I researched this and found that the reason for the switch was to avoid skip interference.
The military has a lot more to worry about than a little interference from BPL considering they're excavating all of Irag for the mysterious weapons of mass destruction and, on top of this, a misdirected public relations blunder involving form letters sent to home town troops local newspapers saying, "All is going well..." often without the soldiers' knowledge.
I strongly urge more research on your part regarding this issue. Long live BPL.
Chuck, AA1MN
wb6bcn
10-14-2003, 01:13 PM
In regards to the BPL comments from the public to the FCC, I believe I covered just about all areas.
This is what I sent:
**********************//////\\\\\\*****************
Broadband over power lines from all I have read on the subject should not be allowed. The area from 2 mHz to 80 mHz encompasses many services.
The quality of these services can be severely impaired or even rendered useless with the impementation of broadband over power lines.
The services include, but are not limited to the following:
Amateur Radio HF and 6 meter communications
HF aircraft communications
VHF low (30 mHz to 50 mHz) emergency services
VHF low (54 mHz to 80 mHz) channels 2, 3, and 4
Class D citizens band
WWV HF at 2.5, 5, 10, 15, and 20 mHz
HF Maritime communications
One look at the Region 2 bandplan for these frequencies indicates too many services that can't be placed in other areas of the RF spectrum due to the nature of propagation required for these services.
This type of service should be restricted to fiber or coaxial cable, or strictly to some type of media that is not capable uncontrolled radiation.
wb6bcn
10-14-2003, 01:24 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">K3JIM,
Not for nothing but the premise of your post is entirely incorrect. The "heavy use" of 33 - 45 MHz frequencies by both fire and police departments does not exist. Most of the frequencies in this range are old, abandoned channels.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The use of the higher frequencies is not 100% throughout the country. Many localities have not abandoned VHF low band due to many factors. The California Highway Patrol is one that uses that part of the spectrum.
In my area of California there are quite a few emergency services that still use VHF low band primarily due to terrain features.
"Chuck"
You need to get YOUR facts straight. Low band is still used for fire in the south and in California in many places. I am sure there are more, but our department Chief was suprised to hear our frequencies are never used. He wanted to know where "that chuckle-head" (you) got his information.
I explained the concept of "troll" to him.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa1mn @ Oct. 14 2003,06:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">K3JIM,
Not for nothing but the premise of your post is entirely incorrect. #The "heavy use" of 33 - 45 MHz frequencies by both fire and police departments does not exist. #Most of the frequencies in this range are old, abandoned channels.
The majority of police, fire and other civil service frequencies are now located in the 440 or 800 frequency range. #Having family members and friends who work with and are associated with fire department and other civil service departments I researched this and found that the reason for the switch was to avoid skip interference.
The military has a lot more to worry about than a little interference from BPL considering they're excavating all of Irag for the mysterious weapons of mass destruction and, on top of this, a misdirected public relations blunder involving form letters sent to home town troops local newspapers saying, "All is going well..." often without the soldiers' knowledge.
I strongly urge more research on your part regarding this issue. #Long live BPL.
Chuck, AA1MN
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
And upon what do you base your opinion? Asking a few of your relatives is hardly "research".
There are very, very few "old, abandoned channels" in the current spectrum.
Jon
W2MC
(ignoring the misinformed troll about the military)
aa1mn
10-14-2003, 01:45 PM
WB6BCN,
Yes, I am aware that my post above was not inclusive for all of the United States. And I thank you for bringing this out. I purposely put quotes around "heavy use" and qualified my point my using the term "most" to cover myself for this. At any rate you are, as stated previously, correct that it is not true for all areas.
AQ4YO,
Once you have finished reading my above reply now that you have explained the term "chucklehead" (me) kindly take the time to explain the term "airhead" (you) to the same individual, it will be greatly appreciated.
Chuck, AA1MN
aa1mn
10-14-2003, 02:03 PM
W2MC,
Not opinion Jon. Fact. Based on research. Research which does include, but is not limited to, consulting with persons in or associated with the civil service field. Also, try checking on scanner resources pages for frequencies used by fire and police departments in various parts of the country.
Not misinformed about the current military operations either. All comments based upon current news stories -- telesion, radio, newpapers, magazines and internet -- so these are not opinions either.
Jon, what are you basing your comments on? You are able to type are you also able to read and research as well?
AA1MN
WA3KYY
10-14-2003, 02:11 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k1sce @ Oct. 13 2003,16:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So far most of the dialog has been what BPL will do to our HF bands. #My question is, what will our transmitters do to BPL and home computers, especially if I'm running 1.5 KW? Will part 15 apply. Do they (BPL and computers) have to accept interference whether harmful or not.
thnks
Jim[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Under current rules BPL would have to accept interference but remember that purpose of the NOI is to ask how the Part 15 rules need to be changed to permit BPL. I can see the current provisions about interference to the BPL devices being scrapped.
I have seen reports were as little as 20W CW on 20M has disrupted BPL systems and 100W most certainly will. At 1500W and 100 feet or so from the device on the transformer, BPL would be killed.
kc8pnl
10-14-2003, 02:15 PM
If bpl does go threw, won't that mean that people with HF radios will be able to pick up these signals and use them for there own purposes? Stealing credit cards, reading emails, and monitoring whatever else your neighbors are doing all seem like they may be posible if one had the right equipment. Just a thaught.
The biggest reason for NOT implimentig BPL is that it will NOT
do what everyone seems to think; bring broadband to the rural masses. It wil not be deployed in the "rural" areas for the same reason DSL and cable are not there: economics.
the uninformed seem to believe that it will be everywhere all at once. NOT so.
WA3KYY
10-14-2003, 02:40 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k0qhh @ Oct. 14 2003,07:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The biggest reason for NOT implimentig BPL is that it will NOT #
do what everyone seems to think; bring broadband to the rural masses. It wil not be deployed in the "rural" areas for the same reason DSL and cable are not there: economics.
the uninformed seem to believe that it will be everywhere all at once. NOT so.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Exactly correct. #It will take a large subscriber base before the necessary repeaters and other devices needed to bring broadband to the rual areas will be economically viable. #There is a reason the test areas are in housing developements and suburban communities. #The BPL proponents are hoping to compete effectivly with cable and DSL and the FCC cheerleaders see this as lowering the costs of all broadband access to the masses. The rural areas will be the last to actually get BPL when it is deployed. It could be years if ever. If it fails in the densely populated areas like it has in Europe, it may never get to rurual areas.
Hello W2MC.
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
See the web page:
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/
and particularly the link (also on the above page)
http://216.167.96.120/BPL_Trial-web.mpg
Jon
W2MC
--------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jon, I have already checked this out and this information tells me nothing.
Is this noise really from BPL? What proof do I have? Could it be from another source?
Jon W2MC, I need facts and figures and not a recording. I need numbers. Field strength measurements.
There is no proof that I should go against the use of BPL. Not until I get these facts and figures.
I have hopes this explains my idea of a fair test not just a bunch of noise that I can get by rubbing a piece of wire across my antenna terminal.
I want to add this:
ARRL's calculations estimate that the ambient noise level near PLC systems could increase as much as 70 dB.
Is this an estimate as stated or assume theory? Just how close to the PLC system and again how far from the PLC system. #Doesn't tell me much as would need more information than just this estimate.
As I see it the wording of "estimate" means an opinion measurement, not a true measurement or fact, but a guess.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #73, Vito #W6TH
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ---
wp3bm
10-14-2003, 03:54 PM
Hi!
