said by PDXPLT :Current already has a big commercial deployment in the Cinncinati area. The ARRL says they have no interference complaints from them. No one else has complained either.
Current Technologies systems operate from 32-48 MHz on overhead lines and use HomePlug from 4-28 MHz inside the premises. HomePlug has designed permanent notches in the ham bands into the their specification.
If a BPL manufacturer avoids using bands licensed to the Amateur Radio Service and its filtering is state of the art, it can avoid widespread harmful interference problems involving Amateur Radio.
HomePlug has led the way in this direction, and Current has excellent communication with ARRL. The combination has been successful.
Other DS2-based BPL manufacturers have also started to avoid using the Amateur bands, at least in the US. At this point, ARRL has open doors of communication with all of the manufacturers marketing BPL in the US.
The most logical next step would be to take these successful models and turn them into industry standards and national regulations. Clearly, not using the Amateur bands is technically feasible, and equally clearly, with state of the art filtering and careful implementation, the model can work. If the entire industry were to follow the HomePlug model and develop industry standards that fix the Amateur interference problem permanently, it would be better off.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Lab
225 Main St
Newington, CT 06111
Tel: 860-594-0318
Internet: »
www.arrl.org/bplEmail: w1rfi@arrl.org
reply
W1RFI @ 23rd Mar 04:05PM:Re: Question...And, if it wasn't viable they wouldn't be doing it. Which begs the question why it continues.
PPL, IDACorp and Austin Energy, to name a few, all entered the BPL arena, and abandoned its major interest in BPL. PPL and IDACorp Each announced that its foray into BPL had cost it several million dollar. Duke Energy announced that it was not intending to use BPL as the principle technology in its smart grid program.
Sometimes I think Hamlet's "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" applies to the "RF" types. If it's an obvious loser (and self-punishing) why be so vocal opposing it?
The opposition to BPL has been centered around actual, documented harmful interference from systems that used the Amateur bands at the FCC emissions limits. How vocal would you be if a system generated noise that caused harmful interference to the use of your cellular telephone service in your community, or anywhere.
Would you see this as a good thing, or would you protest too much? If you did complain about the interference, would it be correct to characterize that as opposition to the technology causing the interference, or would it be just the interference issue?
Ed Hare, W1RFI
reply
W1RFI @ 23rd Mar 04:10PM:Re: Question...said by amigo_boy :
Personally, I don't think 5 years is that long when considering that it's an industry that's rarely confronted new opportunities and business models.
Less than 5 years seemed to be sufficient for a number of utilities that abandoned its interest in BPL, announcing that the financial model didn't work for them as the principle reason.
The principle interest at this point is not in using BPL to provide Internet access to consumers. The utilities are interested in utility applications, and they are looking at BPL as a way to do that. Duke determined that it was not going to use BPL to that end, though, as have a couple of other utilities. Oncor feels differently and is pursuing BPL for utility applications in Dallas.
Ed
reply
W1RFI @ 23rd Mar 04:12PM:Re: BPL.said by decifal :
Pretty sure hams will come outta the wood work and it'll all be shutdown eventually...
The Current system in Cincinatti has been in operation since 2004. Hams did come out of the woodwork and evaluated the system. They determined that it did not cause widespread interference problems.
Do you have a prediction as to when this coming out will start? In Cincinatti it has been 4 years and it hasn't happened.
Ed, W1RFI
reply
amigo_boy @ 23rd Mar 05:03PM:Re: Question...said by W1RFI :
How vocal would you be if a system generated noise that caused harmful interference to the use of your cellular telephone service in your community, or anywhere.
Apples and oranges. Cell phones are a commercial activity, not a hobby. And, there's about a gazillion users, not a dozen (as an illustration.
Even radio hobbyists sacrifice the usefulness of their frequencies in the name of pragmatism. That's exactly what happened when morse code was set aside in the interest of being more modern (and gaining more participants). Previously the argument to retain a morse requirement was a public safety one. Similar to the arguments today that hobby radio should be preserved unchanged. In a disaster it is the most reliable form of communication. Least power, narrowest bandwidth. Equipment not harmed by the elements. That went by the wayside in the interest of comfort and popularity (at the expense of larger bandwidth and greater power usage).
Mark
reply
rf_engineer @ 23rd Mar 05:26PM:Re: Question...said by amigo_boy :said by W1RFI :
How vocal would you be if a system generated noise that caused harmful interference to the use of your cellular telephone service in your community, or anywhere.
Apples and oranges. Cell phones are a commercial activity, not a hobby. And, there's about a gazillion users, not a dozen (as an illustration.
The use of the spectrum is irrelevant because BPL doesn't even use the spectrum it affects. The interference is a side effect of the service, and the wireless spectrum isn't used by BPL to transmit information. Furthermore, amateur spectrum is often used for emergency training and communications, and 90% of potentially BPL affected spectrum isn't amateur but is government, military, maritime, aeronautical, and international broadcast.
