4 Reasons why we need more hams

Well Chip I knew that one would bring you out of the wood work. Still stinging huh ?

For those out of the loop in 2004 the Power Utilities and the Broadband of Power Line thought they could get the FCC to rewrite Part 15 rules to allow implementation of Power Line Broad Band. A system that would have resulted in the HF Spectrum being polluted with RF Noise. The reason why this set Chip off is he became the BPL Industry's Chief Shill posting all sorts of propaganda on EHam supporting their junk.

As we all know the Legal Defense mounted by the ARRL was able to turn away that challenge.

Looks like the League is batting a thousand.

 

Let's do the math!

Consider all the 2x3 calls in a call area. Suppose we count all the calls with W, K or N in the first position, and any letter in the second, fourth, fifth and sixth positions.

Then we'd have 3 times 26 times 26 times 26 times 26 possible 2x3 calls in each call district.

3 x 26 x 26 x 26 x 26 = 1,370,928 per district! That's over 13 million 2x3 calls in the ten districts - without using any beginning with A.

The only problem I see is that FCC might not want to "recycle" old calls. But there's clearly no shortage of 2x3s.

 

In the early 1930s the FCC Issued 1x4 Calls for a brief time to Permanent Portable Stations. The Suffix of these callsigns began with ZZ an after W*ZZZ was issued the FCC went to W*ZZAA. This license classification did not last for very long.

 

Nonsense. I have worked sporadic E with <10w and a dipole
Now I run 4 elements and 100w. I have worked Japan and the Canary islands as well as hundreds of double hop to the central and eastern parts of the USA

True that mW level interference usually wouldn't be a problem. But its not impossible. Also consider
there could be stronger transmitters in other countries that use different allocations.

And the issue of noise still stands. Whether an errant poorly designed switching supply or arcing power lines
sometimes I get strong S5-S9 broadband signals in the 50-88 MHz region. Plenty strong to wipe out low power signals

The only reason I could see them placing high speed digital comms like wifi down that low is because they are desperate for free spectrum
and demand is high

 

What they said.

 

An amazing amount of mis-information in one paragraph. Pretty much incorrect on all points.

1) The first FCC auction was in 1994. Not exactly "recent".

2) Low VHF (channels 2 through 6) is still allocated to television and there are 39 full power digital stations on the air (mostly on channel 5). There are also many (177) LPTV stations on the air at low VHF. The reason low VHF is not attractive for digital television is the high noise level.

3) Low VHF is not part of the upcoming 2015 TV frequency auction. The TV auction is for the 600 MHz band, or channels 32 through 51. If the auction is successful, then some TV stations in large markets will have to move to low VHF. The FCC is saving low VHF for overflow during the repacking process.

4) Wi-Fi on TV frequencies is a shared service. No need for an auction. The equipment (which is already on the market) searches for an unused channel (white space) to operate on. White space devices are not allowed to use channels 3 or 4 (because of consumer NTSC modulators on these channels).

5) The NAB has only filed one lawsuit against the TV auction. It's only targeting the FCC's repacking methodology.

 

I love life. Every day brings a new adventure and rewards for the years of effort, insight (not 'incite'),gumption-- and focusing on the facts. The last time I was stung was 2011. Tough allergic reaction to a yellowjacket sting. Fortunately, a rapid response stopped disaster.

Your defamation of me, and I presume others, is a rigid way to cut down your loneliness--that is my opinion. I do feel sorry for you--and that is a fact. Ham radio is actually a very friendly group. If you accept that, you'd enjoy yourself more OM. Think about it.

Here's a nice summary of my position on BPL:


http://www.radiobanter.com/showthread.php?t=2451

Your defamatory assertion of my being a shill is about as factually accurate as stating that milliwatt, electrically small-antenna-driven VHF wifi systems will pollute via sporadic E (Es).

Get back into life--with ham radio!

73
Chip W1YW

 

Try doing a comparison with the Friis Equation.

The Friis Equation is part of the question pool for the Technician license.