The problem with digital transmissions is that they generate many broadband harmonics. In an enclosed transmission system, like we have at our QTHs, we have a pretty good control of what is going out to the air (i.e. harmonic filters, etc...). But, with BPL what we will have is one big super long wire antenna sorrounding us and our equipment. I work for a brain research center and one of the main concerns here is power line noise getting into the sensitive amplifiers we have here. And we are just talking about 60 Hz noise. I do not want to see what will happen when this BPL thing hits.
Gabriel Sierra
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB9VNQ @ Oct. 12 2003,14:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't forget that the military uses 30-88 MHz for a lot of its communications as well as everywhere in the HF spectrum. #I don't see how the Pentagon could allow something like this to even be considered. BTW, the Illinois State Police use 42 MHz for a good deal of their communications.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Good catch! Communications offers in all branches of services may be very interested in this one, including MARS coordinators
kd5ing
10-14-2003, 04:26 PM
Everyone,
Here is something to try to help spread the word on the BPL threat to other concerned users of the spectrum involved.
Go to http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchGeographic.jsp which is the FCC Geographic search and do a search for your state and nearby counties and narrow the search to the frequencies involved (2Mhz to 80Mhz) and contact the users that are produced. Steer them to the ARRL web site explaining what BPL will mean to licensed users of that spectrum. #Be sure to avoid radio jargon.
Hope that helps,
Tim Lewallen, KD5ING
WA3KYY
10-14-2003, 05:03 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w6th @ Oct. 14 2003,08:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Jon W2MC, I need facts and figures and not a recording. I need numbers. Field strength measurements.
There is no proof that I should go against the use of BPL. Not until I get these facts and figures.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Vito,
You might want to take a look at the reply comment filed by ARMAD:
AMRAD Reply Comment (http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6514683575)
It doesn't have everything you desire but does have some numbers for you to consider.
Mike
Thanks Tim
There were 1232 licences in Nebraska, about 95% active.
Interestingly many were Nebraska Public Power District.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w6th @ Oct. 14 2003,08:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hello W2MC.
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
See the web page:
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/
and particularly the link (also on the above page)
http://216.167.96.120/BPL_Trial-web.mpg
Jon
W2MC
--------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jon, I have already checked this out and this information tells me nothing.
Is this noise really from BPL? What proof do I have? Could it be from another source?
Jon W2MC, I need facts and figures and not a recording. I need numbers. Field strength measurements.
There is no proof that I should go against the use of BPL. Not until I get these facts and figures.
I have hopes this explains my idea of a fair test not just a bunch of noise that I can get by rubbing a piece of wire across my antenna terminal.
I want to add this:
ARRL's calculations estimate that the ambient noise level near PLC systems could increase as much as 70 dB.
Is this an estimate as stated or assume theory? Just how close to the PLC system and again how far from the PLC system. #Doesn't tell me much as would need more information than just this estimate.
As I see it the wording of "estimate" means an opinion measurement, not a true measurement or fact, but a guess.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #73, Vito #W6TH
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ---[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Perhaps you should re-check the many links contained in the first link mentioned...
There are more tests, calculations, and measurements than one can address in a single comment. From many different agencies, as well, not just the ARRL.
I do not have the time to do the research for you.
Jon
W2MC
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa1mn @ Oct. 14 2003,07:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">W2MC,
Not opinion Jon. #Fact. Based on research. #Research which does include, but is not limited to, consulting with persons in or associated with the civil service field. Also, try checking on scanner resources pages for frequencies used by fire and police departments in various parts of the country.
Not misinformed about the current military operations either. #All comments based upon current news stories -- telesion, radio, newpapers, magazines and internet -- so these are not opinions either.
Jon, what are you basing your comments on? #You are able to type are you also able to read and research as well?
AA1MN[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I am very able to perform research, Charles.
A consult with some folks in the civil service field is a start.
Many fire/pd are moving upwards toward the 800 MHZ band, that is true. Many, though, are not moving at all. Others are adding frequency, while still retaining their lower band freq's. For example, my own local fire operation (individual stations, but communications on a county-wide basis) is moving their mobile--mobile and mobile--base communications to 800 mhz, but dispatch, mobile--air, fire police ops, etc, is remaining on 154 mhz. They are not giving those frequencies up....just using them differently.
The problem, though, with 'data' like that (mine, and yours), is it is merely anecdotal. My experience outlined above is limited to Burlington County NJ. It ignores many of the other counties that still use the lower bands, such as Cumberland, Hunterdon, Morris, Ocean, Salem, Somerset, Sussex, and Warren Counties. Area-wise, that is approx 1/3 of the state. Are they all supposed to move just so the power company can make a buck polluting their bandwidth? Is the power company going to give them anything to move?
If you know anything about the location of New Jersey's counties, you will see by the list above, that most of them are the more rural areas of New Jersey (yes, there ARE rural areas of NJ!). These are where BPL is supposed to be the fair-haired boy, assuming that cable tv isn't there. So at least in NJ, the BPL signal will be maximized where the use of lower band for Fire communications is also maximized. And I haven't even begun to address the Police Dept.
And this is all before we consider the effects of the power grid system, and the harmonic creation and radiation that such items as power factor correction inductors and (particularly) capacitors, step up/down transformers, overall poor maintenance, etc. will cause. The third, fifth, and seventh harmonics are going to be pretty strong because of these effects, too. Has anyone considered what this will do? I see these effects having a big impact up into the two meter band, and the "vhf-high" band as well.
And what of conducted RF into devices, particularly computing devices? Computers and controllers don't like RF that they didn't generate. Have these problems been addressed? I dont think so.
And of course the military does make extensive use of those frequencies as well.
Jon
W2MC
Your additional comments about the news for the military are not germaine, as the topic of discussion is "BPL Poses Threat to Public Safety - Fire Radio". That's why, IMHO, many are calling your initial post a troll. You might as well be discussing the price of cabbages in the local food market.
Ok Jon, # # # # # # W2MC # #
I am sure you do have the time, but will take your word granted.
The PLC/BPL has good and bad points and I am interested in the bad points , but not just with wording.
I hope you find enough time to enter more information on QRZ.COM as I know you are a very busy person.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # 73, W6TH
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # #30 # --- 30
There is that thing about rural areas again.In this state there are areas that do not even have broadband NEARBY.
BPL proposes local distribution on medium voltage lines not point to point via the high voltage grid.
Again, economics will be the fly in the ointment for deployment in low density areas.
aa1mn
10-14-2003, 07:01 PM
W2MC,
Fair enough Jon. In full agreement with you. I do realize that not all areas of the country have the civil service frequencies in the upper bands, though I had suspect sometime ago when many had started to go that way that it would be a trend that all would, sooner or later, follow. That is obviously not the case.
I am not to sure how greatly those will be affected by BPL should it go through. This comment is based solely on my observations made in the New England area where I live as the lines that would be carrying these signals are not, it seems, common enough to be of great concern in most places. That, I fear, will be something that will be determined when, or if, this occurs.
Lastly, I do understand the intent of the "troll" comment regarding the military portion of my original post on this topic. It was made on my part only due to the fact that the military was mentioned in the initial topic post -- it was an opinion on my part and I know how many feel about opinions, myself included, so no offense was taken.
Best wishes, Jon, and 73s,
Chuck, AA1MN
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd5ing @ Oct. 14 2003,09:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchGeographic.jsp which is the FCC Geographic search and do a search for your state and nearby counties and narrow the search to the frequencies involved (2Mhz to 80Mhz)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I agree. Tim. A good source, and one I've used. One of my reply Comments to the NOI points out that if a $1 million digital system is needed for each low-band user displaced in California alone, the reimbursement by BPL providers will run more than $3.5 BILLION.
