View Full Version : Texas to Get BPL
KG4JYD
12-20-2005, 06:07 AM
"CNet is reporting that Texas will soon be getting broadband over power lines.
From the article, "The plan was announced on Monday by Current Communications Group, a service provider that specializes in broadband service over power lines (BPL), and TXU Electric Delivery, the largest electric company in Texas."
"The companies estimate that roughly 2 million homes and businesses in northern Texas will be able to subscribe to the new service when the network is complete. Current Communications--which has built a similar network over Cincinnati's power lines with local utility company Cinergy--will design, build and operate the new broadband network. Deployments will begin in 2006, the companies said"
The article is here:
http://news.com.com/Texas+t....bj=news (http://news.com.com/Texas+to+get+broadband+over+its+power+lines/2100-1014_3-5995234.html?part=rss&tag=5995234&subj=news)
K8YZK
12-22-2005, 07:08 PM
Hope it ends up in Crawford, TX
My daughter lives in Cincinnati (Delhi) and advises that she has internet service via BPL. I am visiting tomorrow evening and will drive the truck with my mobile equipment and see for myself if I can hear anything out of the ordinary. I have talked with a couple hams in the Cincinnati area of BPL and they have not noticed any problems yet.
Yes, we heard about this locally about 3 days ago. I'm fighting this tooth and nail as much as I can, but I'm a little surprised at the lack of activity in the NTX section. I guess the good news is that they are only shooting for 2 millions customers out of a state that has 20 million residents...with cheaper rates for broadband via phonelines, wi-fi, and cable modems, I cannot see how this technology will be anything more than a nuisance, except in highly urbanized and very rural areas.
Besides, TXU can't even stay in the black, what with all it's financial problems. They can't even keep up with their power distribution infrastructure, what are the odds that this minor "innovation" are going to save her?
I guess it's time to get a mobile Ameritron amp and prepare to do some "field testing" on the HF bands.
And if you get TXU Energy folks, think about switching over to Reliant. Sure, the infrastructure belongs to TXU, but I don't mind giving TXU the figure one bit, so long as it has a (very small) impact on their bottom line.
K6BTM
12-22-2005, 11:21 PM
Be sure to thank GW and his PRO business friends. LMAO Oh Ya. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
KD5NCO
12-23-2005, 01:36 AM
KB6XG
Well that is a nice and enlightened opinion... hummm wonder if you consider the benefit of 10 maybe 20 thousand citizens more or less important then 15 or 30 Amateurs? (Ok I admit that I have no earthly idea how many amateurs in the Dallas area much less how many BPL potential subscribers....except that I know Many Many more citizens will benefit from BPL then Amateurs will be impacted by any interference!)
Is there an indication that the BPL implementations in the Dallas area or the other Five or seven installations in Texas have any measurable negative impact in the Amateurs in the localities?
Is it OK for a self recognized "Hobby" to out weight the need of other normal citizens?
I have given this a lot of thought, been to active BPL sites and finally come to the acceptance that (A.. BPL will not survive more then 5 or 7 years in this rapidly evolving technological environment and (B.. It really does NOT raise the noise floor above what I already deal with in rural Texas... so why all the BS, Hype,
and animosity?
Or all of you prone to believing every thing your read and hear?
w5brw
12-23-2005, 02:23 AM
Something to think about... There is a technology called WiMax that will be coming on the market shortly. It is a wireless broadband access technology that works in the 5.4 Ghz Range. Doesn't interfere with any of the ham bands, uses a well defined narrow portion of it's band, and can be installed on every cell tower in the nation without ANY interference. As for range, the current tested range is approx 30 miles omni directional from the tower. If you look at the maps of the cell towers you will see this technology will cove all of the areas BPL is supposed to cover.
It seems that we always want to bash one technology with out a path to something better. Well, here it is. Enjoy.
Now for those who love to flame, my numbers and facts may not be perfect, but they are pretty darn close. Please do a little research before showing you low level of human decency and lack of knowledge.
Russell
W5BRW
Some quick comments -
Current Technologies BPL system appears amateur friendly. #It uses 30 - 50 MHz spectrum. #I saw a presentation by Current last spring, and they decided (for the time being) to avoid interference to amateurs. #You will be dissapointed if you look for interference where they deploy.
Most of the BPL manufacturers are not BPL friendly, but there are several exceptions. #The QST I just opened briefly mentions them.
WiMax has great potential. #Think of it as WiFi on steroids. #But there are several problems. #First, wild claims are being made. #True, 50 miles is possible, but only in a deployment similar to point to point microwave - hi gain dishes and the like. #In a typical point to point applications (PC to distribution node), it will perform a little better than current systems. #A big problem in the US is spectrum for these systems. #None has been allocated specifically for WiMax. #Internationally there is spectrum dedicated for carriers. #Here, there is talk about using unlicenced spectrum at 5.8, or the unused MMDS spectum. #So there are more questions to be answered for WiMax.
I don't think WiMax will be the BPL killer. #But who knows?
Bruce, K1BG
N8NOE
12-23-2005, 06:10 AM
Quote[/b] (wa8vbx @ Dec. 22 2005,07:08)]Hope it ends up in Crawford, TX
Why do you hope this, You don't like TED NUGENT?...
Quote[/b] ] Well that is a nice and enlightened opinion... hummm wonder if you consider the benefit of 10 maybe 20 thousand citizens more or less important then 15 or 30 Amateurs? (Ok I admit that I have no earthly idea how many amateurs in the Dallas area much less how many BPL potential subscribers....except that I know Many Many more citizens will benefit from BPL then Amateurs will be impacted by any interference!)
Hey Fred, Since your a NCT perhaps you ought not enter this arena, lest we think you are in fact one of the enemy who has invaded our ranks as a lackey to the VOIP mob.
Wait, thats it - all these new NCT's who thrive on echolink and IRLP were sent by the BPL task force to dilute the ham radio gene pool! #Chip, come help us!
But seriously, I think you are correct on the fact that BPL is DOA - too expensive a technology to be competetive aginst broadband DSL and the new wireless systems that are sprining up. #The problem is that BPL does in fact wipe us out on HF, and while it will eventually go away, why do we have to put up with it during it's death throes? #
By the way, since when do the needs of the many supplant the needs of the few?
K8ERV
12-23-2005, 07:50 AM
Where can I find a map showing the cell phone towers? I don't have a cell phone but am just curious (yellow).
TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo
K6BTM
12-23-2005, 10:36 AM
Quote[/b] (KD5NCO @ Dec. 22 2005,17:36)]KB6XG
Well that is a nice and enlightened opinion...
KD5NCO
Ah, the feel good saviour of the masses angel you are. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif Actually most current implementations of BPL pretty much renders operating on HF impossible. But then your not licensed for the HF bands, so no wonder you don't care. Pretty unenlightened one sided opinion I'd say. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] (N5UV @ Dec. 22 2005,16:05)]Yes, we heard about this locally about 3 days ago. #I'm fighting this tooth and nail as much as I can...
And if you get TXU Energy folks, think about switching over to Reliant. #Sure, the infrastructure belongs to TXU, but I don't mind giving TXU the figure one bit, so long as it has a (very small) impact on their bottom line.
This sounds like utter nonsense to me.
Sort of 'hate for the sake of hate', IMO.
Why would you possibly feel this way, if the system doesn't produce harmful interference to your communications?
Quote[/b] (KD5NCO @ Dec. 22 2005,14:36)]KB6XG
Well that is a nice and enlightened opinion... hummm wonder if you consider the benefit of 10 maybe 20 thousand citizens more or less important then 15 or 30 Amateurs? (Ok I admit that I have no earthly idea how many amateurs in the Dallas area much less how many BPL potential subscribers....except that I know Many Many more citizens will benefit from BPL then Amateurs will be impacted by any interference!)
Is there an indication that the BPL implementations in the Dallas area or the other Five or seven installations in Texas have any measurable negative impact in the Amateurs in the localities?
Is it OK for a self recognized "Hobby" to out weight the need of other normal citizens?
I have given this a lot of thought, been to active BPL sites and finally come to the acceptance that (A.. BPL will not survive more then 5 or 7 years in this rapidly evolving technological environment and (B.. It really does NOT raise the noise floor above what I already deal with in rural Texas... so why all the BS, Hype,
and animosity?
Or all of you prone to believing every thing your read and hear?
Chip, meet KD5NCO.
"Is it OK for a self recognized "Hobby" to out weight the need of other normal citizens?" #I guess in your opinion, hams are abnormal? #Is that correct?
Ya know, there are idiots and then there are stupid idiots. #I said to myself, this kind of "Cant we all just get along" thinking must reside, grow, and spread west of the Mississippi.
I have personally visited a BPL site and believe me, they really do interfere terribly. #I sat in the middle of a NY BPL site and was unable to operate HF mobile until I left the area and that's with a poor performancing HF hamstick on a car.
If you doubt the problem, then maybe you should volunteer your pole as an installation site. #Yes, I read everything about BPL and perhaps you should. #If it interferes with even one ham, it must be shut down. #Those are the rules. #Sorry about your 20 to 30 thousand couch potatoes. #I say too bad.
What idiots.
K2WH
Quote[/b] (kb6xg @ Dec. 22 2005,12:21)]Be sure to thank GW and his PRO business friends. LMAO Oh Ya. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Figures coming from the left coast. Thats why you guys voted for that idiot Kerry.
K2WH
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Dec. 23 2005,00:29)]Quote[/b] (N5UV @ Dec. 22 2005,16:05)]Yes, we heard about this locally about 3 days ago. #I'm fighting this tooth and nail as much as I can...
And if you get TXU Energy folks, think about switching over to Reliant. #Sure, the infrastructure belongs to TXU, but I don't mind giving TXU the figure one bit, so long as it has a (very small) impact on their bottom line.
This sounds like utter nonsense to me.
Sort of 'hate for the sake of hate', IMO.
Why would you possibly feel this way, if the system doesn't produce harmful interference to your communications?
I'll tell you why I feel that way even if it does not interfere.
It's because it is unregulated, over powered and driven by the need to make a buck regardless of anything else including the rules.
I dislike as much as Pirate and Free Band radio because that is exactly what I consider it since they flaunt the rules in the same way.
K2WH
I find it astounding that a few vocal hams still vilify BPL as the devil incarnate.
ESPECIALLY since there are OTHER. more dire and legitimate threats that seem to spring up daily. The latest: Theater owner are lobbying the FCC to introduce JAMMERS in this country.
Do you have any idea what a Pandora's box THAT would be?
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Dec. 23 2005,06:36)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Dec. 23 2005,00:29)]Quote[/b] (N5UV @ Dec. 22 2005,16:05)]Yes, we heard about this locally about 3 days ago. #I'm fighting this tooth and nail as much as I can...
And if you get TXU Energy folks, think about switching over to Reliant. #Sure, the infrastructure belongs to TXU, but I don't mind giving TXU the figure one bit, so long as it has a (very small) impact on their bottom line.
This sounds like utter nonsense to me.
Sort of 'hate for the sake of hate', IMO.
Why would you possibly feel this way, if the system doesn't produce harmful interference to your communications?
I'll tell you why I feel that way even if it does not interfere.
It's because it is unregulated, over powered and driven by the need to make a buck regardless of anything else including the rules.
I dislike as much as Pirate and Free Band radio because that is exactly what I consider it since they flaunt the rules in the same way.