A simple ratio translates to subtraction in log scales, so the issue is trivial to show with dB, and the propagation dilution (least square) cancels. I will even be GENEROUS and assume the receive antenna is the SAME, thus underplaying the issue to be shown.

10 watts to a dipole is" 10^4 dBm +10 dB(i)(roughly, with good ground) = 10^5 dBm EIRP

For a typical Part 15 this would be

1 milliwatt to an electrically small antenna at low height in dubious ground environments---let's call the antenna -10 dBi to be generous

So the EIRP for that is: 0 dBm-10 dB(i) = - 10 dBm

The ratio is thus yielding--roughly in this BOTEC--a factor of a MILLION less in received power.

That's down by 60 dB.

Get it?

DOWN ***** 60 dB ****.

There is no issue with these Part 15 devices and sporadic E.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Inverse square...not least square. Doing too much curve fitting lately...

73
Chip W1YW

 

True that the chance of a problem is low. Especially with automatic frequency negotiation

But I will point out the current limits for WIFI on 2.4GHz are 1 watt EIRP
Considering the high noise level on low VHF I would expect similar limits. The ineffective antenna would generally limit it
but I would guess the FCC would probably allow 10dbm (100mW) at the antenna. Yes. That is still 50 db down which is virtually nothing received.

More importantly this may not be the only transmitter on that spectrum. There are plenty of transmitters that still operate in
the 56-88 MHz range with ERP far higher than the WIFI signals.

Natural and artificial noise will still be the primary problem with operating low power signals in that band.

I was not suggesting that the WIFI transmitters will cause "pollution" through Es or ducting. I was suggesting primarily
that propagated signals from stronger transmitters could cause a malfunction

 

Speaking in general, hams need to start, nurture, and. --do-- innovation, not fight it.


Frankly I am getting tired of all the old fossils--my age-- exercising their wisdom for destruction.You make me feel like Peter Pan.

No one gets a downside from LP VHF wifi.Botton line.

73
Chip W1YW

 

The maximum EIRP of white space devices is +36 dBm (or 4 watts). Only fixed stations can operate on VHF and the maximum HAAT is 250 meters. No operation on channels 3 and 4.

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-36A1.pdf

https://www.google.com/get/spectrumdatabase/

 

Where did I say that ?

 

He is misinterpreting my statement.

Thank you for the docs. I knew the max EIRP would have to be higher

 

First I will say I confused the Wi-Fi on TV Service with the new 600 Mhz Wi-Fi Service

Starting from your last point which is really the salient one. Legal challenges have to be written in amanner that are acceptable for the courts to read. The NAB is pleading that the TV Broadcasting Industry is aggrieved by the FCC's determination to set aside for auction 119 Mhz presently allocated TV and "repack" the Broadcast TV Band. The FCC has made a determination that 31 RF Channels is sufficient to accommodate that goal. As you well know moving a TV Channel from one channel to another is a little more than flipping some dip switches and retweaking some Caps. It costs a great deal of money and a considerable amount of time and effort. And many Stations that have spent large sums of money to relocate from the Low-Vhf band up to UHF are in no mood to do the same exercise all over again in the opposite direction. It would seem obvious that at least part of the solution would be for the court to order the FCC to reduce the allocation for the new service by 4 RF Channels extending the top end of the TV Band from RF 31 to RF 35. And looking at the FCC Spectrum Chart it would seem logical to go one more channel allocating RF36 to TV and use the Land Mobile - Radio Astronomy segment as a Guard Band. That way the FCC could avoid moving any stations into Low VHF. And your own statement implied would that a move to do so would only be a last resort. That would reduce the auctioned spectrum for Wi-Fi to 84 Mhz. A considerable amount yes but still more than enough to set up a Wi-Fi Service. the Telecoms would be told ahead of time and they could adjust their bids accordingly. Then the courts could address the Repacking Rules but there is no disputing with an extra 4 to 5 Channels of space there would mean a considerable number of stations that would not have to move at all.