But you've heard this before and ignored it, so why listen now? :uhh:
reply
rf_engineer @ 23rd Mar 05:28PM:Re: Question...said by W1RFI :said by amigo_boy :
Personally, I don't think 5 years is that long when considering that it's an industry that's rarely confronted new opportunities and business models.
Less than 5 years seemed to be sufficient for a number of utilities that abandoned its interest in BPL, announcing that the financial model didn't work for them as the principle reason.
But it's "RF Types" that are saying this, so it can't possibly be true!!! :uhh:
I guess some nimrod needs to report this information on Cnet or Digg so it's believable....
reply
amigo_boy @ 23rd Mar 05:36PM:Re: Question...said by rf_engineer :
amateur spectrum is often used for emergency training and communications,
They can use 2 meter and 70 cm.
said by rf_engineer :
and 90% of potentially BPL affected spectrum isn't amateur but is government, military, maritime, aeronautical, and international broadcast.
This is like "good cop, bad cop." I mentioned this to Ed in an earlier thread. He dismissed it because it's not in the realm of ARRL's charter. But, it always seems to come up when hobbyists look irrelevant.
Mark
reply
rf_engineer @ 23rd Mar 06:20PM:Re: Question...said by amigo_boy :said by rf_engineer :
amateur spectrum is often used for emergency training and communications,
They can use 2 meter and 70 cm.
How, pray tell, do you use 2m and 70cm for regional or nationwide communications? This is one of your problems to understanding the issues. You think you know a lot about amateur radio, but you really don't. I doubt you know much about BPL and last mile because it seems most of your comments revolve around extremism and you don't seem to address the issues directly.
said by rf_engineer :
and 90% of potentially BPL affected spectrum isn't amateur but is government, military, maritime, aeronautical, and international broadcast.
This is like "good cop, bad cop." I mentioned this to Ed in an earlier thread. He dismissed it because it's not in the realm of ARRL's charter. But, it always seems to come up when hobbyists look irrelevant.
You're a bit confused. I'm not just a hobbyist, I'm a citizen of the United States, therefore I have an interest in our national communications outside of amateur radio. ARRL can really only speak for amateur radio.
Should I dismiss your comments as irrelevant because you don't have BPL at your house?
As I mentioned before, I'm also an IT and telecom professional, so I can comment on business aspects of BPL as well. (Of course, teenage game players living in their mom's basement can comment on it too as this is a public forum, but their comments usually just revolve around how great BPL is because it can get them off of dialup.)
reply
W1RFI @ 23rd Mar 06:23PM:Re: Question...said by amigo_boy :
Apples and oranges. Cell phones are a commercial activity, not a hobby. And, there's about a gazillion users, not a dozen (as an illustration.
I would imagine that 99% of cell phone conversations are about personal activities, so that argument is pretty weak. So are you saying that if you experienced interference in your entire community to your cell phone use, you would only protest too much for your commercial use of cellular telephone use, but not for that which was entirely personal?
Even radio hobbyists sacrifice the usefulness of their frequencies in the name of pragmatism. That's exactly what happened when morse code was set aside in the interest of being more modern (and gaining more participants).
So which argument are you making today, that Amateur Radio is declining, or that it is gaining more participants? That seems to change with the blowing of the wind. Or is it that hams wanted to change the Morse code requirement to be more spectrally inefficient to become more modern to gain more participants?
And, of course, there are two fallacies in your arguement. Morse code use has not been set aside; it continues as a viable and used operating mode in the Amateur Radio Service.
The second flaw in your (ill)logic is that Morse code is NOT more spectrally efficient than other operating modes. For digital operation for the transmission of letters and numerals, binary phase shift keying is superior in its use of spectrum. Any type of voice operation is more spectrally efficient that Morse code because listening to a human voice carries information that would be impossible to convey with letters and numbers. A human voice carries inflection, emotion and subtle information about the speaker that would could not carry the same human experience as the words of the conversation sent only with letters and numbers.
It may be your position that BPL should be permitted to cause harmful interference to Amateur Radio, but so far, that position has not proven useful to the BPL industry. Although the FCC has been slow to act on interference complaints, some in the utility industry have told me that they literally told the BPL marketing people to come back when they had solved the interference problem.
Your position does manage to stir up discussion and get a rise out of people. To me, that appears to be your intent.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
reply
amigo_boy @ 23rd Mar 06:44PM:Re: Question...said by W1RFI :
So are you saying that if you experienced interference in your entire community to your cell phone use, you would only protest too much for your commercial use of cellular telephone use, but not for that which was entirely personal?
No. Just that, with gazillions of people using cell phones, and paying for the use of those radio waves, it's vastly different than a dozen using RF as a hobby.