K2WH
"I'll tell you why I feel that way even if it does not interfere."
(OK...)
It's because it is unregulated,
(Nope ...Part 15)
over powered
(microwatts...)
and driven by the need to make a buck
(God BLESS America!)
regardless of anything else including the rules."
(demonstrably false).
(Hope this helps).
(73,
Chip N1IR)
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Dec. 23 2005,06:15)]I have personally visited a BPL site and believe me, they really do interfere terribly. #I sat in the middle of a NY BPL site and was unable to operate HF mobile until I left the area and that's with a poor performancing HF hamstick on a car.
....
What idiots.
K2WH
A) Drive away;
B) Get a better antenna. Support ham manufacturers!
Hams look silly when they drive around with junk, IMO.
73,
Chip N1IR
-----------------------------
"Celebrating 50 years without an incident of dumpster diving; bin bargaining; or confusing thrift with street person antics "
K8YZK
12-23-2005, 04:58 PM
Quote[/b] (N8NOE @ Dec. 22 2005,23:10)]Quote[/b] (wa8vbx @ Dec. 22 2005,07:08)]Hope it ends up in Crawford, TX
Why do you hope this, You don't like TED NUGENT?...
Nope don't like Ted or George I think they both need a shot of reality.
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Dec. 23 2005,03:07)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Dec. 23 2005,06:15)]I have personally visited a BPL site and believe me, they really do interfere terribly. #I sat in the middle of a NY BPL site and was unable to operate HF mobile until I left the area and that's with a poor performancing HF hamstick on a car.
....
What idiots.
K2WH
A) Drive away;
B) Get a better antenna. Support ham #manufacturers!
Hams look silly when they drive around with junk, IMO.
73,
Chip N1IR
-----------------------------
"Celebrating 50 years without an incident of dumpster diving; bin bargaining; or confusing thrift with street person antics "
Sorry Chip, I'm licensed and they are not. There is no further discussion on that issue needed. I win.
BTW, what's this jammer stuff in theaters? I would imagine it's to eliminate cell phone usage.
K2WH
KD6NIG
12-23-2005, 06:49 PM
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Dec. 23 2005,11:07)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Dec. 23 2005,03:07)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Dec. 23 2005,06:15)]I have personally visited a BPL site and believe me, they really do interfere terribly. #I sat in the middle of a NY BPL site and was unable to operate HF mobile until I left the area and that's with a poor performancing HF hamstick on a car.
....
What idiots.
K2WH
A) Drive away;
B) Get a better antenna. Support ham #manufacturers!
Hams look silly when they drive around with junk, IMO.
73,
Chip N1IR
-----------------------------
"Celebrating 50 years without an incident of dumpster diving; bin bargaining; or confusing thrift with street person antics "
Sorry Chip, I'm licensed and they are not. #There is no further discussion on that issue needed. #I win.
BTW, what's this jammer stuff in theaters? #I would imagine it's to eliminate cell phone usage.
K2WH
...and recording of films by 'pirates' with camcorders http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Actually, it probably won't affect cellphones, though that would be a good thing also if it did http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
N5PVL
12-23-2005, 09:58 PM
I'd rather put up with BPL nationwide than have the ARRL sell out to WinLink and screw 98% of all hams in the US so that 2% can participate in illegal competition with commercial Internet providers.
BPL will obsolete and go away, but the ARRL's proposal will screw up the HF bands for a very long time, and serve to undermine Amateur Radio.
Quote[/b] (w5brw @ Dec. 22 2005,19:23)]Something to think about... #There is a technology called WiMax that will be coming on the market shortly. #It is a wireless broadband access technology that works in the 5.4 Ghz Range. #Doesn't interfere with any of the ham bands, uses a well defined narrow portion of it's band, and can be installed on every cell tower in the nation without ANY interference. #As for range, the current tested range is approx 30 miles omni directional from the tower. #If you look at the maps of the cell towers you will see this technology will cove all of the areas BPL is supposed to cover. #
It seems that we always want to bash one technology with out a path to something better. Well, here it is. #Enjoy. #
Now for those who love to flame, my numbers and facts may not be perfect, but they are pretty darn close. #Please do a little research before showing you low level of human decency and lack of knowledge.
Russell
W5BRW
Technology as usual, over rated, as usual...
Quote[/b] ]N5PVL Posted on Dec. 23 2005,13:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd rather put up with BPL nationwide than have the ARRL sell out to WinLink and screw 98% of all hams in the US so that 2% can participate in illegal competition with commercial Internet providers.
BPL will obsolete and go away, but the ARRL's proposal will screw up the HF bands for a very long time, and serve to undermine Amateur Radio.
Wonderful Charles! #As one of those who apparently "Bought" the ARRL allegiance so I can operate VHF and HF telpack nodes I appreciate the fact you'd rather throw the baby out with the bathwater then give up a sliver of band to somthing more usefull then geritol nets and ragchews.
You see, we use winlink for emcom - you know, actually somthing usefull, rather then passing #u r 5 5 9 from bumfrict TX OM, or yes Martha gave me my prunes and water pills today, why do you ask?
And as a contester I can tell you nothing would be worse then having my 40 watt node interfere with a 5 kw RA or UR station during the CQWW contest. #
The only problem is that the largest group of Winlink users are wealthy boat owners who use it to keep up with their friends and family as they travel the world, and it seems that a good many redneck trailer trash types can't stand letting the rich guys have ANY portion of the band without raising hell.
Get over it guys. #Winlink is not "commercial internet". #It is slow and kludgy on HF, but it works well for it's intended use. #There are currently 24 active nodes in the US. #THATS TWENTY FOUR, not TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND. #Do the math - how much bandwidth do 24 nodes take compared to 100% if BPL goes into your neighborhood you can kiss any mode goodbye - including the packet stuff you like to work with.
Please don't let the commercial interests use our squabbles against us like this. #Deal with BPL and other incursions to our bands first, then we can all have a good whinefest amoung ourselves about our own modes later.
k4eez
12-24-2005, 06:35 AM
Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 19 2005,20:07)]"CNet is reporting that Texas will soon be getting broadband over power lines. ...
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif Broadband Over Power Lines Hits a Snag http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif may be some hope yet http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Interference questions plague alternative form of high-speed Internet access.
Grant Gross, IDG News Service
Wednesday, January 07, 2004
If some radio operators have their way, broadband Internet access may never travel over power lines. Ham radio operators and at least one U.S. federal agency contend that the emerging technology interferes with their radio signals.
The American Radio Relay League (ARRL), a national ham radio association, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency are among the organizations that have raised concerns with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission over possible short-wave radio interference caused by broadband over power lines, often called BPL.
Companies experimenting with BPL, which uses traditional power lines to transmit data over the Internet, have promoted it as an inexpensive-to-deploy alternative to cable-modem or DSL services.
Some BPL supporters champion it as a way for broadband to reach rural and other areas with limited broadband service because of the near ubiquity of power lines.
Under Examination
The two sides are miles apart on the interference issue, which the FCC is examining in a request for public comments that has been ongoing since last April. The ham radio association says it has found radio interference in every place it has tested short-wave BPL systems, while representatives of the BPL industry say they can't find interference caused by their systems.
The FCC's rules already prohibit unlicensed electronic devices, including BPL transmitters, from interfering with licensed devices, such as ham radios. If the FCC were to find interference and enforce its existing rules, most of the BPL industry could be shut down. "If the commission were to follow its rules, that would be the practical effect," says Dave Sumner, chief executive officer of ARRL. "If the commission decides that BPL cannot operate in this country, that'd be fine with us."
Most BPL vendors use devices called repeaters to amplify and clean up the data signal carried on power lines, and those devices, as well as BPL modems, emit frequencies in the same range as radios used by ham radio operators and some emergency responders, according to the ARRL. Some BPL vendors are experimenting with devices that use microwave signals, and the ARRL says those devices would not interfere with ham radios.
But Current Technologies, which offers BPL service in the Cincinnati and Rockville, Maryland, areas, can't find interference caused by its system, says Jay Birnbaum, the company's vice president and general counsel. Current Technologies uses a technology standard called HomePlug, designed to not interfere with other radio signals.
"[Interference] just doesn't exist," Birnbaum says. "They based a lot of their assumptions on outdated noise flow analysis."
Overprotective?
Birnbaum accuses the ARRL of being overprotective of its turf. "The decision-maker here is not the ham radio community--the decision-maker is the FCC," he says. "It's been [ARRL's] policy to oppose any new technology that causes emissions, whether they be harmful or not." ARRL does maintain a Web page listing nine technologies it calls "threats to our amateur bands."
It doesn't make sense for BPL companies like Current Technologies to move forward with their business plans and financing if they're causing interference, because the FCC could immediately shut them down if they did, Birnbaum adds. Any interference the ARRL is measuring might be coming from other licensed radio devices, he says.
"If it turns out I'm trying to make a device or sell a device that would cause interference anytime it's used, it kind of belies logic that I could raise money to do that," Birnbaum says.
The ARRL has posted a video on its Web site showing interference in four BPL test areas, including Current Technologies' Maryland location. "For them to say that [they don't cause interference] shows they don't know what they're talking about," Sumner says of Current's position. "It's a classic case of denial. We'd be glad to go down and show them the interference we've observed on their system."
If the FCC were to enforce its existing rules against interference, ARRL would be happy, Sumner says. ARRL became concerned that the FCC would relax its interference rules when commissioners praised BPL during a commission meeting in April, he says. FCC Chairman Michael Powell called BPL a "monumental breakthrough in technology."
"The benefits don't outweigh the negative consequences," Sumner says. "You're taking a part of the radio spectrum that's unique--it's the only part of the radio spectrum that supports communications long distance without infrastructure."
Next Step
The FCC has received about 5000 comments on BPL, and a possible next step would be to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking later this year, if the commission determines new rules are needed for BPL, an FCC spokesperson says. In December, the Federal Emergency Management Agency filed comments saying BPL could "severely impair FEMA's mission-essential HF radio operations."
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration at the U.S. Department of Commerce is conducting its own study, and phase one is due out in the first half of 2004. The agency is attempting to address the balance between accommodation of BPL and protection of vital federal and private services, according to an agency spokesperson.
The FEMA objections simply repeat the concerns of the ARRL, says Brett Kilbourne, director of regulatory services and associate counsel at the United PowerLine Council. The FCC should allow BPL to continue operating after it's finished researching the issue, he says.
"Our experience in the field contradicts what [the ARRL is] alleging," Kilbourne says. "We're entirely satisfied that there won't be any interference."
the ure can been sean for all to read via the link below:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,114135,00.asp
K4EEZ
"The only problem is that the largest group of Winlink users are wealthy boat owners who use it to keep up with their friends and family as they travel the world, and it seems that"
<FONT FACE="times new roman" size="+2" color=red>"a good many redneck trailer trash types can't stand letting the rich guys have ANY portion of the band without raising hell."
It's getting ugly folks. #For your information, rich or not, a ham cannot "Have" a portion of a band. #It's use is for all, rich or poor. #You are so out of touch with reality.
The guy who wrote the above quote, probably hates blacks and Latinos too. #I guess he's one of those rich white guys with a boat and trailer.
K2WH
ad4mg
12-24-2005, 01:13 PM
Quote[/b] ]W7RAI: #The only problem is that the largest group of Winlink users are wealthy boat owners who use it to keep up with their friends and family as they travel the world, and it seems that a good many redneck trailer trash types can't stand letting the rich guys have ANY portion of the band without raising hell.