Might affect their profit projections -- a little!
Cortland
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w6th @ Oct. 14 2003,11:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok Jon, # # # # # # W2MC # #
I am sure you do have the time, but will take your word granted.
The PLC/BPL has good and bad points and I am interested in the bad points , but not just with wording.
I hope you find enough time to enter more information on QRZ.COM as I know you are a very busy person.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # 73, W6TH
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # #30 ## --- # 30[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Vito
Did you look at the links the ARRL provided, on the site I pointed you to? They have exactly what you asked for.
There are studies by the Danish,
http://www.darc.de/referate/emv/plc/VERON_PLC_Report.pdf
by the British,
http://www.qsl.net/rsgb_emc/Notes%20on%20Fin%20Rpt%20Ver%201.pdf
(a six page synopsis of a 427 page report, BTW)
as well as by Ed Hare of the ARRL,
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/files/C63NovPLC.pdf
There are many many more links, but these are three with facts, figures, and calculated/measured field strengths.
Is that better?
Jon
W1RFI
10-14-2003, 07:29 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w2mc @ Oct. 13 2003,13:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are many many more links, but these are three with facts, figures, and calculated/measured field strengths.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Go right to:
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/#Amateur_Interference_Studies
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
10-14-2003, 08:05 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wp3bm @ Oct. 13 2003,09:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I work for #a brain research center and one of the main concerns here is power line noise getting into the sensitive amplifiers we have here. And we are just talking about 60 Hz noise. I do not want to see what will happen when this BPL thing hits.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The issue should be as much conducted as it is radiated for you. At the power levels BPL manufacturers say they use, their signals are 48.5 dB higher than the present conducted emissions limits that apply to most devices. Will your equipment continue to work if there were 70,000 times more noise on the lines?
I am surprised that on GE Medical has picked up on this interference potential enough to file any comments with the FCC.
See http://www.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/hyperlinks.html and look at the GE Medical filing. See also the ARRL exhibit at http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod....4683404 (http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6514683404).
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
10-14-2003, 08:11 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wb6bcn @ Oct. 13 2003,07:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not for nothing but the premise of your post is entirely incorrect. #The "heavy use" of 33 - 45 MHz frequencies by both fire and police departments does not exist. #Most of the frequencies in this range are old, abandoned channels.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The use of the higher frequencies is not 100% throughout the country. #Many localities have not abandoned VHF low band due to many factors. #The California Highway Patrol is one that uses that part of the spectrum.
In my area of California there are quite a few emergency services that still use VHF low band primarily due to terrain features.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The New York State highway department uses low VHF simplex to allow plow trucks to communicate over a few miles to coordinate plowing. #Low VHF has a better range in uneven terraine than does UHF.
His "long live BPL" either shows him to be trolling or having a sizeable investment in ABTG that he doesn't want to lose. :-) #The discussion board at http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard....ls=abtg (http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=BB%3AABTG&origsymbols=abtg) has had a few "interesting" things to say about amateur radio. #I wonder if the guys on that board are well plugged into to things like the BBC study...
It is probably best if I don't post there, though. :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
10-14-2003, 08:13 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n9kpn @ Oct. 12 2003,22:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Instead of making fun of CB, why not enlist the help of the millions of CB users? #
Nah, it would never work. #Too many amateurs don't want "that element" on their side.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
REACT, though not strictly a Citizen's Band group, filed comments with the FCC on the NOI. Most hams appreciate the ally.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
aa1mn
10-14-2003, 08:44 PM
W1RFI,
Ed, the only vested interests I have are in myself ;-).
Having said that, as I've stated before regarding the BPL subject it is, as far as I'm concerned at least, a non-issue since -- even if it does come to pass -- HF will be alive and well in the United States and North America at large.
Simply put, the wires radiating them are not, to my knowledge at least, intrusive enough on well populated areas to cause the wanton destruction to amateur frequencies that hams are making it out to be.
Now Ed, I can sense that you and other amateurs are going to freak at this so let me cut everyone off at the pass here, so to speak, by saying that this is solely my observation and my obervation alone ... please, spare me the remarks that are sure to follow for, if I am wrong about this, I will publiclly repent on this very same website and apologize for my foolishness to all.
73s,
Chuck, AA1MN http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Chuck,
I realize your comment was directed at Ed, but had a thought I'd like to express. The way I understand it BPL will axactly be in the populated areas, thats what it is designed for, not out in the sticks on the transmission lines.
Thanks for reading,
Glen
aa1mn
10-15-2003, 12:37 AM
Glen, K0QHH
Hmm, maybe I miscontrue the intent of BPL;my conception is that it was inteneded for areas not accessable to broadband internet, thus not affecting many suburbs or cities. I had envisioned this, according to what I had read and interpreted on thusly, is that BPL was not going to be transmitted on the very same lines as broadband (i.e. phone, electric and cable lines now existing to most homes).
If I am incorrect on this point I'm sure there'll be many out there who will correct me on any existing misconceptions I have. Still, I myself am not ready to panic just yet.
Let's see what people have to say, Glen, and I'll go from there.
73s,
Chuck, AA1MN
-.-. --.- # # # # ----------------------
Although I was not interested in what the forein countries thought as to the interference cause by BPL/PLC. I was interested in my own back yard.
Thanks to W2MC and W6RFI for the forwarded information, but was hoping someone would post the elements of surprise on this thread. The data sheets which were not done and we could discuss these microvolts/meter thing as a group so others may be informed of what is happening and not only hams.
After 4 hours of reading and study with known facts and knowing a few things in regards to interference on ham and other frequencies I have come to the following conclusion:
Amateur radio is in trouble along with others. I now go along with the #attitude on the allowance of BPL/PLC. Yes, it must be stopped.
Back into WW2, we hams were shut down and the ARRL had a very nice article in QST on how we would be able to communicate by coupling into our power lines. One problem existed and that was the windings on the outdoor power transformers if in or out of phase. In phase we could get out, out of phase we were stopped dead. Just to let you know it is of nothing new to ham radio. Probably another ham first.
Now what? #Better get busy and shut this BPL down. Don't do tomorrow what you can do today.
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # W6TH
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #-------
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k0qhh @ Oct. 13 2003,17:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Chuck,
I realize your comment was directed at Ed, but had a thought I'd like to express. The way I understand it BPL will axactly be in the populated areas, thats what it is designed for, not out in the sticks on the transmission lines.
Thanks for reading,
Glen[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Exactly! #The BPL providers aren't interested in giving farmer Joe his broadband and farmer Joe isn't interested in it either. #Farmer Joe's $ 29.95 vs New York City's $ 2,950,000.00. #Which way do you think it will go - AA1MN? Which way would you go?
Why do you think all the test areas are in major metropolitan areas and not in Kansas or North Dakota?
Of course, the real money is in the big cities. #
And, medium voltage lines are in the big cities as well as the suburbs. #Overhead or underground. #Underground cables will radiate right through the dirt and they have to come up somwhere. #It doesn't matter. #BPL is the ultimate transmitter gone wild.
K2WH
W5HTW
10-15-2003, 01:58 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n9kpn @ Oct. 13 2003,21:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Instead of making fun of CB, why not enlist the help of the millions of CB users?