I think hobbyists are aware of the distinction. Otherwise they wouldn't make appeals to "but all these other people will be affected..." when hobby uses start to look unimportant.
said by W1RFI :
So which argument are you making today, that Amateur Radio is declining, or that it is gaining more participants?
C'mon Ed. I have more respect for you than that. 1) My own experience is that the demographics of hobby radio is toward the older adult. I've speculated that the number of participants is dwindling. 2) My hobby friends have told me Morse code was abandoned in order to grow the number of participants. 3) It's too soon to tell if that change has had the intended consequence. ("Intended" being the operative word. It's very possible that hobby radio will end up sounding like Citizens Band.).
said by W1RFI :
Morse code use has not been set aside; it continues as a viable and used operating mode in the Amateur Radio Service.
That's a distinction without a difference. If an increasing proportion of hobbyists don't know how to use Morse, there are that many fewer using that operating mode.
said by W1RFI :
Morse code is NOT more spectrally efficient than other operating modes. For digital operation for the transmission of letters and numerals, binary phase shift keying is superior in its use of spectrum. Any type of voice operation is more spectrally efficient that Morse code because listening to a human voice carries information that would be impossible to convey with letters and numbers.
I agree that voice can carry more data (with more power and more bandwidth) than binary Morse code. But, we were told that the benefit of morse code is that it required less power, less bandwidth and equipment that is less susceptible to the elements. All beneficial in the event of an emergency. By eliminating the Morse code requirement a choice was made to reduce (and eventually eliminate) the use of Morse in emergencies. And, to sacrifice useable bandwidth even during non-emergencies for ease of use.
It's just one more step to say that hobbyists can use higher frequencies and relay nets.
Mark
reply
amigo_boy @ 23rd Mar 06:47PM:Re: Question...said by rf_engineer :
How, pray tell, do you use 2m and 70cm for regional or nationwide communications?
Relay nets. Remember. In an emergency hobbyists only need to deliver communications to the nearest point that electricity and mainstream (more robust) communications are available. 20 to 70 miles?
said by rf_engineer :
I'm not just a hobbyist, I'm a citizen of the United States, therefore I have an interest in our national communications outside of amateur radio.
Me too. (You're turn.).
Mark
reply
rf_engineer @ 23rd Mar 07:30PM:Re: Question...said by amigo_boy :said by rf_engineer :
How, pray tell, do you use 2m and 70cm for regional or nationwide communications?
Relay nets. Remember. In an emergency hobbyists only need to deliver communications to the nearest point that electricity and mainstream (more robust) communications are available. 20 to 70 miles?
It's possible, but unnecessary and in many instances impractical. The spectrum to do national and worldwide communications is already there, it's called HF. It's pointless and rather stupid to throw it away for a leaky network with mediocre bandwidth that can't compete with better technology.
said by rf_engineer :
I'm not just a hobbyist, I'm a citizen of the United States, therefore I have an interest in our national communications outside of amateur radio.
Me too. (You're turn.).
If you truly had a real interest, you wouldn't be cheerleading for BPL.
reply
rf_engineer @ 23rd Mar 07:44PM:Re: Question...said by amigo_boy :
It's just one more step to say that hobbyists can use higher frequencies and relay nets.
Morse code wasn't eliminated, the testing for it was. There's still just as much morse code activity now as there was last year. Anyone is free to learn and use it, regardless of the testing. The operator quality argument has been debunked over and over again within the amateur community. So your link to the elimination of morse code testing (what you're really trying to say) to emergency communications effectiveness isn't valid, and how this links in with your statement above is beyond me.
I remember getting into your arcane, nonsensical argument about CW bandwidth last year some time. I'm not going to waste my time again. It's clear you just don't get it and don't have the technical know-how to understand.
reply
Broken Back @ 23rd Mar 07:59PM:Dallas BPLI have had SBC-ATT since it came to Dallas. My line quality to house is terrible. When it rains it goes down s/n goes down to 8 from 12. I signed with Directv for 5mgs speeds. I have been with DTV since 95 hope it works better than ATT. Should have it working by middle of week.
--
Over The Hillreply
amigo_boy @ 23rd Mar 08:01PM:Re: Question...said by rf_engineer :
It's possible, but unnecessary and in many instances impractical.
Thanks. That's all I was getting at. Unnecessary is a subjective term. It was less necessary in the 80s prior to the explosion of long distance communication methods. Back then it was conceivable that HF might be the the only means to communicate cross country. Today that's much less of an issue. Especially taking into account satellite phones.
Mark
reply
amigo_boy @ 23rd Mar 08:05PM:Re: Question...said by rf_engineer :
Morse code wasn't eliminated, the testing for it was. There's still just as much morse code activity now as there was last year. Anyone is free to
That's a distinction without a difference. It was widely accepted that the Morse requirement kept people out of hobby radio. And, the argument for retaining Morse was much the same as the argument for retaining HF (last resort of public safety). The latter was sacrificed for the purpose of the former. If it's "no big deal" (as you claim) then why not require Morse?
said by rf_engineer :
The operator quality argument has been debunked over and over again within the amateur community.