Why can't the wealthy boat owners use the available commercial services as Part 97 directs instead of ripping off these legitimate commercial service providers using amateur radio frequencies?
Leave it to a Winlink LID to hijack a BPL thread with some stupid WL2K endorsement. #Just proves the mindset of these people. #If you are not a wealthy boat owner, then you have no right to complain about blatant abuse of the amateur radio service.
Now who's the cheapskate? #Boy, if any of those legitimate commercial service providers decide to seek compensation for the lost revenue caused by wealthy boat owners thumbing their noses at Part 97 regulations using WL2K to escape ISP fees, there sure will be a lot of us "redneck trailer trash types" getting the last laugh. #This post has inspired me to contact these small, legitimate commercial service providers with some statistics to see if they may be interested. #Thanks for the inspiration!
KD5NCO
12-24-2005, 03:37 PM
Really ironic (in my opinion), that it is mostly here, (on the internet), that we listen (read) to all the "noise" against Broadband over Power Line (BPL).
In the last 3 years I have listened to hundreds (maybe thousands) of daily 20,40,80 and 160 meter QSOs. I think the issue of BPL was chatted about 20 or so times and only in the context of "they better not put one of those things in MY area". Or perhaps the QSO was just a rant about ARRL's defense fund mail requests.
Notably absent, in ALL those rag chew QSOs, was any complaint that "that darned BPL has my noise level over S9 here"!
I don't recall ever hearing any, on the air, words complaining of local noisy conditions for a particular Ham complaining that a BPL source as the problem.
And I know for a fact that every day I hear several QSOs where the Ham is complaining about a electric fence, a neighbors out door flood light, touch lamps, faulty transformer connections, computer monitor, idling vehicles, and about a dozen other sources of loud and annoying interference.
At the risk of being redundant: I have not heard any QSO in the last three years where a fellow Amateur was complaining that he had to QSY because the BPL interference was making it impossible to continue on the frequency.
But log onto QRZ and let the noise begin! #Usually with a fair amount of anti FCC, (Powell, or Abernathy) or anti President Bush emotional BS with a good slathering of anti N1IR, aka Chip, or any other fellow Ham with a reasonable contrary opinion.
I live out in the sticks and until I got a wireless RF linked, (WiFi), Broad band connection our use of the internet was very limited because dial up was limited to 14-36 Kbps. Much to slow to consider clicking on the GigaParts contest link and entering the sweepstakes. I would hit the escape key to stop the flashing, scrolling banner ads here on QRZ just so I could use the site. Fortunately I was presented the option of the WiFi solution this year. Had that not happened, I was hoping that BPL might consider my rural area. I did the research and was fairly confident that even with a BPL in my neighbor hood I could still find a way to enjoy my Amateur radio interests. I was also confident that if I was adversely impacted by any BPL sourced interference that I had just as good a chance to get is resolved as if I had a bad transformer connection found and repaired by my power company.
The notion that BPL will destroy Amateur radio is certainly not proving to be true. If you do a little research you will find that BPL is most likely a doomed to failure internet method, is has not gained the mass following to be a dominant method. There are now (and future) Broad band methods that are faster, cheaper to implement, and the technology (and IEEE standards changes) exceeds BPL capabilities. #BPL has not adversely effected any first responders, fire, piolice or other safety personnel who rely on radio communications.
BPL in the last 3 years has only adversely effected a hand full of fixed Amateur stations. There are several examples where BPL providers worked with local Hams to mitigate and minimize the interference. The ARRL and a few here have managed to add to the fear and frustration of Hams to the point that some advocate deliberately interfering with BPL sites.
I think that the more we Amateurs are militant, interfere with legitimate business, irrationally vilify public officials, and behave in this manner is going to cause us much more grief the any full implementation of BPL ever would.
ad4mg
12-24-2005, 03:38 PM
And ... to reurn to the topic of the thread, please consider what Chip offers. #It's not what many want to hear, but his view is accurate and realistic. #If the system does not interfere with licensed services (including, but not limited to the amateur radio service), then "no harm, no foul" should apply.
I think Chip will agree that if harmful interference occurs in the amateur radio spectrum, then the FCC should take appropriate action to see that the harmful interference is terminated. #I, like many others, believe that BPL deployments will be few and far between just because of the multiple alternatives available, and the potential for interference from licensed services, which I think will make the most significant impact. #The danger to the amateur service is that we could be perceived as the source of interference to internet services provided by BPL. #Education of the public at large is the key to preventing this. #Howling and screaming like a bunch of 3 year olds will only substantiate any claims that we are the problem.
Documentation of cooperation with BPL providers, recording their success or failure to resolve interference problems will play very well to the FCC. #They cannot deny legitimate interference complaints, especially if we can get the general public to understand the relationship between licensed services and Part 15 unlicensed transmissions. #It must be understood that Part 15 devices must accept any interference from a licensed service, and must not cause interference to licensed services. #That's the law, and the FCC is responsible for enforcing these laws.
The recent approach towards documentation of attempted cooperation with BPL providers by the ARRL is the correct method to seek mitigation of these issues. #The "slash and burn" mentality suggested by some will assure our failure to "win" this "battle".
Merry Christmas, and Happy Holidays to all.
Best 73,
Luke
KD5NCO:
"At the risk of being redundant: I have not heard any QSO in the last three years where a fellow Amateur was complaining that he had to QSY because the BPL interference was making it impossible to continue on the frequency."
If this is so, then you are ignorant of the facts, perhaps deliberately. #You may not have PERSONNALY heard this complaint, but it is a very real, a very well documented problem and published throughout ham internent sites, notably, the ARRL website.
How can you ignore the plights of the many hams where these installations have been installed and then summarily uninstalled due to the interference complaints? #Do you live in a phone booth? #Where have you been? #I don't care if it is (1) ham that is having a problem with BPL, that is too many. #I wonder how many hams subjected to BPL interference would be too many for you? #Hams are licensed and BPL is not.
How can you ignore the ongoing problems in Virginia where operation on the ham bands in the deployment area is almost impossible. #This has been going on for years.
And another thing, your commment about QSY'ing because of BPL interference, there is no such thing. #It permeates the entire band or bands. #You can't QSY but you can go QRT. #Its not so much that there are so few hams affected by this, it is the danger of a build out that will affect many more hams, perhaps even you. #Then again, being a tech, doesn't give you the same sense of urgency or danger BPL can bring.
The very fact that you are a technician class licensee, #without HF priviledges, explains why you can make and have been making these ridiculous statements.
K2WH
Quote[/b] ]K2WH
It's getting ugly folks. #For your information, rich or not, a ham cannot "Have" a portion of a band. #It's use is for all, rich or poor. #You are so out of touch with reality.
The guy who wrote the above quote, probably hates blacks and Latinos too. #I guess he's one of those rich white guys with a boat and trailer.
K2WH
William,
You might take a moment to read the other guys bio before you write them off as a racist biggot silver spoon type. #I'm as much the redneck as many others on this site - rather go hunting and fishing then to the ballet or opera any day.
And PLEASE if you like opera or ballet don't send me hatemail - I sing in a barbershop quartet, so it's a style choice not a hatred of the arts!
My years in the millitary taught me to value the individual, not the ethnic group, socio-economic status, religion, gender...
And my boat would be considered a "tender" for those world travling hams in their large yachts.
Since when does using a particular mode mean you "Own" or "Have" a portion of the band? #Does this mean we should ditch SSTV, since they constanly use the 14.227 area of 20 meters?
BTW, LOVE the old halicrafters gear. #While CW will live on forever, we swhould cherish the old tube gear, for one day it will be shelf stock in a museum for lack of spares.
Quote[/b] ] AD4MG
Leave it to a Winlink LID to hijack a BPL thread with some stupid WL2K endorsement. #Just proves the mindset of these people. #If you are not a wealthy boat owner, then you have no right to complain about blatant abuse of the amateur radio service.
Luke,
I'M A LID! #Wow, after two rounds of liscensing, thousands of Q's, many hacked radios (and a few killed sadly) I've finally reached LID status. #And labeled so by a fellow emcom op. #Thanks!
If you read the bio you might notice I'm The ARES/RACES DEC and deputy state radio officer for my district. #We are in the process of switching from packet to WL2K and airmail. #Yep, it replaces the good old kludged up mess that packet has become with a streamlined simple GUI that looks like :::gasp::: email.
We have winlink nodes on VHF in virtually every county. #I can log in and check my "Ham" email. #And when somone from one of our served agencies wants to send a message we do it through the nearest working node with a net connection - wow, sending an actual email to the person it is addressed to. #Without having to go through 12 hops in a packet network, which we hope is working, and won't delay the messages till the cows come home. #And since I don't own cows that might be awhile.
Like some others on this site (Chip, quit grinning) I like to kick the hornets nest from time to time and see what happens. #My point(s) to starting this mess was simple. #
We continue to attack modes, or changes in modes and uses (WL2K, code vs no code, contesting vs rag chewing)
while the enemy eats away at our strengths and bandwidth. #Comments like the one Charles made are what the enemy feeds on. #If WL2K is competiton with the wireless IP's, then isn't echolink or IRLP competition with the phone companies?
Folks, BPL in it's current form would kill HF operation as we know it. #No contesting, PSK, WL2K, DX, Ragchew nets or anything else works through S9+40 noise.
Lets get this monkey off our backs. #Right now the ARRL is the only organization actively fighting against it. #If the ARRL closed it's doors tomorrow, who would take up the fight?
Not Charles. #He would be trying to get WL2K banned.
Merry Christmas to all, oh noble OM's and YL's!
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Dec. 24 2005,05:56)]"The only problem is that the largest group of Winlink users are wealthy boat owners who use it to keep up with their friends and family as they travel the world, and it seems that"
<FONT FACE="times new roman" size="+2" color=red>"a good many redneck trailer trash types can't stand letting the rich guys have ANY portion of the band without raising hell."
It's getting ugly folks. #For your information, rich or not, a ham cannot "Have" a portion of a band. #It's use is for all, rich or poor. #You are so out of touch with reality.
The guy who wrote the above quote, probably hates blacks and Latinos too. #I guess he's one of those rich white guys with a boat and trailer.
K2WH
Gee wizzers,
This is sure getting B-O-R-I-N-G.
And off-topic too.
Quote[/b] (K1BG @ Dec. 22 2005,20:18)]Some quick comments -
Current Technologies BPL system appears amateur friendly. #It uses 30 - 50 MHz spectrum. #I saw a presentation by Current last spring, and they decided (for the time being) to avoid interference to amateurs. #You will be dissapointed if you look for interference where they deploy.
Most of the BPL manufacturers are not BPL friendly, but there are several exceptions. #The QST I just opened briefly mentions them.
WiMax has great potential. #Think of it as WiFi on steroids. #But there are several problems. #First, wild claims are being made. #True, 50 miles is possible, but only in a deployment similar to point to point microwave - hi gain dishes and the like. #In a typical point to point applications (PC to distribution node), it will perform a little better than current systems. #A big problem in the US is spectrum for these systems. #None has been allocated specifically for WiMax. #Internationally there is spectrum dedicated for carriers. #Here, there is talk about using unlicenced spectrum at 5.8, or the unused MMDS spectum. #So there are more questions to be answered for WiMax.