Nah, it would never work. Too many amateurs don't want "that element" on their side.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If anything, the opposite effect would take place .. The FCC would dearly love to erradicate the problem of CB. It is a monster they created and it got out of hand almost from the beginning. Suggesting CB would be a reason NOT to initiate BPL would wave a red flag in the face of the FCC personnel who have been red-faced for 40 years over what CB became. I would bet if they really thought it would knock out CB and Freebanders, they'd LEAP at the chance to get it up and running! We hams are a drop in a very large communications world bucket, but CB has been a terrible pain in the butt for the FCC for a good many years. If something came along that would make it go away, my guess is they'd kiss their own panties to get it running.
That is not an anti-CB statement from my point of view. It is simply a fact that the FCC created a huge Pandora's box when it moved CB from 465 MHZ to 27 MHZ in 1958, and since 1965 or so, they have been trying to find a way to control it. BPL just might do the trick.
Only thing is, we hams would go, too!
Ed
WD8OQX
10-15-2003, 03:10 AM
moved CB from 465 MHZ to 27 MHZ
It looks like they're trying to move it back with FRS. Personally, I hope that doesn't happen as around here FRS is a clean, clear sounding & usable band. (not heavily used) Good for keeping track of my daughter. & SHE can use it, now. (training a future ham - just hope she gets to enjoy it)
n9kpn
10-15-2003, 05:36 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W5HTW @ Oct. 14 2003,19:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n9kpn @ Oct. 13 2003,21:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Instead of making fun of CB, why not enlist the help of the millions of CB users? #
Nah, it would never work. #Too many amateurs don't want "that element" on their side.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If anything, the opposite effect would take place .. The FCC would dearly love to erradicate the problem of CB. #It is a monster they created and it got out of hand almost from the beginning. #Suggesting CB would be a reason NOT to initiate BPL would wave a red flag in the face of the FCC personnel who have been red-faced for 40 years over what CB became. #I would bet if they really thought it would knock out CB and Freebanders, they'd LEAP at the chance to get it up and running! #We hams are a drop in a very large communications world bucket, but CB has been a terrible pain in the butt for the FCC for a good many years. #If something came along that would make it go away, my guess is they'd kiss their own panties to get it running. #
That is not an anti-CB statement from my point of view. #It is simply a fact that the FCC created a huge Pandora's box when it moved CB from 465 MHZ to 27 MHZ in 1958, and since 1965 or so, they have been trying to find a way to control it. #BPL just might do the trick. #
Only thing is, we hams would go, too!
Ed[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I don't know that this Pandora's box will ever be closed. #There are literally tens of millions of CB radios out there. #If you can believe REACT, sales of 27 MHz radios in the mid 90's were similar to the sales numbers in 1973. #We're talking one million units per year. #See here:
http://www.reactintl.org/Reacter/paged/SO30.pdf
Despite the freebanders, jammers, power runners, and so on there are still millions of others that use CB as intended (as do I). #I doubt that the FCC would use interference as a way to eliminate this band. #If BPL is the monster it is made out to be then the CB crowd would make a very nice ally rather than the enemy. #Dare I say strange bedfellows? #Would it not make more sense to try and recuit CB operators into the ranks of Amateurs? #My belief is that by doing this we eliminate most freebanders and 10M interlopers. #Why risk getting caught if you have privledges on numerous bands including 10M. #Unfortunately many hams want to keep CB'ers out of Amateur radio.
My personal opinion is I want to see a BPL setup for myself. #Most of the comments regarding this subject seem more emotional than technical. #Almost like home owner associations that keep antenna towers out of neighborhoods. #(There seems to be a strange similarity here.) #
My wait for broadband (since I live "in the sticks") was long indeed. #Both the cable tv company and the phone company that serves my area installed fiber optic cable in December 2001. #(The cable TV fiber enters my subdivision through my yard and I watched the guys terminate the fiber.) #Neither the phone company or the cable tv company offer broadband service yet. #The phone company has no plans to do so and the cable company has been working since December 2001 to get their act together but still does not have Internet service. #The "possibility" of service is so close that I weed whack around the termination point but do not have access to cable modem!
My broadband connection is over 5 GHz radio modem or "fixed wireless". When the service was first introduced I was not able to get a decent signal back to the existing towers. #But lucky for me they expanded and put a node on a tower I can see out my window. #Others I know are not as fortunate. #If BPL was available I know there exist a strong market for it; I would have been one of their first customers. #Broadband lines are so scarce by me that even the fixed wireless guys get their connection over wireless backhaul.
My goal in introducing the CB crowd was to make the point that there are few hams in the US with HF privledges (less than half a million) but there are MILLIONS of CB users out there. #And there are millions of people wanting broadband that can't get it. # My HF rig is right here on the desk with my computer. #If I had to choose between interference on HF and BPL as my only source of high speed Internet I'm sorry to say but I would pick the BPL. #And I think if the FCC looked at the complaints from less than one half a million hams VS the millions of people wanting broadband but can't get it, BPL wins.
kg4bvd
10-15-2003, 07:42 AM
Great work folks. I also wanted to add that most television stations allot small amounts of time on local news for arguments such as this. So I believe if you want to help the word get out to more people, give your local TV stations a call and setup an appointment with the program manager to discuss BPL on the news?
73,
Walter http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
ke2iv
10-15-2003, 09:29 AM
As I read on I guess it was inevitable that this too would degenerate into a code vs. no code piece of crap!
And to think it started over what should be a shared interest of defending our HF frequencies from unneccesary interference by an unneccesary service (i.e. BPL).
But in a way there is a beautiful, symmetrical counterpoise to what has happened here.
Imagine if BPL does indeed "wipe out" the HF bands. #Then the few remaining self-proclaimed "real hams"(i.e. the CW-forever crowd) will have no choice but to migrate to the VHF and above frequencies already inhabited by the "no-coders" etc.
As a 40+ year, Extra Class ham whose worked all the bands through 70cm, I would hate to see BPL come to fruition and "kill off" the "low bands".
But if it did - it would be an ironic outcome to the code debate - wouldn't it?
73,
George
KE2IV http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
ke2iv
10-15-2003, 09:58 AM
Oh, one last thought.
I sent $50 to the ARRL's BPL Fund.
What did you send?
And please don't give me that crap about how you won't send the Leauge $$ because you don't trust them.
That's just a B.S. excuse for talkin' large and bein' cheap!
73,
George
KE2IV
P.S. Bye bye our HF bands. The Hams complained but didn't spend a dime... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
W1RFI
10-15-2003, 10:33 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My personal opinion is I want to see a BPL setup for myself. #Most of the comments regarding this subject seem more emotional than technical. #Almost like home owner associations that keep antenna towers out of neighborhoods. #(There seems to be a strange similarity here.)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'> #
If you wait long enough, you may get your wish, but by then, you may wish you hadn't wished. (See why they won't let me be an editor at QST?) :-)
From what I know, the marketing trials are in the following cities:
Birmingham, AL (environs)
Atlanta, GA (environs)
Honolulu, HI
Boise, ID
Potomac, MD
Cape Girardea, MO
Raleigh, NC
Briarcliff Manor, NY*
Bethlehem, PA (Hanover area, just getting started)
Emmaus, PA*
Whitehall, PA*
Manassas, VA
Dublin, OH
Hyde Park, OH
It is reported that PG&E may have a small trial in the Bay area and that trials are upcoming in Michigan.
* indicates systems that are most respresentative of the interference potential of BPL operating under the present Part 15 rules.