Now you're being dishonest. I've heard the HF frequencies. They sound a lot more like CB today than they did 15 years ago. People using more power than is necessary to communicate. Doing it to drown out competing signals. Not yielding to competing signals.
Mark
reply
W1RFI @ 23rd Mar 08:14PM:Re: wowsaid by rf_engineer :
The photo is most likely POTS lines in a foreign country.
I have seen a very similar photo from a group of poles and lines in India. In the photo I saw, there was quite a mix of phone and power lines.
That, however, is very much the exception. RF_engineer is right; in the US, most BPL is reasonably well installed. The IEEE standard on safety and installation, nearing release, covers the installation of BPL reasonably well. The standard passed ballot and is in the comment-resolution process, where even with a passed ballot, the IEEE consensus-standard process requires that the developers of the standard give a bona fide effort to resolve negative votes and comments.
There were few negative votes or comments, as the standard was well done. I was on the balloting pool (to help provide balance to the balloting process) and I voted to affirm the P1675 standard with only editorial comments.
The P1775 EMC-testing standard is also work in progress. It working group will meet Tuesday and Wednesday at IEEE HQ in New Jersey. I serve as a member of that Working Group.
Back to the picture; I believe that including it in the article was not a fair representation of the state of power lines on which BPL would typically be deployed. The pictures on the ARRL web page, primarily linking to photos provided by manufacturers, is a more typical representation.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
reply
rf_engineer @ 23rd Mar 08:21PM:Re: Question...There's been no proven correlation between morse code knowledge and operator quality. Furthermore, the vast majority of operators who have been fined for malicious or illegal operation passed a morse code test.
And on the "distinction without a difference" comment, you're basing your argument on the flawed assumption that morse code is the best or only mode for emergency communications. It's not, in fact there are digital modes that have better spectral efficiency and signal to noise performance than morse code.
It's funny how your arguments for morse code parrot a lot of the amateur radio CW extremists who argued to death for code testing, yet you're not licensed.
reply
amigo_boy @ 23rd Mar 08:42PM:Re: Question...said by rf_engineer :
the vast majority of operators who have been fined for malicious or illegal operation passed a morse code test.
That's hardly remarkable when we have nearly a century of history which required proficiency in Morse. Give it some time. Like I said, I've heard it with my own ears.
said by rf_engineer :
you're basing your argument on the flawed assumption that morse code is the best or only mode for emergency communications.
I'm just repeating what radio hobbyists said 15-20 years ago.
said by rf_engineer :
It's not, in fact there are digital modes ...
Breathtaking. Relying on technologies which may not be available in a disaster? Breathtaking.
said by rf_engineer :
It's funny how your arguments for morse code parrot a lot of the amateur radio CW extremists who argued to death for code testing,
It's funny how your arguments parrot a lot of the pragmatists over the past 20 years. I'm just questioning "why stop here?"
said by rf_engineer :
yet you're not licensed.
You have no idea what I am. Your assumptions reveal a great deal about your biases. Which is the only point I was trying to make at the onset of this thread.
Mark
reply
W1RFI @ 23rd Mar 08:56PM:Re: Question...said by amigo_boy :
I wouldn't trust radio hobbyists any more than I'd trust BPL industry PR folks.
Those radio hobbyists worked with the BPL industry before access BPL was ever envisioned and helped develop the successful industry HomePlug specification. Its representatives have stated clearly that with 12 million HomePlug devices deployed, there have been no reports of harmful interference involving Amateur Radio. Is that what you don't trust?
ARRL has also worked with the DSL industry, helping develop the still-developing specifications for higher-speed DSL, through the DSL industry standards commmittees. ARRL has reported that to date, these standards have been successful, with no reports of interference involving DSL. Is that the part you don't trust?
ARRL has a Board-of-Directors level committee comprised of representives from the cable industry, the DSL industry, the electric-utility industry and the BPL industry. among others. It maintains contact with these industries, helping to resolve the occasional interference problem that crops up. Is this what you don't trust?
Those hobbyists are found in industry committees such as the IEEE BPL EMC committee I discussed in another post, but also on the ANSI accredited C63 EMC committee and the IEEE EMC Society Standards Development Committee, to name the two biggest examples. In these two committees, ARRL staff occupy positions of leadership, with my chairing the C63 Subcommittee 5 on EMC immunity and serving as the elected Secretary of the IEEE EMC Society Standards Development Committee. Do you think that these committees share your distrust or they believe that ARRL is representing only "hobbyists?"
Although ARRL is firm about the need to address sources of harmful interference to Amateur Radio, it has treated industry fairly, resolving as many problems as possible directly with the responsible parties. It has developed a cooperative program with the FCC regarding power line noise. FCC often refers interference cases reported to the FCC to ARRL. ARRL also works with groups like the Electric Power Research Institute and Electronic Industries Association. Is this what engenders your distrust?