I don't think WiMax will be the BPL killer. #But who knows?
Bruce, K1BG
A pithy summary of the facts and likely scenario.
Merry Crimble, Big Gun!
Chip
n0uyx
12-24-2005, 11:08 PM
BPL it's is another form of Domestic spying!!!! It's their way of hoping to spy on millions of americans!!! Socilizm is here!!! Were are no long free!!! They are taking over just like the late great Gen. McAurthor said they would!!!
Oh by the way I live in Texas!!!
n0uyx
12-24-2005, 11:13 PM
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Dec. 24 2005,12:55)]Quote[/b] (K1BG @ Dec. 22 2005,20:18)]Some quick comments -
Current Technologies BPL system appears amateur friendly. #It uses 30 - 50 MHz spectrum. #I saw a presentation by Current last spring, and they decided (for the time being) to avoid interference to amateurs. #You will be dissapointed if you look for interference where they deploy.
Most of the BPL manufacturers are not BPL friendly, but there are several exceptions. #The QST I just opened briefly mentions them.
WiMax has great potential. #Think of it as WiFi on steroids. #But there are several problems. #First, wild claims are being made. #True, 50 miles is possible, but only in a deployment similar to point to point microwave - hi gain dishes and the like. #In a typical point to point applications (PC to distribution node), it will perform a little better than current systems. #A big problem in the US is spectrum for these systems. #None has been allocated specifically for WiMax. #Internationally there is spectrum dedicated for carriers. #Here, there is talk about using unlicenced spectrum at 5.8, or the unused MMDS spectum. #So there are more questions to be answered for WiMax.
I don't think WiMax will be the BPL killer. #But who knows?
Bruce, K1BG
A pithy summary of the facts and likely scenario.
Merry Crimble, Big Gun!
Chip
A presentation!!!! What an idiot!!! its like text book conditions!! hello get a grip with reality!!!
ad4mg
12-24-2005, 11:17 PM
Quote[/b] ]W7RAI: # Luke,
I'M A LID! #Wow, after two rounds of liscensing, thousands of Q's, many hacked radios (and a few killed sadly) I've finally reached LID status. #And labeled so by a fellow emcom op. #Thanks!
If you read the bio you might notice I'm The ARES/RACES DEC and deputy state radio officer for my district. #We are in the process of switching from packet to WL2K and airmail. #Yep, it replaces the good old kludged up mess that packet has become with a streamlined simple GUI that looks like :::gasp::: email. ...snip
OK, so you baited Charles, and hooked me. #I wasn't on the "bash WL2K" bandwagon ... I was simply observing the thread before that "redneck vs rich guy" remark. #You did, however, touch on the one objection I have to the Winlink network. #Steve ('cjx) and I have discussed the issue to death here. #We agree to disagree on some points. #I have always seen value in WL2K for Ecomm, and no doubt you see the digital reference in my signature. #And, in some parts of the country, the packet network is in shambles. #We still use packet, but we created our own network, independent of others. #It works well for us with the 32 bit mailer I wrote in VB 6 that insulates the operator from the archaic command set used in bbs software (Jnos here).
Your "attention-getter" could have been better planned ... it could have had dire consequences. #And for the bio ... I read the words a man posts, and his bio is a secondary consideration. #I figure most post exactly what they mean.
But it's Christmas Eve, and I'm in no mood to fuss and fight, so its water under the bridge. #And we've made Chip grumpy ... can't have that! #I'm still with ya Chip ... you speak the truth, and sometimes that hurts a little to hear.
Merry Christmas everyone, and Best Holiday Wishes to those who celebrate their respective holidays this same time of year. #I'm off to spend the evening with friends and family, for this is a special Christmas for us, having received our own Christmas miracle, but that's another story I may share in the future!
Best 73 all, and take care,
Luke and Candy (KF4DJV).
n0uyx
12-24-2005, 11:19 PM
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Dec. 24 2005,12:50)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Dec. 24 2005,05:56)]"The only problem is that the largest group of Winlink users are wealthy boat owners who use it to keep up with their friends and family as they travel the world, and it seems that"
<FONT FACE="times new roman" size="+2" color=red>"a good many redneck trailer trash types can't stand letting the rich guys have ANY portion of the band without raising hell."
It's getting ugly folks. #For your information, rich or not, a ham cannot "Have" a portion of a band. #It's use is for all, rich or poor. #You are so out of touch with reality.
The guy who wrote the above quote, probably hates blacks and Latinos too. #I guess he's one of those rich white guys with a boat and trailer.
K2WH
Gee wizzers,
This is sure getting B-O-R-I-N-G.
And off-topic too.
I own a Bass boat and trailor too and im poor whats your point? sounds like profiling to me....so that makes me a hater too? Get a grip...this BPL is being shoved down our throats!!! it's our Goverments way of increasing its ability to spy on our activities. Mark my words the late great Gen. McAurthor said it years ago!!! they are taking over one step at a time!!!
n0uyx
12-24-2005, 11:55 PM
http://www.vk1od.net/bpl/AreYouReady.htm
Hey take a look at the above link and you tell me what BPL does!!!!
Why do we need broadband internet? nobody needs it but just because some people think they do then we are gonna wipe out all these radioes that weve had for decades just to get broadband internet!!! Also what about CB? its gonna wipe it out too!!! I know tons of people that utilize it every day just because somepeople think they need broadband internet!!!! that isnt a need!! thats a want!!! so why do the needs of the ignorant out weight the needs of the intelligent?
n0uyx
12-24-2005, 11:58 PM
if nobody is complaining then why does the ARRL say they need to fight it in Virginia? Hum lets see....doesnt make sense!!! Some people dont have a clue!!!! just becuase you dont see it on CNN dont mean it doesnt happen. they should send you to some of these third world countries and see what goes on that never makes the news in the good ol USA!!!!!! Ignorance is every where!!!!
Quote[/b] (n0uyx @ Dec. 24 2005,16:55)]http://www.vk1od.net/bpl/AreYouReady.htm
Hey take a look at the above link and you tell me what BPL does!!!!
Why do we need broadband internet? nobody needs it but just because some people think they do then we are gonna wipe out all these radioes that weve had for decades just to get broadband internet!!! Also what about CB? its gonna wipe it out too!!! I know tons of people that utilize it every day just because somepeople think they need broadband internet!!!! that isnt a need!! thats a want!!! so why do the needs of the ignorant out weight the needs of the intelligent?
!!! Help me!!!
I'm drowning in exclamation points on a side trip to a rational argument!!!!
Quote[/b] ]n0uyx Posted on Dec. 24 2005,15:19
Gee wizzers,
This is sure getting B-O-R-I-N-G.
And off-topic too.
I own a Bass boat and trailor too and im poor whats your point? sounds like profiling to me....so that makes me a hater too? Get a grip...this BPL is being shoved down our throats!!! it's our Goverments way of increasing its ability to spy on our activities. Mark my words the late great Gen. McAurthor said it years ago!!! they are taking over one step at a time!!!
Randal,
First off, congrats on the upgrade to General. #I hope Hawkins is not on the list of places to "get" BPL and that you have a chance to enjoy it.
Second, NICE FISH! #Man I wish we had Bass like that here - makes our stuff look like bait.
Third - you hit the nail on the head. #Guys like Charles get riled up when they comment on modes like WL2K because it's perceived as a "poor little rich boys" mode. #And of course that "us vs them" mentality only serves to weaken our hobby. #I can't aford an ICOM 7800 or one of the new FTDX radios, but I'm glad someone can enjoy them. #There are modes that I either chose not to or have no interest in using, but I don't bash them.
Well perhaps echolink but we won't go there.
Quote[/b] ] #AD4MG
Your "attention-getter" could have been better planned ... it could have had dire consequences. #And for the bio ... I read the words a man posts, and his bio is a secondary consideration. #I figure most post exactly what they mean.
Guilty as charged, and thanks for the olive branch. #I allowed my frustration to taint my comments, and however effective in outcome still not a good choice.
I would like to see what you have done about packet. #Our system was plagued by "operator personality issues" that I don't need to dwell on - sounds like you dealt with it as well. #Would appreciate a copy of your "How to" if you ever have time.
To all (including Charles) a very merry Christmas.
73 DE W7RAI #_._
KG4JYD
12-26-2005, 02:42 AM
Ahhh yes... I am glad I could stir the hornets nest with my original post http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
But in reality, I think that debate and discussion on this issue is needed as an exchange of information is almost always a good thing.
Carry on!
k4eez
12-26-2005, 05:54 AM
B P L
Ignorance is every where!!!!
W9WHE
12-27-2005, 04:00 PM
Fear not Texans!
The mighty ARRL will simply write a "strongly worded" letter demanding that FCC "shut the flawed" system down and that will be the end of it.
What, you say? You mean that FCC will ignore the mighty ARRL? How could that be?
W9WHE
Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Dec. 27 2005,09:00)]Fear not Texans!
The mighty ARRL will simply write a "strongly worded" letter demanding that FCC "shut the flawed" system down and that will be the end of it.
What, you say? You mean that FCC will ignore the mighty ARRL? How could that be? #
W9WHE
I am of the opinion that the FCC has taken the appropriate tone of cooperation, encouraging the ARRL and BPL sources to work together. The fact that this has FAILED overall is not a fault of the FCC. IMO, the ARRL has done more than its share to lead to this outcome.
The ARRL does NOT represent amateur radio. It cannot, because it does not have a mandate from licensed amateurs to do so. You, individually, have to ask what the ARRL has accomplished.
IMO, it has not accomplished anything positive in the BPL situation, and has alienated many radio amateurs; the wireless industry; the telecom industry; the FCC; and others. Your opinion may differ.
WA3KYY
12-28-2005, 02:19 PM
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Dec. 28 2005,04:57)]Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Dec. 27 2005,09:00)]Fear not Texans!
The mighty ARRL will simply write a "strongly worded" letter demanding that FCC "shut the flawed" system down and that will be the end of it.
What, you say? You mean that FCC will ignore the mighty ARRL? How could that be? #
W9WHE
I am of the opinion that the FCC has taken the appropriate tone of cooperation, encouraging the ARRL and BPL sources to work together. The fact that this has FAILED overall is not a fault of the FCC. IMO, the ARRL has done more than its share to lead to this outcome.
The ARRL does NOT represent amateur radio. It cannot, because it does not have a mandate from licensed amateurs to do so. You, individually, have to ask what the ARRL has accomplished.
IMO, it has not accomplished anything positive in the BPL situation, and has alienated many radio amateurs; the wireless industry; the telecom industry; the FCC; and others. Your opinion may differ.
Chip,
You are discounting several very positive things the ARRL has done in cooperation with some BPL manufactuerers. They have worked with Home Plug almost from the very beginning to ensure their modems do not cause interference to amateur radio and with the exception of 60M, they do not. They have worked with Motorola to test the notching in their equipment and also to test the sensitivity of their equipment to ingress interference from amatuer radio transmitters. They have the Motorola system installed at HQ and it is working well with no interference in either direction. The also have a seat on two IEEE standards bodies that deal directly or indirectly with BPL. That sounds like very healthy cooperation with those industry players that chose to cooperate. YMMV.
73,
Mike WA3KYY
Please do some research before knee-jerk posting. I know that goes against the internet spirit of instant gratification and lack of fact checking by an editor, but miracles do happen. #
All BPL systems are not the same, especially in regards to interference to Amateur Radio. #For example, the ARRL actually has a benign Motorola BPL in place at their HQ's!.