If you want to go to Briarcliff Manor or Emmaus, email me at w1rfi@arrl.org and I will direct you to the right streets. :-)
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If I had to choose between interference on HF and BPL as my only source of high speed Internet I'm sorry to say but I would pick the BPL.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Are you truly telling us that you would be willing to destroy a unique international resource -- HF -- that is used worldwide to do what can't be done any other way -- the *direct* international communication between radio systems, just so you could personally see about a MB/s practical broadband without having to wait for your cable company to complete their work?
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kcrt4719 @ Oct. 13 2003,16:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Shoot- I hope this BPL doesn't happen. #With all the power lines on top of me I won't be able to let my good buddies know about the county mounty out on Route 52! #I may not even be able to modulate with my old runnin' buddy over the mountain! #Although if I ask nicely they might turn on their foot-warmers so they can hear me.
Threes to all
KCRT4719- Big Sambo
West Virginia CB'ers Convention[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
4 roger on that...guess i'll just shove more fire in the wire that oughta fix it http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
W1RFI
10-15-2003, 10:43 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa1mn @ Oct. 13 2003,14:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Having said that, as I've stated before regarding the BPL subject it is, as far as I'm concerned at least, a non-issue since -- even if it does come to pass -- HF will be alive and well in the United States and North America at large.
Simply put, the wires radiating them are not, to my knowledge at least, intrusive enough on well populated areas to cause the wanton destruction to amateur frequencies that hams are making it out to be.
Now Ed, I can sense that you and other amateurs are going to freak at this so let me cut everyone off at the pass here, so to speak, by saying that this is solely my observation and my obervation alone ... please, spare me the remarks that are sure to follow for, if I am wrong about this, I will publiclly repent on this very same website and apologize for my foolishness to all.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Okay, I'll bite. Every ham who has observed the BPL system in Emmaus, PA or Briarcliff Manor, NY has reached the same conclusion -- that what is shown on the ARRL video accurately represents what was seen in those cities.
But you mention your observations, so please do describe to us what you found when you went to BPL trial areas. Or did you really mean to use the word "speculation" in describing your conclusions?
I have described in great detail on what basis I have formed my conclusions. Can you do the same?
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W1RFI
10-15-2003, 10:59 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa1mn @ Oct. 13 2003,18:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm, maybe I miscontrue the intent of BPL;my conception is that it was inteneded for areas not accessable to broadband internet, thus not affecting many suburbs or cities. #I had envisioned this, according to what I had read and interpreted on thusly, is that BPL was not going to be transmitted on the very same lines as broadband (i.e. phone, electric and cable lines now existing to most homes).[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
None of the BPL trial areas are rural. To date, they are all in what I would describe as slighty upscale suburban neighborhoods -- at least the ones that I have visited.
The BPL signals typically occupy anywhere from about 5 to about 25 MHz of spectrum, with at least one system, possibly two, opeating on low VHF (in the 30-50 MHz range). If you want to know what wires will be used to carry BPL signals, glance upward at the top of the telphone poles outside your house or on your drive to work.
The FCC Part-15 rules permit BPL right now, at a radiated signal of 30 uV/m, 30 meters distant from the source. If you have a 3.5 MHz signal at that level and put an 80 meter half-wave dipole 30 meters from the source, the laws of physics say that you will pick up a signal level that is S9+16 dB, by the "Collins standard" S meter convention that most rigs approximate.
The systems shown in the ARRL video have noise around this level, and the spot measurements I made of field strength indicate that the systems are just about at the FCC limit. What is on the video is a good representation of what was found in the trial areas. If BPL comes to your street, and it operates at the FCC limits, that is exactly what you will see on any spectrum it uses. On other spectrum, what you hear will depend on how much they suppress out-of-band and spurious emissions.
Like many industries before them that want some regulatory change to accomodate what they want to to, the promise of rural broadband access has been made. But the trial areas are in areas like Westchester County, NY; Potomac, MD; Boise, ID and the like. Not a farmer to be seen, I assure you. When all is done, the utilities will run these signals where there are enough customers to justify the costs of doing so.
The claim that the infrastructure already exists is somewhat flawed. In the systems I have seen, they have often run fiber or a T1 or better line to a neighborhood, then used BPL for the last mile or so. Other systems require the installation of a digital repeater about every 2000 feet or so. The systems generally require a coupler that is installed on the medium-voltage distribution lines, something that can be done only by those qualified to work on such high voltages. I have seen industry claims that such installations can be done in 10 minutes, but I have never seen a utility crew do ANYTHING in 10 minutes, so you tell me. :-)
If you are going to reach conclusions, those conclusions should be made on the basis of fact, not speculation. To reach mine, I have done hundreds of hours of research, driven to about 6 of the trial areas and talked to hundreds of hams and industry folks.
On what basis have you reached your conclusions?
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
aa1mn
10-15-2003, 12:09 PM
Ed,
I understand a bit better now.
Often, though, real world results are not what they are on paper. If they were, I'd be a multimillionare by now and would be living a life of ease.
I realize other countries have this going on, or so they claim, but I and many of my amateur friends have many QSL cards from these places where it is stated that BPL is disrupting HF communications which leaves me to wonder how or why such contacts are still being made.
This is what I am waiting to see ... I am not invalidating what is being said about BPL, rather I am just taking a more cautious wait-and-see approach.
Time will tell.
73s,
Chuck, AA1MN
WD8OQX
10-15-2003, 01:53 PM
Aren't the "big city" power lines usually in better shape than others? I have to wonder, just because it "works (yea - right)" in one area doesn't mean it will work everywhere else. Especially in poor wiring areas. Same thing with different grids & companies. To me, if they can't even keep up the proper maint. for power, what makes them think they can do this?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
N2PVP
10-15-2003, 02:09 PM
Just one county in NJ!
45.32 - Avon by the Sea Fire District
37.10 - Belmar Fire District
45.32 - Bradley Beach Fire District
39.58 - Highlands Fire District
45.24 - Neptune Township Fire District
39.46 - State Police - Link to County Police
39.76 - State Police - EMRAD
39.80 - State Police - EMRAD
39.92 - State Police – EMRAD
39.46 - Countywide Police Hotline
37.10 - Belmar Police
37.26 - Neptune Township Police
47.46 - American Red Cross (Shrewsbury)
45.32 - Avon by the Sea Ambulance
37.10 - Belmar Ambulance
47.58 - Freehold Township Ambulance
45.24 - Neptune Township Ambulance
47.14 - State D.O.T. - F-1
47.26 - State D.O.T. - F-2
47.36 - State D.O.T. - F-3
47.40 - State D.O.T. - F-4
45.00 - State D.E.P.E.
37.94 - County Highway Department
45.20 - County D.P.W.
45.32 - Avon by the Sea D.P.W.
45.40 - Avon Borough Services
45.40 - Bayshore Regional Sewer Authority
45.08 - Brielle Borough D.P.W.
46.56 - Howell Township Services
45.60 - Long Branch Sewerage Authority
45.16 - Manalapan Township Services
45.56 - Middletown Township D.P.W.
46.54 - Middletown Township D.P.W.
45.84 - Middletown Township – Highways
45.24 - Neptune Township D.P.W.
39.10 - Red Bank Borough Utilities
37.92 - Upper Freehold Township - Highways
37.94 - Upper Freehold Township – Highways
45.96 - Englishtown Manalapan Regional Schools
46.04 - Freehold Township Schools
46.04 - Howell Township Board of Education
46.00 - Millstone Township Board of Education
45.92 - Oakhurst Board of Education
[/B] http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
"Lowband" as the 30-50mhz spectrum is called in public safety is alive and well. In fact, some services are starting to migrate at least partially back to it after realizing the shortcomings of 800mhz systems.