Many Amateur Radio operators are also qualified engineers, and they were responsible for some of the analyses that led the DSL industry and HomePlug to create specifications and policies that have been shown to adequately protect licensed Amateur operation. Is this what you distrust? In the case of access BPL, the same analyses were done, but the industry did not initially respond the way that other industries did, and there were numerous cases of well-documented interference. Is it the different response of one industry that causes you to distrust those that are affected by its operation?
ARRL has also responded postitively, albeit with caution, to the BPL industry's improvements in policy and technology. Was it ARRL working with the DS2-chipset manufacturer to improve its notch depth that makes you suspicious, or ARRL noting that the BPL system in Cincinatti had deployed without major interference involving Amateur Radio that you find troubling?
If there is any distrust that should occur here, IMHO, it should be distrust of a poster who conveniently ignores any information such as I describe above, and instead paints "hobbyist" in a light intended to make them appear to be biased and obstructionist.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
reply
amigo_boy @ 23rd Mar 09:07PM:Re: Question...said by W1RFI :
Those radio hobbyists worked with the BPL industry
Not all of them. Which is the point.
Mark
reply
W1RFI @ 23rd Mar 10:29PM:Re: Question...said by W1RFI :
So are you saying that if you experienced interference in your entire community to your cell phone use, you would only protest too much for your commercial use of cellular telephone use, but not for that which was entirely personal?
said by user=amigo_boy :
]No. Just that, with gazillions of people using cell phones, and paying for the use of those radio waves, it's vastly different than a dozen using RF as a hobby.
I couldn't tell from your answer whether you could complain only about interference to your commercial use of cellular telephones.
Gazillions vs a dozen. You couldn't be exaggerating, could you? How about we stack 650,000 licensees vs 5700 BPL lines reported in the last FCC broadband report and continue this conversation. If you still believe it to be all about numbers, that is.
I think hobbyists are aware of the distinction. Otherwise they wouldn't make appeals to "but all these other people will be affected..." when hobby uses start to look unimportant.
I don't believe that the uses that Amateur Radio makes of spectrum are unimportant. Considering that Amateur Radio allocations to spectrum have continued through every WRC and in most ITU conferences, Amateur Radio is given additional spectrum, I think that your position is pretty weak.
said by W1RFI :
So which argument are you making today, that Amateur Radio is declining, or that it is gaining more participants?
C'mon Ed. I have more respect for you than that. 1) My own experience is that the demographics of hobby radio is toward the older adult. I've speculated that the number of participants is dwindling.
Yes, that's your story and you're sticking to it, despite the fact that the number of licensees has generally increased over decades, the more recent drop represents a total of about 4% of the total (still 650,000 licensees...) and the fact that very recent statistics indicate that the modest decline is at least holding flat, and may be increasing.
Care to compare the present 0.0054% of broadband lines being BPL to the fact that three FCC reports ago, it was a whopping 0.011%, and talk about dwindling?
2) My hobby friends have told me Morse code was abandoned in order to grow the number of participants.
You mean the Morse code test was abandonded, right? Typo, or intentional?
So now it's your friends that hold the opinion that the Morse code test was abandoned to grow Amateur Radio? You had presented the idea as your own.
Do you think that the FCC lied when it said that it felt that Morse code testing should be abandonded because it no longer represented main-stream radio technology? Or should Your friends be commended for having seen the TRVTH that the rest of us missed, and you for truly being a prophet for bringing us this secret word.
3) It's too soon to tell if that change has had the intended consequence. ("Intended" being the operative word. It's very possible that hobby radio will end up sounding like Citizens Band.)
BPL interferes with the Citizen's Radio Service, too. I was personally on site with a BPL manufacturer when a local CBer filed a complaint.
said by W1RFI :
Morse code use has not been set aside; it continues as a viable and used operating mode in the Amateur Radio Service.
That's a distinction without a difference. If an increasing proportion of hobbyists don't know how to use Morse, there are that many fewer using that operating mode.
Every one knows how to use Morse code; they learn the code and use it. For those that would have made regular on-the-air use of Morse code had testing been kept, learning it would be fairly easy. Are you offering that it is a viable and userful mode, but no one will take the step of using it? That's hard to defend, but I have little doubt that you will try. Perhaps you could ask your friends for some advice.
I agree that voice can carry more data (with more power and more bandwidth) than binary Morse code.
I think that in terms of total information conveyed, voice modes still top the information-vs-bandwidth-vs-power scale. Even if enough letters and numbers were transmitted to thoroughly describe all of the information found in human voice, it would still not convey the human experience.
But, we were told that the benefit of morse code is that it required less power, less bandwidth and equipment that is less susceptible to the elements. All beneficial in the event of an emergency. By eliminating the Morse code requirement a choice was made to reduce (and eventually eliminate) the use of Morse in emergencies.