I believe the system proposed for North Texas is similar in technology to the one in place in Cincinnati, Ohio as reported by Amateur Radio Newsline. #The Cincinnati installation has been fairly benign to Amateur operation compared to the BPL broadband noise generators in Manassas, VA or Emmaus, PA.
Amateurs who jump up and down without checking facts first don't make us look very technically proficient.
73
Gary, K2GW
It does seem to me that we understand that 'non profit', in the case the ARRL/NAAR, does NOT mean: 'non-partisan'. The ARRL/NAAR has definitely chosen to endorse, IMO, specific companies on a matter that does not concern licensed radio amateurs. Again, IMO--This is just plain wrong: endorsing companies is NOT the same as advocating TECHNOLOGY solutions that adhere to Part 15. The #latter is what any organization TRYING to speak on behalf of the ARS should espouse.
And that is why there is, as I opined, a failure.
WA3KYY
12-29-2005, 02:15 PM
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Dec. 28 2005,15:11)]It does seem to me that we understand that 'non profit', in the case the ARRL/NAAR, does NOT mean: 'non-partisan'. The ARRL/NAAR has definitely chosen to endorse, IMO, specific companies on a matter that does not concern licensed radio amateurs. Again, IMO--This is just plain wrong: endorsing companies is NOT the same as advocating TECHNOLOGY solutions that adhere to Part 15. The #latter is what any organization TRYING to speak on behalf of the ARS should espouse.
And that is why there is, as I opined, a failure.
Chip I disagree. Pointing out to potential service providers which equipment causes minimal or no interference to the amateur service and which equipment is also immune or resistant to interference from amateur transmissions serves the interests of both amatuers and the service providers. The technological solutions are well known. If all equipment manufacturers had properly implemented them, there would be no need to identify specific makers who had amateur radio friendly equipment. Having service providers deploy equipment that does not interfere is a very valid concern of licensed amateur radio operators.
I also strongly believe that I have the legal right to operate an HF mobile station anywhere under FCC jurisdiction the regulations and laws permit without harmful interference, including smack in the middle of the Masassas, VA BPL area. If I am unable to do so, I expect the FCC to enforce Part 15 so that I am able to do so. However, if service providers take advantage of the information provided by the ARRL to chose equipment makers who do not cause interference on the amater frequencies, I will never have to file a complaint. Thus the ARRL is correct in publicly endorsing equipment makers who manufacture equipment that does not interfere.
73,
Mike WA3KYY
Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ Dec. 29 2005,07:15)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Dec. 28 2005,15:11)]It does seem to me that we understand that 'non profit', in the case the ARRL/NAAR, does NOT mean: 'non-partisan'. The ARRL/NAAR has definitely chosen to endorse, IMO, specific companies on a matter that does not concern licensed radio amateurs. Again, IMO--This is just plain wrong: endorsing companies is NOT the same as advocating TECHNOLOGY solutions that adhere to Part 15. The #latter is what any organization TRYING to speak on behalf of the ARS should espouse.
And that is why there is, as I opined, a failure.
Chip I disagree. #Pointing out to potential service providers which equipment causes minimal or no interference to the amateur service and which equipment is also immune or resistant to interference from amateur transmissions serves the interests of both amatuers and the service providers. #The technological solutions are well known. #If all equipment manufacturers had properly implemented them, there would be no need to identify specific makers who had amateur radio friendly equipment. #Having service providers deploy equipment that does not interfere is a very valid concern of licensed amateur radio operators.
I also strongly believe that I have the legal right to operate an HF mobile station anywhere under FCC jurisdiction the regulations and laws permit without harmful interference, including smack in the middle of the Masassas, VA BPL area. #If I am unable to do so, I expect the FCC to enforce Part 15 so that I am able to do so. #However, if service providers take advantage of the information provided by the ARRL to chose equipment makers who do not cause interference on the amater frequencies, I will never have to file a complaint. Thus the ARRL is correct in publicly endorsing equipment makers who manufacture equipment that does not interfere.
73,
Mike WA3KYY
Endorsements , whether direct or veiled, of particular manufacturers of Part 15 equipment don't appear in the mission statement(s) of the ARRL/NAAR.
It would have been far more constructive to work with the industry. And please don't tell me the manufacturers are at fault for this break-down.
Remember: the ARRL/NAAR represents about 20% of the radio amateurs in this country. That's 80% who have chosen not to be affiliated. It is a choice.
Anyone seeing those numbers, outside the ARS, understands what it means.
But a minority origanization that spins, IMO, fire and hyperbole, still manages to tarnish the view of amateur radio, outside of amateur radio. I appreciate that your opinion may differ.
Indeed: in the last two years, 'hams' have become a baseline of sorts-- if you "need" hams, then your other telecom options are dire failures.
It never used to look that way, folks. Look deep into this 'hobby' and ask what led to these pathological disconnects.
73,
Chip N1IR
kb2vxa
12-29-2005, 05:21 PM
Hi all,
If it doesn't interfere with our communications it's no skin off our noses, right? (SWLing is a separate concern.)
Never mind the ARRL's "mission statement" since it's a mission to Mars without a guidance system that never got off the ground anyway. As for endorsements, they can endorse anything they like since none of it has anything to do with thier incorporation.
Please understand that incorporation as a non-profit organization is simply a way to avoid the capital gains tax since the corporation itself shows no profit. That's not to say there's no such thing as "adminitrative costs", or in other words there are always those hidden profits, it's all in the "creative accounting". Then too THAT can of worms was addressed when the books were opened in the last report and it seems to have set off the usual explosion among the membership.
"Look deep into this 'hobby' and ask what led to these pathological disconnects."
(Are the marks around "hobby" for emphasis or misuse of the keyboard? W.E.)
That depends as always on the pathologist's report. There are always several (even if Chip seems to be the usual autopsy) and some brains are indeed disconnected. Now why does this poor guy always end up embroiled in mutual misunderstanding? I just hope you guys can understand (re: incorporation) that what's legal isn't always what's right and will come to know the difference.
Quote[/b] (kb2vxa @ Dec. 29 2005,10:21)]Hi all,
If it doesn't interfere with our communications it's no skin off our noses, right? (SWLing is a separate concern.)
Never mind the ARRL's "mission statement" since it's a mission to Mars without a guidance system that never got off the ground anyway. As for endorsements, they can endorse anything they like since none of it has anything to do with thier incorporation.
Please understand that incorporation as a non-profit organization is simply a way to avoid the capital gains tax since the corporation itself shows no profit. That's not to say there's no such thing as "adminitrative costs", or in other words there are always those hidden profits, it's all in the "creative accounting". Then too THAT can of worms was addressed when the books were opened in the last report and it seems to have set off the usual explosion among the membership.
"Look deep into this 'hobby' and ask what led to these pathological disconnects."
(Are the marks around "hobby" for emphasis or misuse of the keyboard? W.E.)
That depends as always on the pathologist's report. There are always several (even if Chip seems to be the usual autopsy) and some brains are indeed disconnected. Now why does this poor guy always end up embroiled in mutual misunderstanding? I just hope you guys can understand (re: incorporation) that what's legal isn't always what's right and will come to know the difference.
This essay has nothing to do with my statements. I categorically deny, and it is demonstrably false, that its interpretation of 'non-profits' has anything to do with my comments.
A mission statement is a focus for a group. It's what the group stands for, it's what they seek to accomplish. It has nothing to do with profit, unless profit is part of the mission.
My point is that, IMO, impartiality is missing in said organization.
I am a guy; I am not poor.
KD5NCO
12-30-2005, 02:44 PM
Brent KB6XG
Pay attention and try defend you asinine assertion that George Bush is to blame along with his business buddies for the BPL problem that affects U.S. Amateurs.
Simple facts are that there is a very large segment of U.S. citizens that are not currently able to link to the internet with the bandwidth necessary to realize all the benefit that is possible or necessary. This is a big social, political, and economic problem. It relates to safety, commerce, and rapid dissemination of information.
The Amateur Radio Service (ARS) is no longer perceived or valued as a service, or as a necessary expenditure, to the military, government, nor the average citizen. Nor do the ARS members collectively have an adequate advocate in government. The ARRL does NOT represent all ARS members. Not even a majority of the licensed Amateurs.
Additionally is the fact that of the 600,000 +/- licensed Amateurs with only about half as active members. So there are about 300,000 licensed, active citizen’s needs, compared to 130 million (estimated) "dial up only" citizens’ needs. This disparity seems to suggest that we ARS citizens are not in a position to demand consideration without being able to demonstrate where our needs outweighs the other groups needs.
This is key.... we are currently perceived as a bunch of OLD MEN with a ancient hobby!
The FCC, Powell and Abernathy, and the President of the United States all have an oath and responsibility to provide for the greater good. In each of the three biggest problems we raised to our government in the last 5 years (BPL, CC&R, and Spectrum Defense) those elected and appointed officials were responsible to determine the facts, determine the options, and enact rules, or regulations that provide for the greater good of ALL the citizens and business interests.
We have the luxury of living in a country that give us, a minority interest, the opportunity to plead our case and be heard. In each of these major issues the advocate for us presented ignorant and uncompromising positions. They (the ARL) caused us to all be considered hostel by industry and government. In each case the government has had to deal with loud, politically motivated, whinny, selfish, uncompromising noise for a very small segment of American society. Our image was tarnished, our standing was diminished, and we may well never recover from this damage.
Chip, I, and a few others here at QRZ have been saying for a few years now that the problem with BPL has been exaggerated and exploited by the ARRL.
We do not think the loud cacophony of noise relating to BPL vs the ARS is a wise endeavor. We do not think ARS members whipped into a Militant frenzy is good for the ARS.
We understand that to effectively argue in defense of the ARS, we (the ARS) must have respect and standing within government but more importantly among our fellow citizens.
We believe that when the ARRL claims to represent ALL of us and then asserts ignorant and untenable positions on our behalf that it is to the detriment of ALL of us.
I believe that QRZ members here who try to incite members of the ARS to write letters, threaten, and deliberately interfere with a legal, legitimate business can cause us much harm and invokes an entire industry to react to us as enemies.
I believe that QRZ members here that attempt to incite #Amateurs to deliberately interfere with BPL sites is a wacko militant response that makes us all look silly, mean, stupid, and childish.
To win against BPL we must have an active role in Homeland defense and also demonstrate that the current protections are not adequate to protect our ability to communicate. Yes, we can prove the latter but certainly not the former.
To have the FCC and the Congress provide protections to our necessary bandwidth we must demonstrate total and full use of ALL that is already provided. We must be able to compromise and accept relinquishing some of the unused and unnecessary bandwidth back to the government.
To cause the government to override local authority on Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions relating to Antennas we must prove that our Homeland defense role is severely impacted by such restrictions.
It will never be enough to claim standing on ANY of these important issues because we are OLD MEN with a neat HOBBY! The benefits to industry, all other home owners, and the government should not be changed to appease a few old men with a neat hobby.
We need relevance.
We need to increase our numbers to well over 1.5 million.
We must change the perception that we are OLD MEN HOBBYISTS.
We need a MAJORITY of all licensed ARS members to belong to some fraternal organization that can effectively represent us to the government.
We need that organization to be able to demonstrate our relevance.
We need to halt immediately the constant bickering and back biting that is public to the entire world here on QRZ, E-Ham, on air, and all other public forums.