One major use is fire paging. Volunteer fire departments use pagers on a "quick call 2" system (not unlike DTMF paging but with longer tones) to open the squelch on the pagers so that the firefigter hears the voice dispatch to follow (basicly these pagers are single channel receivers that only open the squelch after recieving the proper audio tones) and then can proceed to the station to answer the call. Many departments either retained thier VHF freqs only for paging or went back to them for paging after going to UHF and 800mhz because they get much better range and coverage with the VHF systems.
Ed, the National Volunteer Fire Council could be a strong ally, has the ARRL attempted to enlist the assitance of any groups like them? Thier website is below.
http://www.nvfc.org/
aa1mn
10-15-2003, 08:33 PM
To N2PVP and others,
I am curious, and this is only my musing out loud, as to why civil service and other companies havent followed the trend in moving their communications frequencies to higher portions of the band.
Quite a few others have already moved up to the 400 and 800 spectrum as they have found it to be to their advantage for whatever reason and, it seems, with the possible impending BPL encrouchment potentially disruputing these lower frequencies would be an incentive to follow suite.
Mario, and others, any imput or thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated ... just to satisfy my curiosity.
73s,
Chuck, AA1MN
Chuck, the paging issue I put above is one major reason. Radio in that range just gets out better to cover wide araes with one transmitter.
Another is money. While many large municipal departments can afford the large $$$ it takes to move, many rural VFD's cannot. One department in my area has a yearly budget of just $40,000 for EVERYTHING, from truck maintenance to buying new trucks to insurance, and they quite simply can barely afford to maintain thier current communications system, and a move to another band would zap thier entire budget for a year.
Heck my department is pretty well funded by volunteer department standards, with close to $200,000 in our yearly budget, and to switch to a new band would cost us about $60,000 minimum, public safety grade radios do not come cheap. We couldn't afford to spend 30% of our budget on radio without letting something else slip, so why fix something that works now as is.
W1RFI
10-15-2003, 10:45 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa1mn @ Oct. 14 2003)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Often, though, real world results are not what they are on paper. If they were, I'd be a multimillionare by now and would be living a life of ease.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
What was documented on the ARRL video represents real-world results. Local hams who have also seen the same sites close up all agree that what ARRL put on tape accurately represents what they found in the trial areas.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I realize other countries have this going on, or so they claim, but I and many of my amateur friends have many QSL cards from these places where it is stated that BPL is disrupting HF communications which leaves me to wonder how or why such contacts are still being made.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The BPL trial areas in the US range from 10 to about 200 homes. #A number of them are in Pennsylvania, just as an example, but right now, most hams in Pennsylvania don't have BPL in front of their homes, so they don't have noise. #If the European trials are on the same scale, we can easily expect that most hams in that country will not have interference. #
But having taken a ham station to the trial areas, I can say with absolute certainty that if Northeast Utilities were to put a BPL system at that level (approximately at Part-15 levels) on the lines outside my house, I would not be able operate amateur radio in any meaningful sense of the service. Only the strongest of stations would be audible and even they would be noisy. #If your home telephone crackled as loud as the noise on the strongest stations I heard in Emmaus, PA, you would be calling for service in a flash.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is what I am waiting to see ... I am not invalidating what is being said about BPL, rather I am just taking a more cautious wait-and-see approach.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If you wait and see, by the time you see, it will be too late and you will have to live with the result. #Would you want your home station to sound like the stations depicted in the ARRL video from test area #3 (Emmaus, PA) or test area #4 (Briarcliff Manor, NY)?
And if any of you all haven't seen the video on the ARRL web site, http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc#video, it is worth the download wait, even if your are on a dialup. (The dialup folks should download the small version -- it is the same tape, but the video resolution is pretty poor). #If you can't look at the video, email me at w1rfi@arrl.org and I will burn you a CD. #If you can, play the CD at your local radio club and watch the looks of horror on the faces of hams who haven't seen it.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
aa1mn
10-16-2003, 12:36 AM
W1RFI,
Okay, Ed, thanks for the response. You've addressed my points succinctly and to the point.
I also thank you for the offer of the CD but will, at this time, pass for I will not share the "looks of horror" that other amateurs exhibit should this come to pass ... instead I have many other avenues that I, at least, will be more than content to follow.
For one, the internet -- yes, the very thing you and I are using right now to converse (and the very thing at the basis of BPL it seems) -- is a far more reliable and effective means of communications than amateur radio, either HF or VHF/UHF. No antenna matching tuning to be concerned of, no feedlines to worry over, no need for amplifiers needed to kick out more power ... computers are, in a word, simplicity itself to use and abuse -- exactly what makes operating ham so expensive and frustrating.
Thanks anyway, Ed, though I am now convinced you are right on target about this I'll stick with my PC until they make amateur radio as easy to enjoy as the internet is.
Chuck, AA1MN
aa1mn
10-16-2003, 12:43 AM
K4PEP,
Thanks, Mario, I should have realized that -- as always -- it comes down to the ends. My only regret is that I should have thought of that myself before I even asked the question.
Chuck, AA1MN
WD8OQX
10-16-2003, 01:56 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa1mn @ Oct. 15 2003,13:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To N2PVP and others,
I am curious, and this is only my musing out loud, as to why civil service and other companies havent followed the trend in moving their communications frequencies to higher portions of the band.
Quite a few others have already moved up to the 400 and 800 spectrum as they have found it to be to their advantage for whatever reason and, it seems, with the possible impending BPL encrouchment potentially disruputing these lower frequencies would be an incentive to follow suite.
Mario, and others, any imput or thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated ... just to satisfy my curiosity.
73s,
Chuck, AA1MN[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Pretty much, the higher you go in freq., the more line of site it becomes. It's kinda like "if you can't see 'em, you can't work 'em, sort of thing. (consider microwave as an example)
KD7WHQ
10-16-2003, 05:45 AM
RFI, Ed, I can burn VCD's.
If you ok it, I can burn a few for the people who can view them, but don't have the web capability.
Not a great number for sure, but..
W1RFI
10-16-2003, 08:38 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa1mn @ Oct. 14 2003,18:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For one, the internet -- yes, the very thing you and I are using right now to converse (and the very thing at the basis of BPL it seems) -- is a far more reliable and effective means of communications than amateur radio, either HF or VHF/UHF. #No antenna matching tuning to be concerned of, no feedlines to worry over, no need for amplifiers needed to kick out more power ... computers are, in a word, simplicity itself to use and abuse -- exactly what makes operating ham so expensive and frustrating.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Isn't the list you just posted part of the very reason most of us were attracted to amateur radio in the first place? I like having to fiddle with my antennas and tweak the knobs on my antenna tuner.
And just how well does the internet work when the hurricane moves through and power lines are down everywhere?
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
aa1mn
10-16-2003, 12:07 PM
Well, Ed, the internet works just about as well without power as my amateur radio does.
And no, I do not like having to constantly check power settings, SWR meters and so on ... isn't the purpose of technology to make our lives easier rather than more difficult?
AA1MN
WA3KYY
10-16-2003, 12:22 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa1mn @ Oct. 15 2003,13:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To N2PVP and others,
I am curious, and this is only my musing out loud, as to why civil service and other companies havent followed the trend in moving their communications frequencies to higher portions of the band.