Had the FCC wanted to eliminate the use of Morse code in emergencies, it could have written a rule that said it could not be used. Or is this one of those TRVTH things again?
And, to sacrifice useable bandwidth even during non-emergencies for ease of use.
The useable bandwidth is not being sacrified at all; it is being used to convey more inforamtion that can be conveyed wtih simple Morse.
Now, you are pretty clearly concerned with the bandwidth being used by others on spectrum you don't use. Do you restrict yourself to text messaging on your cell phone, or is this one of those do-as-you-say, not do-as-you-do sort of things?
It's just one more step to say that hobbyists can use higher frequencies and relay nets.
A step built on a house of cards is not one I think that many will take...
Ed, W1RFI
reply
W1RFI @ 23rd Mar 10:35PM:Re: Question...said by rf_engineer :
yet you're not licensed.
said by amigo_boy :
You have no idea what I am.
You could clear that up pretty easily. I somehow don't think you will.
said by amigo_boy :
[ Your assumptions reveal a great deal about your biases.
You have made no small number of assumptions along the way in this thread. What do you think that this reveals about your biases? Or is this another one of those do-as-you say sort of things?
Ed Hare, W1RFI
reply
W1RFI @ 23rd Mar 10:43PM:Re: Question...said by W1RFI :
Those radio hobbyists worked with the BPL industry.
said by amigo_boy :
[Not all of them. Which is the point.
Do you really mean that all 650,000 licensed hams needed to have worked with the BPL industry or you have made your point? That's patently absurd.
Do you really mean that if any of the 650,000 licensed hams work against the BPL industry, you have made your point? That's also patently absurd.
Posing absurdities and claiming that you have made a point with them is a D+ at best in high-school debate class.
My point is that through the major organization in Amateur Radio, licensed radio operators have been more than willing to work with any part of the BPL industry -- or any industry -- that wants to address EMC issues responsibily.
Once the BPL industry got past claiming that the Amateur Radio Service was only a hobby and realized that the weight of numbers was not going to allow them to make strong noise in the Amateur bands, progress was made. It did not take all 650,000 licensed hams to get there.
Contrast all that to the point you think has any value at this table.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
reply
amigo_boy @ 23rd Mar 10:46PM:Re: Question...said by W1RFI :said by rf_engineer :
yet you're not licensed.
said by amigo_boy :
You have no idea what I am.
You could clear that up pretty easily. I somehow don't think you will.
Darn straight. Radio hobbyists are like Scientologists, Jumping up and down on Oprah's sofa.
Mark
reply
W1RFI @ 23rd Mar 10:48PM:Re: OutstandingAn AMR-equipped meter will allow the utility to save a few dollars on meter-reading costs. Unless it is linked into a network, it can't be used for load shedding or other utility operations.
Of course, I am honor bound to point out that 902-928 MHz is an Amateur Band, with any Part 15 unlicensed opeation being entirely secondary to the licensed service.
Hey, do you think that Amateur users could use that band for all that relaying that Amigo_boy thinks should be done so that BPL can make strong radio noise in the ham bands?
Ed, W1RFI
reply
amigo_boy @ 23rd Mar 10:50PM:Re: Question...said by W1RFI :
Do you really mean that all 650,000 licensed hams needed to have worked with the BPL industry or you have made your point?
We know that the number of licensees isn't the same as the number of active participants. With a 10-year license, there's a good chance many passed away in the last 10 years. Without any requirements for renewal, those who didn't can renew without any activity (or modicum of interest in activity).
I've already commended you for your pragmatic approach to BPL. But, we know ARRL doesn't represent all radio hobbyists. There are many who believe ARRL is too accomodating (not PETA enough). That comment has been made on DSLR/BBR in the recent past.
Mark
reply
amigo_boy @ 23rd Mar 10:58PM:Re: Question...said by W1RFI :
Gazillions vs a dozen. You couldn't be exaggerating, could you?
Not by much.
said by W1RFI :
How about we stack 650,000 licensees vs 5700 BPL lines
Nice dodge. We were talking about whether cell phone users would complain about interference. I suppose you've conceded that they would, and that they're *paying* interest in their service, and their magnitude vastly outweighs that of radio hobbyists.
And, as mentioned many times before, licensed users don't equate to active users. Not by a long shot.
said by W1RFI :
Do you think that the FCC lied when it said that it felt that Morse code testing should be abandonded because it no longer represented main-stream radio technology?
That's my point. "Mainstream" is very subjective. It's also a pseudonym for "popular" or "standing in the way of increased participation."
said by W1RFI :
Every one knows how to use Morse code
To quote a phrase I recently heard, "a bit of exaggeration?"