QRZ has forced many of us to review the fraternal organization we belong to and shake our heads in disgust at how rude, mean, and ignorant many of us are.
The most disheartening revelation is the ability for so many here to resort to personal attacks in the course of a debate. In fact it is much more then disheartening, it is truly evidence that collectively we do not meet at least one of the fundamental basic tenets for the ARS to exist.
And don't give me the tired old crap about the internet not being Ham Radio.... well over 90% of the posts here are a keen insight to the soul and hearts of many many U.S. ARS members.
K6BTM
12-30-2005, 03:15 PM
KD5NCO FREDERICK
Apparently the fact that you re' not HF licensed posted by myself and another in this thread has caused embarrassment on your part and has resulted in the above diatribe. I'm truly sorry for your embarrassment. Education is the solution to both upgrading and a true understanding of BPL technology. Good Luck.
ps The FCC under Powells direction has been the BPL industries biggest proponent. Just thought you might like to know. You could read about that too. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
ad4mg
12-30-2005, 04:05 PM
Fred,
I can go with most of what you state, but am having a difficult time connecting any safety issues with broadband internet access. That's really a stretch.
How do you feel about legitimate enforcement of Part 15 regulations? #Do amateurs who are subjected to harmful interference have any vehicle for relief in your little world?
I'm pretty much in agreement with most of Chip's statements, even if they are not very popular here. #You seem to take everything to the next level, and the tone of your post suggests that all amateurs should accept any interference "for the greater good". #Can't have it both ways my friend ... either we follow the law (in a reasonable manner), or we ignore all else for "the greater good".
If both are not possible, then perhaps the laws as written are flawed.
If I personally suffer interference from a Part 15 radiator, I intend to seek all relief offered by law, and I'll raise as much hell as necessary to find that relief. #As long as there is a law to protect me, I don't intend to "suck it up" for any reason or cause, be it "greater good", social, or economic reasons.
The law is the law, and they must be enforced. #I do agree that the BPL interference issue appears to be overblown, with few examples of harmful interference, and that our insisting on making frivilous complaints is a very big mistake. #I also feel just as strongly that the FCC is compelled to consider legitimate complaints, and must act on those complaints in a timely manner.
Quote[/b] (kb6xg @ Dec. 30 2005,08:15)]KD5NCO #FREDERICK
Apparently the fact that you re' not HF licensed posted by myself and another in this thread has caused embarrassment on your part and has resulted in the above diatribe. I'm truly sorry for your embarrassment. Education is the solution to both upgrading and a true understanding of #BPL technology. Good Luck.
ps The FCC under Powells direction has been the BPL industries #biggest proponent. Just thought you might like to know. You could read about that too. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Gee,
I'm an Extra--still remember sending 20 WPM on a hand key at the FCC-- and I thought Fred did a better job than I could!
Obviously Fred has deep concerns about the ARS,to confront you with this eloquence. Obviously he likes it--a lot. And wants it to see it better off than it is now.
73,
Chip N1IR
ad4mg
12-30-2005, 06:37 PM
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Dec. 30 2005,14:14)]Quote[/b] (kb6xg @ Dec. 30 2005,08:15)]KD5NCO #FREDERICK
Apparently the fact that you re' not HF licensed posted by myself and another in this thread has caused embarrassment on your part and has resulted in the above diatribe. I'm truly sorry for your embarrassment. Education is the solution to both upgrading and a true understanding of #BPL technology. Good Luck.
ps The FCC under Powells direction has been the BPL industries #biggest proponent. Just thought you might like to know. You could read about that too. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Gee,
I'm an Extra--still remember sending 20 WPM on a hand key at the FCC-- and I thought Fred did a better job than I could!
Obviously Fred has deep concerns about the ARS,to confront you with this eloquence. Obviously he likes it--a lot. And wants it to see it better off than it is now.
73,
Chip N1IR
Chip,
Hope the Holidays find you in good cheer!
I find Fred's remarks to border on anti-ARS a bit. #Not all of us are raving lunatics, nor are we likely to become such. #We're not exactly a bunch of old men sitting in dimly lit rooms, surrounded by glowing tubes. #A good number of hams these days are young lads, on the cutting edge of modern technology. #It's just silly to think we can compete with corporate America (and Japan, China, Europe, etc) in the innovation game.
I lean your way ... let the law be the law, in both sides of the debate. #Black and white, cold, hard facts. #Part 15 and Part 97 regulations. #It's probably true that amateurs and the ARRL have made more of interference issues than they really are, but it is also equally likely that BPL providers have "played dumb" when confronted with legitimate data about harmful interference. #The FCC has likely dragged their feet in taking action on interference issues, in order to give the technology a little extra operating room. #All parties are doing just what is expected of them. #It's all part of the game.
Let's not paint the ARS like is being done here ... it only serves to perpetuate the perception that we are a bunch of grumpy old fools. #The ARS does lots of good, and many government agencies at all levels find immense value in our efforts.
I've always hated catagorizations. #There are always way too many exceptions to any preconceived perception of a particular group for validity to apply.
Not all of you up there in New England grow maple trees in your back yard and wait each year for the sap to drip, do you? #We down here in Virginia don't all plow the tobacco fields and hoe the rows of corn. #And some folks in West Virginia really do have all their teeth! #With that said, I'll decline to comment on California. #My Mom, God rest her soul, told me that if I didn't have anything nice to say, that it was best to not say anything! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
You speak much better when you stick to the facts. #You know when you hit the nail on the head when everyone here starts the bellyaching!
Anyway, Happy New Year to All, and take care.
Best 73,
Luke
Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Dec. 30 2005,11:37)]Chip,
Hope the Holidays find you in good cheer!
I find Fred's remarks to border on anti-ARS a bit. #Not all of us are raving lunatics, nor are we likely to become such. #We're not exactly a bunch of old men sitting in dimly lit rooms, surrounded by glowing tubes. #A good number of hams these days are young lads, on the cutting edge of modern technology. #It's just silly to think we can compete with corporate America (and Japan, China, Europe, etc) in the innovation game.
I lean your way ... let the law be the law, in both sides of the debate. #Black and white, cold, hard facts. #Part 15 and Part 97 regulations. #It's probably true that amateurs and the ARRL have made more of interference issues than they really are, but it is also equally likely that BPL providers have "played dumb" when confronted with legitimate data about harmful interference. #The FCC has likely dragged their feet in taking action on interference issues, in order to give the technology a little extra operating room. #All parties are doing just what is expected of them. #It's all part of the game.
Let's not paint the ARS like is being done here ... it only serves to perpetuate the perception that we are a bunch of grumpy old fools. #The ARS does lots of good, and many government agencies at all levels find immense value in our efforts.
I've always hated catagorizations. #There are always way too many exceptions to any preconceived perception of a particular group for validity to apply.
Not all of you up there in New England grow maple trees in your back yard and wait each year for the sap to drip, do you? #We down here in Virginia don't all plow the tobacco fields and hoe the rows of corn. #And some folks in West Virginia really do have all their teeth! #With that said, I'll decline to comment on California. #My Mom, God rest her soul, told me that if I didn't have anything nice to say, that it was best to not say anything! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
You speak much better when you stick to the facts. #You know when you hit the nail on the head when everyone here starts the bellyaching!
Anyway, Happy New Year to All, and take care.
Best 73,
Luke
Hi Luke,
I don't see that in Fred's comments. I think he is trying to jog us to look from the 'outside looking in', and let us know how it seems there. Obviously I do this often, too.
If it wasn't for ham radio, this techno-cool 'come as you are' party wouldn't exist. So you should assume we're here because HR is our cakes and ales:-)
I like everyone here. And I don't have my beer goggles on, either:-)
As for the maples...most of them are 'swamp' maples, with no useable sap. Sugar maples are fairly rare; usually have been deliberately planted, and look a lot like oaks (except for the leaves) They are often quite tall. (Most folks don't realize that NE foliage results from opportunistic growth of maples from mass tree cuts of pine, balsam, and larch: Thus the 'Northeast Kingdom'-- the outcome of a 19th century ecological disaster. And people plant a lot of maple on Main St too, just for looks).
The sap smells like sugar water with turpentine in it. It's boiled and boiled to get rid of the volatiles and
enhance viscosity. There are several grades. The deep amber is overpriced.
If sugar-runs happened during planting season, there would be NO maple sugar--it's damn labor intensive. Most Yankee farmers did this between hunting season and mud season. Call it 'multitasking entrepreneurship'--even the trees have to make a living on a Yankee farm!!
Usually runs are late Feb, early March when there is still snow on the ground.
Best to you and everyone in 2006:-) !
73,
Chip N1IR
I thought this issue was trashed, but it looks like the fat lady hasn't sung yet. I noticed that a lot of the people who think BPL is wonderful have a tech licence, probably never tried to use a HF mobile around a power line. (even without BPL they radiate hash) Sure, fm is immune to a lot of that hash. But now they want to add insult to injury? There are too many other options. But does the FCC really support our best intrest, as an arm of a government that has been bought lock stock and barrel by commercial intrests? This is just another attempt to squeeze out maximum dollars from existing equipment regardless of the poor quality and interference potential. Judging from our local power company, complaints are often ignored or postponed until fair weather, and often not solved at all. Tree trimming is non-existent anymore, making HV lines arc and sputter, and any wind at all the power is off for hours. You trust these people to keep a BPL running clean? I got a swamp in Florida I'll sell you!
Quote[/b] (K8ZY @ Dec. 31 2005,10:34)]I thought this issue was trashed, but it looks like the fat lady hasn't sung yet. I noticed that a lot of the people who think BPL is wonderful have a tech licence, probably never tried to use a HF mobile around a power line. (even without BPL they radiate hash) Sure, fm is immune to a lot of that hash. But now they want to add insult to injury? There are too many other options. But does the FCC really support our best intrest, as an arm of a government that has been bought lock stock and barrel by commercial intrests? This is just another attempt to squeeze out maximum dollars from existing equipment regardless of the poor quality and interference potential. Judging from our local power company, complaints are often ignored or postponed until fair weather, and often not solved at all. Tree trimming is non-existent anymore, making HV lines arc and sputter, and any wind at all the power is off for hours. You trust these people to keep a BPL running clean? I got a swamp in Florida I'll sell you!
OM,
IMO this is a trash post. It is so rife with errors I don't know where to begin.
Isn't it possible to have a reasoned discussion on this topic?
Best to u in the NY.
73,
Chip N1IR
"It is so rife with errors I don't know where to begin"
Well, I suppose my powers of observation are failing because of advanced age? You seem to be subject to media brainwash. Try a bit of technical reasoning if all else fails. I quote the facts as I observe them, not as media wizards dictate. And the facts are that utilities do not properly maintain their equipment and BPL will not be an easy upkeep at best.There are alternatives that will be much better so why whip this dead horse?
Quote[/b] (K8ZY @ Jan. 01 2006,08:41)]"It is so rife with errors I don't know where to begin"
Well, I suppose my powers of observation are failing because of advanced age? You seem to be subject to media brainwash. Try a bit of technical reasoning if all else fails. I quote the facts as I observe them, not as media wizards dictate. And the facts are that utilities do not properly maintain their equipment and BPL will not be an easy upkeep at best.There are alternatives that will be much better so why whip this dead horse?
This digression has nothing to do with the context of my comment.
I am appalled that you use this propaganda technique.