Quite a few others have already moved up to the 400 and 800 spectrum as they have found it to be to their advantage for whatever reason and, it seems, with the possible impending BPL encrouchment potentially disruputing these lower frequencies would be an incentive to follow suite.
Mario, and others, any imput or thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated ... just to satisfy my curiosity.
73s,
Chuck, AA1MN[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
A couple of reasons. First and foremost, money. My county, Montgomery County, MD, spent about $9M to upgrade fire and police to the 800MHz digital trunking systems. The radios alone are in the $3K apiece range. Many jurisdictions just canot afford to switch.
Another reason is coverage. There are dead spots in the county where the 800 MHz signals can't reach but the VHF signals can. They will eventually fix this by adding more repeaters and towers but that costs additonal money which is not yet in the budget.
I did a quick lookup on the FCC web site for licenses in my county and found a huge segment of users in the 30-50 MHz range. The biggest users, the electric and gas utilities along with State and municipal DPW and Highway agencies. Looks like VHF usage in both low band and high band ranges will continue for the forseeable future.
aa1mn
10-16-2003, 12:48 PM
WA3KYY and WD8OQX,
You both have valid points about the higher frequencies being "line-of-sight". This is actually one of the reasons,
from what I've been informed at least, that the UHF/VHF frequencies are prefered so as to avoid skip interference;
in the 30-40 range it was not uncommon to have singals from the southern and more western states come in here in New England which, at times, would lead to confusion.
In the area of the country where I live most all of the civil service agencies have moved up into the 400 or 800 MHz range. Repeaters, and I know if you're reading this page you know all about repeaters, are used to boost the signals to avoid dead spots.
I realize money, as mentioned before, is a factor but do you really want to put your faith in a civil service agency who can't budget it's money wisely enough to serve the community that supposedly depends upon it?
Chuck, AA1MN
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa1mn @ Oct. 16 2003,05:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">SNIP
I realize money, as mentioned before, is a factor but do you really want to put your faith in a civil service agency who can't budget it's money wisely enough to serve the community that supposedly depends upon it?
Chuck, AA1MN[/b][/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Hi again
What you mention is not completely correct. #Most local governments (mine included) run their Fire Dept on a shoestring, counting on the volunteers to supply the labor and also to perform fundraising to pay the rest of the freight. #
I'll use my local fire company, of which I am a member, as an example. #The last time we ran the calculation (5 or 6 years ago), the two fire companies in town jointly made up 1 to 2 percent of the municipal budget. #Now we have increased since then, with the hiring of a small number of paid 'daytime' firefighters.
I just took a look at the budget for the town last year.
a quick summary:
Police: #$3,790,479
Public Works (including trash removal) $2,315,836
recreation, parks, etc #$787,700
Utilities (gas elect etc) $460,840
Fire (including 4 firefighters, 1 "fire official" and a secretary) #$418,887
And a lot of other stuff below this number....
Yes, they pay more for electric, phone, and fuel than the fire department. #And the fire dept has to pay for its own heat, electric, and phone, too!
Now, with that in mind, and remembering that right now, the radios are working fine, do you think that they will really budget anything to replace them?
Well, we have to. #As I mentioned before, the County-wide system is moving about half of its operations to 800 mhz. #The County is buying some of the radios, we have to buy the rest. #Last I saw them, the trunked 800 mhz radios that will work on this new system are going for $3,200.00.........EACH. #And that isnt even installed in a vehicle....its just for the hand-held radio.
Now what was that about "budgeting wisely", again?
Jon
W2MC
aa1mn
10-16-2003, 02:11 PM
[B]W2MC,
Jon, what part of "budgeting wisely" is incomprehensible to you?
Or, more appropriately since I don't mean this as a personal attack against you, what part of "budgeting wisely" does the local government -- which as you correcly stated -- funds town and city services such as fire and police not comphrend?
Remember, Jon, you and I support these services through the payment of local and federal taxes and, being a person who parts with my hard earned money dearly, I have little sympathy for the misappropriation of such funds by said agencies, do you? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
W2MC, I do appreciate what you are saying and the position you state but why should any of us, yourself included, misplace our feelings for those who misspend our tax dollars?
Yours,
Chuck, AA1MN
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa1mn @ Oct. 16 2003,05:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I realize money, as mentioned before, is a factor but do you really want to put your faith in a civil service agency who can't budget it's money wisely enough to serve the community that supposedly depends upon it?
Chuck, AA1MN[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
In many, many cases its not a budget matter, but simply a fact that there is not enough money period. The majority of fire departments in this country are volunteer departments, most seving small towns and rural areas, and the money just is not available. For them sticking with the existing system is the best way to budget the money.
For example, one department near me exists solely off of donations as that county is structured so as to not allow fire taxes, and gets about $40,000 a year total to operate off of. Out of that comes building maintenance, truck maintenance, new equipment, fuel, and insurance. Keep in mind that a HT durable enough to surivive in fire service will run a minimum of $400, the air packs worn by firefighters are over $2500, and the protective turnout gear each one requires is over $1500 a set. each member needs the radio and gear, and multiple airpacks are needed per truck. A new, NFPA and OSHA compliant pumper truck will run you $250,000 for the bare minimum, and a real engine properly set up will run in excess of $400,000! With 40 firefighters, having to buy 40 new radios or pagers would take thier entire budget!
My county lets each district levy its own tax up to a level of $.10 per $1000 of property value, but even then there are some districts that are primarily rural and as a result even at the max tax rate bring in under $100,000. These departments and those who get even less depend a great deal upon donations from other departments. My department recently sold our oldest engine, a 1977, to a smaller department for $1, as it was our 3rd out backup and was too worn out for us. to them however, it is "the good truck".
If your only basis for judging departments is larger or medium sized municipal departments, take a while and look into how tight the budgets are for some of the smaller rural fire departments across the country. If it wasn't for the constant efforts of the firefighters to raise money with raffles, pancake dinners, and other means many areas would have no fire protection at all. For these guys if lowband works, and they have it, why swap? In fact, as many larger departments upgrade the surplus VHF equipment is working its way down to these smaller departments and helping them out greatly, since it is available at a fraction of the cost of new or even free.
.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa1mn @ Oct. 16 2003,07:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[B]W2MC,
Jon, what part of "budgeting wisely" is incomprehensible to you?
Or, more appropriately since I don't mean this as a personal attack against you, what part of "budgeting wisely" does the local government -- which as you correcly stated -- funds town and city services such as fire and police not comphrend?
Remember, Jon, you and I support these services through the payment of local and federal taxes and, being a person who parts with my hard earned money dearly, I have little sympathy for the misappropriation of such funds by said agencies, do you? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
W2MC, I do appreciate what you are saying and the position you state but why should any of us, yourself included, misplace our feelings for those who misspend our tax dollars?
Yours,
Chuck, AA1MN[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I am not talking about mis-spending or mis-appropriation. I am questioning the purpose behind buying new radios for no apparent reason. I then spelled out why.....there just isn't any extra $$$ for luxury items, like moving frequencies 'just because'.
This ain't mis-appropriation, remember. This is BPL coming thru and making $$$$ for the power utilities while trashing a large portion of spectrum.
Do you see the power utilities lining up to pay to move folks to different freq's? Does anyone see the FCC paying for this internet "nirvana", as one of the Commisioners recently called BPL? Does the FCC even have enough empty spectrum to move the affected services to?
I don't think so.
But you imply that the local fire/ems/pd should come up with the bucks to move frequencies from all of us via taxation, while the source of the frequency pollution gets away scott-free.