Mark
reply
amigo_boy @ 23rd Mar 11:07PM:Re: Outstandingsaid by W1RFI :
I am honor bound to point out that 902-928 MHz is an Amateur Band, ... do you think that Amateur users could use that band for all that relaying that Amigo_boy thinks should be done so that BPL can make strong radio noise in the ham bands?
Ed, now you're being intentionally provocative. I've suggested more than once that 2 meter or 70 cm can be used. And, in the event of a disaster, 33 cm wouldn't be affected by local power meters that are out of service. It would also not be affected by propagation (common argument against BPL interference of HF, lower frequencies).
Mark
reply
rf_engineer @ 23rd Mar 11:26PM:Re: Question...said by amigo_boy :
Darn straight. Radio hobbyists are like Scientologists, Jumping up and down on Oprah's sofa.
Mark
Wow, talk about an ad hominem attack. I think that qualifies you as a troll.
Ed, he's not worth wasting your time on. He hasn't supported any of his claims.
Please come back in 10 or 15 years and tell us how BPL is making out after the utilities wake up. Maybe by then we'll be yanking out all that multi-gigabit FTTH for 8 Mbs BPL service. Adios, Amigo!
reply
rf_engineer @ 23rd Mar 11:57PM:Re: Outstandingsaid by amigo_boy :said by W1RFI :
I am honor bound to point out that 902-928 MHz is an Amateur Band, ... do you think that Amateur users could use that band for all that relaying that Amigo_boy thinks should be done so that BPL can make strong radio noise in the ham bands?
Ed, now you're being intentionally provocative. I've suggested more than once that 2 meter or 70 cm can be used. And, in the event of a disaster, 33 cm wouldn't be affected by local power meters that are out of service. It would also not be affected by propagation (common argument against BPL interference of HF, lower frequencies).
Why do you need BPL? Can't you just use dial up? Dial up is even better than BPL because phone lines are everywhere (you can take cell phones everywhere now). And why do people need the Internet anyway if they can buy p0rn at a bookstore? Magazines are unaffected by power outages and they can withstand coffee spills better than a laptop.
reply
amigo_boy @ 24th Mar 12:33AM:Re: Outstandingsaid by rf_engineer :
And why do people need the Internet anyway if ...
False analogy. Various access methods to the Internet are commercial. Not public gifts like hobby radio. Hobby radio is akin to a public park (who's users complain that it must be used exactly a certain way, err... until they themselves become pragmatic and ... oh well.).
Mark
reply
rf_engineer @ 24th Mar 12:50AM:Re: Outstandingsaid by amigo_boy :said by rf_engineer :
And why do people need the Internet anyway if ...
False analogy. Various access methods to the Internet are commercial. Not public gifts like hobby radio. Hobby radio is akin to a public park (who's users complain that it must be used exactly a certain way, err... until they themselves become pragmatic and ... oh well.).
But what's so important about your access to the Internet? It's really just a hobby for you. You like to post in forums and I'm guessing you probably do some web surfing, IM ur BFFs, and listen to some tunes. That sounds like a hobby to me and not critical to our national infrastructure. The Internet is like a park with free gifts and the majority of what goes on really isn't that important. You can call your friends on the phone rather than IMing them. You can watch TV instead of web surfing. You can turn on the radio to listen to music. You Internet extremist people need to get a grip and realize you don't need the Internet to live and look at some of the alternatives.
(I'm kinda getting the hang of your way of thinking!! This is great! Everything is so much clearer, and now I have simple, wrong answers to everything! If I just keep giving the same wrong answers again and again, they'll become right answers once everyone gets frustrated and gives up talking to me! :D )
reply
amigo_boy @ 24th Mar 01:43AM:Re: Outstandingsaid by rf_engineer :
But what's so important about your access to the Internet? It's really just a hobby for you.
A hobby I (and *billions*) pay for. Not a grant of *public* airwaves to a tiny minority who insist it must be used as [fill in the blank], but then [fill in the blank] and then... "but we're not being inconsistent. There is purity in pragmatism.".
Mark
reply
rf_engineer @ 24th Mar 01:56AM:Re: Outstandingsaid by amigo_boy :said by rf_engineer :
But what's so important about your access to the Internet? It's really just a hobby for you.
A hobby I (and *billions*) pay for. Not a grant of *public* airwaves to a tiny minority who insist it must be used as [fill in the blank], but then [fill in the blank] and then... "but we're not being inconsistent. There is purity in pragmatism.".
But you can use cable, DSL and fiber, all of which are faster, bigger, and better than BPL and better for your hobby that you pay to do for fun. Your hobby isn't more important than the other non-amateur users of the spectrum like the government and military, the ones that use the majority of the spectrum that BPL interferes with. And it would be more pragmatic to not pay for an Internet hobby and just watch TV instead. And it's not billions, I think there are 30 million DSL, 30 million cable, and about 5,000 BPL users, so it's actually much less than billions (in the US) and is dwindling.