Let's start with--
MAJOR ERROR 1: you assert that there have been pro-BPL posts here...
FACT: No one here is pro-BPL. #
The world doesn't always divide into such black and white distinctions.
I am pro-technology; I am pro-wireless options. If BPL supplies that, and lives under Part 15, then there is NO REASON for it not to be used.
I don't give a damn if a (very) #few manipulative hams feel otherwise. And guess what--neither do the rest of the citizens in the country.
Have a pleasant day.
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Jan. 01 2006,15:18)]FACT: No one here is pro-BPL.
Now Chip, I wouldn't say you're 'no one', and I've heard a few who actually were on your side. Anyways, there's a POLL. For those who want to vote, here's where to go. (*link*) (http://www.internationalvoting.com/int3/ask.cgi?pid=29-166)
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Jan. 01 2006,14:46)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Jan. 01 2006,15:18)]FACT: No one here is pro-BPL.
Now Chip, I wouldn't say you're 'no one', #and I've heard a few who actually were on your side. #Anyways, there's a POLL. #For those who want to vote, here's where to go. (*link*) (http://www.internationalvoting.com/int3/ask.cgi?pid=29-166)
EXACTLY the kind of histrionics that Fred and I are describing.
It is fatuous to even give a thought that BPL is threat to ham radio.
In rare cases, it may pose harmful interference to a very SMALL number of radio amateurs. And in those cases, Part 15 REQUIRES resolution from the BPL source.
Right now, plasma TV's are a FAR more universal threat to some radio amateur communications. Along with many other RFI sources.
These type of polls will only act as historical data to those who wish to show that we are out of touch and should lose our frequencies.
SHAME on this silliness.
Damn shame.
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Jan. 01 2006,14:46)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Jan. 01 2006,15:18)]FACT: No one here is pro-BPL.
Now Chip, I wouldn't say you're 'no one', #and I've heard a few who actually were on your side. #Anyways, there's a POLL. #For those who want to vote, here's where to go. (*link*) (http://www.internationalvoting.com/int3/ask.cgi?pid=29-166)
I am not pro- BPL. Stop acting like an idiot.
KD5NCO
01-02-2006, 01:37 PM
kb6xg
Sir, not being "on HF" (transmitting) should not give you the notion that I ( and several million other citizens) do not listen (to frequencies below 144Mhz).
My meager shack includes a Yaesu FT 920, Beldon 9913 feed out to a well installed Hustler BTV5 with 6 radials per band. I also have a Icom IC 746PRO attached to 40, 80, and 160 meter dipoles, as well as a 2 meter Ringo up 50 feet.
At 50 years old I have a much longer history in the ARS then my current license date and class suggests.
Please stop trying to imply that I have no clue of that which is speak (Type) You are free to read my entire self aggrandizing bio at your leisure, it was posted just for folks like you. #
And if I recall correctly, it was you who inserted the anti President George Bush tid bit. My response to you, sir was directly in opposition to your attempt to devolve any rational debate or comment on the Texas BPL news, or the greater general BPL debate.
And as far as my response went, you have no knowledge whether I am pro or anti BPL, Spectrum defense, CC&R, or President G.W. Bush. My comments only point out that you want to assign blame for BPL directly to the President of the United States (and his business buddies). That appears to be your assertion. Or did I get it wrong? What really was your point?
How about this? Rather then dismiss me and my point of view as irrelevant because I am just a lowly Technician, try to engage me in a point by point debate or conversation.
In my original post I chastised you for the political snide remark. I went on to identify the problems(s). I further stated my perception of how industry, military, the government, and the greater body of non-ARS citizens view all of us in the ARS (As old men with a Hobby). I indicated that CC&R, BPL, and Spectrum Defense were indeed important problems. I took a shot at the ARRL as A.) not having appropriate standing to represent all of us, and B.) that the ignorant and uncompromising methods they use to represent all of us may be detrimental to our future. I also presented my opinion on what needs to be done to secure the future of the ARS.
And you want to quibble about my ability or inability to transmit on HF? Come on Brent, stop with the cheap shot attempts to tear down a fellow Amateur and engage in an adult debate.
n5zxj
01-02-2006, 02:41 PM
Quote[/b] (KD5NCO @ Dec. 22 2005,12:36)]KB6XG
Well that is a nice and enlightened opinion... hummm wonder if you consider the benefit of 10 maybe 20 thousand citizens more or less important then 15 or 30 Amateurs? (Ok I admit that I have no earthly idea how many amateurs in the Dallas area much less how many BPL potential subscribers....except that I know Many Many more citizens will benefit from BPL then Amateurs will be impacted by any interference!)
Is there an indication that the BPL implementations in the Dallas area or the other Five or seven installations in Texas have any measurable negative impact in the Amateurs in the localities?
Is it OK for a self recognized "Hobby" to out weight the need of other normal citizens?
I have given this a lot of thought, been to active BPL sites and finally come to the acceptance that (A.. BPL will not survive more then 5 or 7 years in this rapidly evolving technological environment and (B.. It really does NOT raise the noise floor above what I already deal with in rural Texas... so why all the BS, Hype,
and animosity?
Or all of you prone to believing every thing your read and hear?
Fred KD5NCO,
I can't believe you can be acceptable of BPL.
I lived near a BPL site in the Leigh HighValley of Pennslyvania (Emmaus area) that was recently taken out of service. It raised the noise floor enough to prevent clear HF communications anywhere within 3/4 miles from the sites.
I was recently back up there and with the BPL system turned off, the band was very useable again!
I wish I had the noise floor you have in Lampassas, Texas.
Compared to what I have in Temple 45 miles away.
Its not how many more people will benefit from BPL than the number of Amateurs there are in an area. As far as I am concerned BPL is not something I want in my back yard again.
Get your ticket upgraded, So you can use your HF rigs, then let some yahoo build a BPL system in your area, and then lets hear you complain how much you hate BPL and wish it would go away!
With all the new modes of high speed internet coming online, Clearwire for one and others building 2.4, 2.5 and 5.4 gig widearea systems. I say can the BPL systems before they build it.
I've talked to some people I know that are with in TXU. Word is, its going to be built in non-metro areas also as part of there test project.
BTW, the Dallas / Ft. Worth Metroplex has approximately +/- 5600 Hams. Our area Temple/Killeen/Waco & Lampassas combined has +/- 1100.. All of Texas combined has 47191 active licensed Hams as of 1-1-06.
Fred talk to a few more Amateurs in the areas already effected by BPL, then make a judgement on what you read or hear about it.
Gerald Richmond
N5ZXJ
ARES EC Bell County - TX
ARRL Life Member
KD5NCO
01-02-2006, 03:30 PM
AD4MG
Sir, sorry for the delay in a response:
I also want the Law and Current system to work. I was attempting to add some "perspective" and I will offer a few additions here to try and make my position clearer.
In the very worst of cases, BPL has been proved to cause interference. But from my 5 years of watching this issue the interference is only a few isolated cases. Like everybody, I am concerned that the FCC appears to be unwilling to enforce their own rules.
However I have no real knowledge of their (FCCs) side of the story. I only know what I read here and on the ARRL site relating to the enforcement issue.
On the other hand I have specific knowledge that in many cases the BPL sites were terminated. Some times for economic realities, other cases where interference could not be reduced to comply with FCC Part 15 regulations. There are ads for BPL test sites all over the U.S. where the provider has reached out to Police, Fire and Amateurs as part of the test site to work toward interference solutions.
So with this knowledge I have to look at all the attempts to portray ALL BPL as EVIL as wrong, misinformed, or attempts to disrupt legitimate business. At the very least the the portrayal of BPL as bad is a poor attempt to garner additional contributions of cash. At the very worst are the calls for Amateurs to be militant wackos and deliberately spike, interfere, cut cables and behave in a destructive manner.
Inciting ARS members to behave this way is extremely ignorant and totally counterproductive. I will always speak out against such nonsense!
I want to be pro ARRL, I want the ARRL to be an effective voice for all of us. BUT, I have a serious concern that this (lack of enforcement) may be exaggerated (by the ARRL). I have no proof of this, just my concern and doubts.
I do not expect all readers here to remember each different contributer and their previous notes and opinions. I have posted only a few times on this topic in the past. Part of my previous opinion are the ideas that we, the ARS, need to change our public image and perception. This gets into the old Hobby vs Service debate. My position is that if we insist that it is a Hobby, then we diminish our reason for existence and thus can expect no more consideration from Congress then the model railroad folks, Koi enthusiasts, or stamp collectors enjoy. #
My opinions usually try to point out a few key ideas.
1. We (the ARS) are too small a group
2. Our Fraternal organization does not have an effective voice representing us to government
3. Relative to many many other sources of interference, BPL is not as BIG a problem as the ARRL (and some folks here) would have us believe
4. As a minority group, we do not have the right to demand that the government afford us protections that may not be in the best interests of the rest of the non-ARS citizens
5. In many of the BPL debates I add in CC&R and Spectrum Defense as examples where the ARRL has not acted wisely and by association we should assume that their efforts on BPL are also flawed.
You seemed to accept much of my previous post with the noted exception that you don't see the tie in to safety (that a fully connected to the internet population might benefit from).
BPL and a half dozen other initiatives all strive (discounting the profits for the moment) to fully integrate all segments of society, and rural governments to the information back bone (INTERNET).
This is a massive problem that several smaller countries have already solved. There are several countries around the globe that the ENTIRE citizenry and municipalities are fully connected. Some countries are entirely on fiber optic. Some countries have cell phone subscriber ship well over 80% of the entire population.
No, BPL is not the answer. But just one of many emergent technologies that works toward the larger goal of integrating ALL of the U.S. to digital communications and data transfer. More important is the need to get away from ancient analog, bandwidth limited, transmission methods.
Safety... OK, how about entire cities where the connected homes that have a subscription to a home security and fire system have the bandwidth necessary to have smarter polling features to eliminate or reduce false alarms.
Or a 911 system that can more accurately determine location. A Fire and Police department that can react to the correct location with the proper equipment.
How about local services that can detect water main or pump problems, dam control, low water road ways that are flooded?
No BPL by itself does not solve these safety problems but a fully integrated community can certainly expect in the next 10 to 20 years to be better able to respond to problems using communication technologies that are impossible on copper pair party lines.
Wait! Don't even think for a little bit that party lines are a thing of the past. I had to share a copper pair with two other residents on my county road up until 2002.
BPL at the very least forces many rural communities (a specific target of the providers) to look at expending money to upgrade the county, towns or rural areas to broad band solutions of some flavor.
The competition of BPL causes the Telco to upgrade faster and provide DSL to broader reaches. The BPL competition caused providers of WiMax to jump in and provide me this extraordinary link. BTW, with this Broadband link I can tie in my exterior and interior cameras to the internet and check on the condition of my property from any where in the world. My wife and I are both government employees and frequently our business causes us to be out of town at the same time. There was no way with a "dial up only" internet link I could exploit this capability to check on the house, sheds, gun cabinet, and property.
We had a break in down the road last year and a collection of 3 hand guns and 14 long rifles were taken. The Owner could not report the theft for 3 weeks because they were out of town. I think the ability to tell the Sheriff within about 8 hours (I check twice a day) that my House was broken into would be considered safe for all the rest of the citizens? I think that stolen weapons in the hands of a thief is not a good thing.