At $3200 an HT, $450 a pager, and whatever it costs for the base and mobile rigs.
Or, just for one station (mine):
20 HT's -- $64,000
9 mobiles + 1 base guess-timate 3200 ea -- $32,000
25 or so pagers -- $11,250
= $107,250.00
All for ONE station to SUBSIDIZE the power company.
I have little sympathy for that, either.
Jon
W2MC
aa1mn
10-16-2003, 04:57 PM
[B]W2MC and KF4PEP,
I must, in all good conscience, concede to your wisdom.
Honestly, I had thought that the govenors of the communities that you and I live in would respond to reason and, when needed and practical, the finances to avoid such circumstances as these.
Seems I have been proven wrong in this case. I can only urge the support of those like yourselves towards the civil services and those who work for them when needed.
Take care, gentlemen, as I'm going to let it rest at this since it is, I think, just a little off topic. Though I do, once again, urge all amateurs to support their local fire and police agencies in any way possible be it financial or otherwise.
73s,
Chuck, AA1MN
w0jjk
10-16-2003, 09:10 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa1mn @ Oct. 14 2003,07:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">W2MC,
Not opinion Jon. #Fact. Based on research. #Research which does include, but is not limited to, consulting with persons in or associated with the civil service field. Also, try checking on scanner resources pages for frequencies used by fire and police departments in various parts of the country.
Not misinformed about the current military operations either. #All comments based upon current news stories -- telesion, radio, newpapers, magazines and internet -- so these are not opinions either.
Jon, what are you basing your comments on? #You are able to type are you also able to read and research as well?
AA1MN[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
In Nebraska, Most if not all counties have 39.9 Mhz, 39.92 Mhz. 39.98 Mhz and many others used to talk County to County. Some counties like mine, Colfax, don't have a VHF Repeater for the sherrifs department and, the different volunteer fire and rescue departments also use thes low-VHF frequencies for is communications between each other in mutual aid situations. I know the State Patrol in Nebraska also uses 45-47Mhz for it communications. So lets us open our eyes and show the public what will be affected, their safety and ours.
Steve,KC0LOD
w0jjk
10-16-2003, 09:10 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa1mn @ Oct. 14 2003,07:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">W2MC,
Not opinion Jon. #Fact. Based on research. #Research which does include, but is not limited to, consulting with persons in or associated with the civil service field. Also, try checking on scanner resources pages for frequencies used by fire and police departments in various parts of the country.
Not misinformed about the current military operations either. #All comments based upon current news stories -- telesion, radio, newpapers, magazines and internet -- so these are not opinions either.
Jon, what are you basing your comments on? #You are able to type are you also able to read and research as well?
AA1MN[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
In Nebraska, Most if not all counties have 39.9 Mhz, 39.92 Mhz. 39.98 Mhz and many others used to talk County to County. Some counties like mine, Colfax, don't have a VHF Repeater for the sherrifs department and, the different volunteer fire and rescue departments also use thes low-VHF frequencies for is communications between each other in mutual aid situations. I know the State Patrol in Nebraska also uses 45-47Mhz for it communications. So lets us open our eyes and show the public what will be affected, their safety and ours.
Steve,KC0LOD
w0jjk
10-16-2003, 09:11 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa1mn @ Oct. 14 2003,07:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">W2MC,
Not opinion Jon. #Fact. Based on research. #Research which does include, but is not limited to, consulting with persons in or associated with the civil service field. Also, try checking on scanner resources pages for frequencies used by fire and police departments in various parts of the country.
Not misinformed about the current military operations either. #All comments based upon current news stories -- telesion, radio, newpapers, magazines and internet -- so these are not opinions either.
Jon, what are you basing your comments on? #You are able to type are you also able to read and research as well?
AA1MN[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
In Nebraska, Most if not all counties have 39.9 Mhz, 39.92 Mhz. 39.98 Mhz and many others frequencies used to talk County to County. Some counties like mine, Colfax, don't have a VHF Repeater for the sherrifs department and, the different volunteer fire and rescue departments also use thes low-VHF frequencies for is communications between each other in mutual aid situations. I know the State Patrol in Nebraska also uses 45-47Mhz for it communications. So lets us open our eyes and show the public what will be affected, their safety and ours.
Steve,KC0LOD
W5HTW
10-16-2003, 10:32 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa1mn @ Oct. 15 2003,17:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">W1RFI,
Okay, Ed, thanks for the response. You've addressed my points succinctly and to the point.
I also thank you for the offer of the CD but will, at this time, pass for I will not share the "looks of horror" that other amateurs exhibit should this come to pass ... instead I have many other avenues that I, at least, will be more than content to follow.
For one, the internet -- yes, the very thing you and I are using right now to converse (and the very thing at the basis of BPL it seems) -- is a far more reliable and effective means of communications than amateur radio, either HF or VHF/UHF. No antenna matching tuning to be concerned of, no feedlines to worry over, no need for amplifiers needed to kick out more power ... computers are, in a word, simplicity itself to use and abuse -- exactly what makes operating ham so expensive and frustrating.
Thanks anyway, Ed, though I am now convinced you are right on target about this I'll stick with my PC until they make amateur radio as easy to enjoy as the internet is.
Chuck, AA1MN
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Do you really need that ham license to work internet?
Actually I think you won't have long to wait for amateur radio to become as easy as the internet. Hang in there!
Ed
aa1mn
10-17-2003, 01:32 AM
W5HTH,
Nope, certainly DON'T need an amateur license to run the internet and for that I am eternally grateful.
Why, on the internet I can talk to people -- really NICE people -- all over the world any time of day or night without having to worry about band conditions, not needing to worry about listening to jerks I don't want to while remaining in the chatroom I want to (thanks to the
"ignore" icon, without having to worry about renewing my license every 10 lousy years, AND not worry about someone getting all uppity if I want to use languange some snot nosed jit may find offensive even if it isn't and possibly reporting it to some airheaded FCC official who may or may not decide to take the action to court.
Also, on the internet I can far more easily transmit and listen to voice and send live pics and for far less money than can be done over the amateur radio airwaves.
Yup, the web has amateur radio beat by a mile so, if any of you haven't figured it out by now, I'll take the internet any day any time over ham radio.
Don't take the above too harshly though ... while it's true the intendend sarcasm is simply meant to put this whole BPL in perspective; really now, should HF communications vanish tomorrow why can't those of us show an ounce of adaptability and move on?
That which does not progress must retrograde ... who here is able to progress?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif Chuck, AA1MN
N0JCG
10-17-2003, 02:29 AM
Chuck:
You are more than welcome to "move on" to the internet, particularly if it is content that interests you. For me, amateur radio is 10% content and 90% technique. I still get a kick from a QSO with Japan on 5 watts, even if the exchange is little more than "can you hear me now?" amid noise, static crashes, and fading. But then again I like sailing and biking despite the fact there are faster ways to get from point A to point B.
My point is that this isn't a zero sum game. There is no reason a blind rush to "broadband nirvana" must trash an irreplacable natural resource. To do so is not progress but irresponsibility. BPL would squash possibilities in responsible HF digital communications which take advantage of the unique properties of the HF spectrum. Some of these improvements may even come from young hams just now learning the ins and outs of RF.
The internet and ham radio are not in competition. They each have their place. In presentations I have done to schoolkids they are impressed, not with the fact I can talk to Japan, but the fact that I am doing so with absolutely nothing between my radio antenna and the antenna in Japan. If that doesn't trip you trigger, fine. But don't jump to the co