These are just a few example where I think "connecting" all of America, BPL, WiMax, or other technologies, is a good idea.
Homeland defense thoughts, Hurricane, or other disaster response issues should be self evident but if you inquire for more safety considerations I would be happy to add my thoughts on that angle also.
KD5NCO
01-02-2006, 05:04 PM
Gerald Richmond
N5ZXJ
ARES EC Bell County - TX
ARRL Life Member
#(QUOTE)
Fred KD5NCO,
I can't believe you can be acceptable of BPL.
Sir, I have frequently acknowledged that it is flawed technology that is doomed to failure. I have heard the trash that BPL can radiate.
I wish I had the noise floor you have in Lampassas, Texas.
Compared to what I have in Temple 45 miles away.
Interesting comment, I wonder if you had thought of all the examples where Chip, I, and a minority of others here were pointing out that there are real and pervasive dirty RF radiators all over and that they significantly raise the noise floor to near unusable levels. Curious why there is no knuckle gnashing, crying, complaining, letter writing and deliberate Militant attacks on the sources. That you would prefer my S-3 to S-7 over your S-9 noise is curious indeed. Why don't you, and I, and all the other ARS members insist that the ARRL and the Congress do something about it? Could it be that we have accepted that there is no way we could ever force the city of Temple Texas to shut off the power because it makes HF communication difficult for us Amateurs. Yes I know that it is an asinine question, but that is exactly what just a few affected Amateurs want as the solution to a BPL installation.
Its not how many more people will benefit from BPL than the number of Amateurs there are in an area. #As far as I am concerned BPL is not something I want in my back yard again.
You probably do not want a new sports bar with 13 new 50 inch Plasma TVs, or a small industrial manufacture with 21 used 480VAC 3 Phase High Torque electric motors, or a electric grid substation, or a new strip mall with 6 Mercury Vapor parking lot lights either!
Get your ticket upgraded, So you can use your HF rigs, then let some yahoo build a BPL system in your area, and then lets hear you complain how much you hate BPL and wish it would go away!
Just so we are clear, license class has NOTHING to do with any source of interference. Listening to AM Talk Radio, Short Wave Listening, following a rag chew session on 3.868Mhz, or following the ARRL code sessions on HF are all within the capability of ANY citizen. Interference from any source is not a good thing. At least with BPL they are on notice to attempt to minimize or reduce the interference, a concept I wish the power company could grasp.
With all the new modes of high speed internet coming on-line, Clearwire for one and others building 2.4, 2.5 and 5.4 gig widearea systems. I say can the BPL systems before they build it.
You can thank the BPL issues as having a small role in these other emergent technologies becoming viable alternatives. Pegasus Rural Broadband, a WiMax 2.4Ghz RF link variant, is my high speed provider here in Lampasas. Very fast, very affordable, and so far dependable. However, my need for broad band is such that if the ONLY solution was BPL, I would subscribe and then worry about any interference to my Amateur Radio Hobby/Service. That is really the point, citizens needs, their priorities, and relative value of connections and communications all must be weighed and judged.
I've talked to some people #I know that are with in TXU. Word is, its going to be built in non-metro areas also as part of there test project.
Not sure what your point is... I would imagine that the greater need for broadband connections is rural America. Thus I am very confused why some of the BPL systems (Like Manassas Virginia's) targeted fairly large cities.
BTW, the Dallas / Ft. Worth Metroplex has approximately +/- 5600 Hams. #Our area Temple/Killeen/Waco & Lampassas combined has +/- 1100.. # All of Texas combined has 47191 active licensed Hams as of 1-1-06.
OK so there are about 50 thousand Amateurs within the greater 20 million person population of Texas. Is this your attempt to help me realize how many Hams MIGHT be adversely affected by a few BPL sites in Texas? The last time I was on one of the BPL web sites they were lamenting that the subscriber ship was not very robust, only in the 100,000 range (accross the entire USA). For all the expenditure, the BPL wired households don't seem to be keeping pace with the Cell Phone Link that three major providers are offering, or the WiMax corridor from San Antonio up past me in Lampasas and through to Midland and north to Abilene that Pegasus is providing (about 185,000 Texas subscribers in less then 18 months).
Fred talk to a few more Amateurs in the areas already effected by BPL, then make a judgement on what you read or hear about it.
Gerald. Sir you are mistaken that I might be a PRO BPL advocate. My position is simply that it is NOT a large looming threat to the ARS. I also am of the mind that even if it was, we are in no position to do a whole lot about it if we continue to present our selves to the FCC and Congress as uncompromising, wacko, militant, demanding antagonists.
My point has always been that we need to regain our standing as a PUBLIC service and loose the "Angry Old Men with a Hobby" perception. I think that the ARRL must find a way to get more members (I suggest the ARS needs to double in licensed Amateur size) and stop the nonsensical, ignorant, and indefensible demands they make on our behalf.
ad4mg
01-02-2006, 07:04 PM
Quote[/b] ]'NCO, Fred: #4. As a minority group, we do not have the right to demand that the government afford us protections that may not be in the best interests of the rest of the non-ARS citizens
Thanks for the well thought-out reply Fred. #Once again, we are 99% in agreement. #I will take exception to the above statement, however. #I point back to the black & white interpretation of the law (Part 15 & Part 97). #We have every right to demand enforcement of current law. #If I'm protected from interference, by law, I will most certainly demand an end be put to that interference. #If the law is re-written so it states "in all cases not in the interests of the greater good", then so be it.
You do have a realistic view of the situation. #Interesting that you post about listening to 3.868, as I stop in there fairly often to chat with a few friends.
I truly hope that any BPL technology deployed will be amateur-friendly as required by Part 15. #There is great value to the ARS for those served agencies who decide to utilize our resources. #It would be very wrong for the FCC to allow such a valuable resource to succumb to corporate greed. #Corporations have every right to seek and make fair profits, but never at the expense of those protected by the laws of the land.
Best 73,
Luke
Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Jan. 02 2006,12:04)]I truly hope that any BPL technology deployed will be amateur-friendly as required by Part 15. #There is great value to the ARS for those served agencies who decide to utilize our resources. #It would be very wrong for the FCC to allow such a valuable resource to succumb to corporate greed. #Corporations have every right to seek and make fair profits, but never at the expense of those protected by the laws of the land.
Best 73,
Luke
No.
No no no.
It should NOT be AMATEUR-FREINDLY. It should be AMATEUR AGNOSTIC: We should never regard Part 15 in Part 97 terms. They are two different worlds.
The more we impose our (odd) world-view, the less the perceived value of radio amateurs. Why don't people get this?? Take the view from the outside.
It's very , very simple. If a Part 15 device "harmfully interferes", then it is the Part 15 'devicers' problem. NOT the hams.
Now enforcement is an interesting issue. However, there is so much propaganda associated with the ham-end that I see no way of getting a valid perspective on BPL 'interferences' from amateur #information sources. #
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Jan. 02 2006,12:04)]#We have every right to demand enforcement of current law. #If I'm protected from interference, by law, I will most certainly demand an end be put to that interference. #
...
Best 73,
Luke
Yes, with the added adjective of "harmful" (interference).
73,
Chip N1IR
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Jan. 02 2006,08:43)]Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Jan. 02 2006,12:04)]#We have every right to demand enforcement of current law. #If I'm protected from interference, by law, I will most certainly demand an end be put to that interference. #
...
Best 73,
Luke
Yes, with the added adjective of "harmful" (interference).
73,
Chip N1IR
Happy New Year, Chip.
I would have joined in this before now, were it not for difficulties in implementing my new DSL service.
Oh, yes, in the process, I've left FL and now reside about 7 miles out in the country from Leeds, AL.
As I chided Ed Hare on eham, farmer Brown lives across the road, and our friendly telecomm provider has brought DSL to us. #Nice 3GB/s experience, compared to non availability in the city limits of Bradenton, FL, where I used to reside.
Ah, yes, its absence probably was economic, based on demography. #What with so many geriatrics in the community, Verizon saw fit not to invest in improved infrastructure as my rural provider Alltel has.
Now, on to your latest 'picqued' interest.
The FCC, as of late, HAS NOT enforced existing Part 15 requirements with respect to HARMFUL interference experienced by several amateurs in Manassas, VA, according to our official ARS representatives over at the ARRL. #So, it is indeed proper for them to make a boatload of noise about an agency not acting as it is charged under the law.
Remedies? #Yes, there are remedies when a government agency fails to act. #I believe it is called a Writ of Mandamus. #And, someone adversely affected may, as I understand it, petition a court of law to issue an Injunction, ORDERING the agency to perform its duty. Then, if it doesn't, those responsible will find their room and board provided for by the US Marshall's Service.
Perhaps Dave and his crew are considering such a move. #If not, they should be.
Lee
W6EM
Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Jan. 02 2006,06:49)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Jan. 01 2006,14:46)]Quote[/b] (n1ir @ Jan. 01 2006,15:18)]FACT: No one here is pro-BPL.
Now Chip, I wouldn't say you're 'no one', and I've heard a few who actually were on your side. Anyways, there's a POLL. For those who want to vote, here's where to go. (*link*) (http://www.internationalvoting.com/int3/ask.cgi?pid=29-166)
I am not pro- BPL. Stop acting like an idiot.
Well, seems that your assertion that "No one here is pro-BPL" is not entirely accurate. On the poll, there are 3 who voted BPL is NOT a threat to Amateur Radio. I doubt if you voted so that makes 4. And after all those posts that were so flattering to BPL, your modesty seems entirely uncharacteristic.
Strangely uncharacteristic. Suit yourself.
Quote[/b] (KD5NCO @ Jan. 01 2006,13:04)]Gerald. Sir you are mistaken that I might be a PRO BPL advocate. My position is simply that it is NOT a large looming threat to the ARS. I also am of the mind that even if it was, we are in no position to do a whole lot about it if we continue to present our selves to the FCC and Congress as uncompromising, wacko, militant, demanding antagonists.
Wow. Wackos. Militants. Demanding Antagonists. And, non-compromising, at that. Quite a mouth full.
You've almost spoiled my breakfast, No Code Operator.
Sorry to disagree, not only with your characterization of the ARS, but also with your opinion of BPL's impact on our service and other licensed or treaty-permitted spectrum users.
Try travelling to Manassas, VA and see if you can still hear SSB QSOs on 75M to your heart's content.
BTW, since you live in TX, tell Jim Hainey hello for me.
73,
Lee
W6EM
I see something positive, being a possibility-thinker, about BPL coming to Texas. #Yes, directly to Jim Hainey's front and back yard.
Since Jim and friends LOVE Current, Inc.'s implementation of ABPL, what an opportunity for the ARRL to shout about it.
And, none other than the Chair of the House Committee and Energy and Commerce, Joe Barton, has his District smack dab in the middle of Arlington and Fort Worth!!!
Now, maybe Jim and League entourage can mosey on over to Representative Barton's office in Arlington and pay him a visit for a photo op, all the while touting the features of ham-band-interference-free Current ABPL.
That way, the ARRL gets to show off with a Congressional big shot and prove that its not anti-BPL. Selectively, of course. Perhaps /\/\ could supply the photographer.
Lee
W6EM
KD5NCO
01-03-2006, 09:40 PM
AD4MG
Luke
As written you are probably correct in taking exception to my quoted words. Mostly because the topic thread is specifically BPL in Texas and implies generally all BPL.
My thoughts of us (ARS) demanding protectio