Have I mentioned you can get p0rn in places other than the Internet?
reply
rf_engineer @ 24th Mar 09:28AM:Re: Outstandingsaid by W1RFI :
An AMR-equipped meter will allow the utility to save a few dollars on meter-reading costs. Unless it is linked into a network, it can't be used for load shedding or other utility operations.
Of course, I am honor bound to point out that 902-928 MHz is an Amateur Band, with any Part 15 unlicensed opeation being entirely secondary to the licensed service.
At least the AMR equipment actually uses the spectrum for communications. As you know, BPL just dumps the energy it leaks in the wireless spectrum, it doesn't even use it for transmitting intelligence.
Hey, do you think that Amateur users could use that band for all that relaying that Amigo_boy thinks should be done so that BPL can make strong radio noise in the ham bands?
No, actually all radio spectrum users should use the Internet instead of wireless so BPL can have all the spectrum from DC to 800 Mhz. By my calculations, BPL could deliver 3 Gbs of bandwidth with this spectrum and be able to compete with FTTH! We have to avoid using 800 Mhz and above so our amigos can talk on their cell phones, use wifi at Starbucks, and get satellite radio - the only wireless services that really matter. Undoubtedly BPL could double its numbers in a year with such bandwidth and break the 10,000 customer barrier!
:D
reply
W1RFI @ 24th Mar 11:22AM:Re: Outstandingsaid by amigo_boy :
Ed, now you're being intentionally provocative. I've suggested more than once that 2 meter or 70 cm can be used.
And I suggested another licensed band that could be used. Now it has become prevocative for a licensed user to want to use one of its bands for its intended purpose?
Fortunately, the hostile takeover you appear to be proposing didn't fare too well in the BPL rulemaking. It would be a major paradigm shift, so if you really want to make it happen, you will need to do more than post articles on BBR.
For local communication, 900 MHz would be a technically feasible choice.
The relay scheme you propose to allow BPL to make strong noise on the Amateur bands, however, is not a viable alternative, IMHO. It presumes that in a Katrina-sized event that all of the resources will be readily available in the 30 miles you propose as a relay distance.
Unless augmented by significant additional infrastructure, the relay process would be one of words only, not actual voices, although completing the development of digital voice coudl store and forward. That, however, would sacrifice some real-time aspects that is possible in direct human communication.
Fortunately, under the present regulatory paradigm, licensed users in the Amateur Radio Service do not have to develop new infrastructure and refine technology to be able to communicate in an emergency or for routine communications. Amateurs have allocations on bands across the spectrum, allowing them to choose the unique spectrum that allows them to communicate directly without intervening infrastructure.
It is clear that you think that this should be changed. I think that your view is not likely to prevail. Even the BPL industry disagrees with you. :-)
Ed, W1RFI
reply
W1RFI @ 24th Mar 11:31AM:Re: Question...said by W1RFI :
Do you really mean that all 650,000 licensed hams needed to have worked with the BPL industry or you have made your point?
said by amigo_boy :
We know that the number of licensees isn't the same as the number of active participants. With a 10-year license, there's a good chance many passed away in the last 10 years. Without any requirements for renewal, those who didn't can renew without any activity (or modicum of interest in activity).
Fair enough, although "many" typically would be about 5-10% or so of licensees dropping out in the renwal period.
So, how many of those remaining licensees do you feel must work with the manufacturers to get you to decide that because they "all" didn't so work, you have proved your point? If you are willing to put a number on the number of hams that must work with manufacturers for your point to be unproven, it would help us better understand how you think.
If the manufacturers don't want to work wtih 400,000 licensees, or 200,000 licensees, or 100,000 licensees, will you still claim that your point has been proven?
But, we know ARRL doesn't represent all radio hobbyists. There are many who believe ARRL is too accomodating (not PETA enough).
What number do you believe that "many" to be, and by what means have you calculate it?
If all of the hams don't agree with you, can I act like you and claim that their not working with you has proven my point?
reply
amigo_boy @ 24th Mar 11:54AM:Re: Outstandingsaid by W1RFI :
And I suggested another licensed band that could be used.
There was no need to since 2m and 70cm are perfectly suited to medium distance relay nets.
said by W1RFI :
The relay scheme you propose to allow BPL to make strong noise on the Amateur bands, however, is not a viable alternative,
I suspect it's not viable because it would require more than 20-30 hobbyists participating in a disaster like the Northwest floods.
This is becoming quite predictable. Hobby radio should be protected because it serves a public purpose (once every few years). When it's pointed out that only 20-30 people out of 650k licensees participate, the argument in favor of hobby radio changes to something else.
When it's pointed out that actual active users is less than licensed users, the argument turns into "there are a lot of other users like govt."
To me, what this keeps pointing to is that hobby radio is essentially irrelevant. The spectrum wasn't purchased. It's public space like a public park. If circumstances have changed (and they obviously have in the past 2-3 decades, increasing the options for emergency communications) the public can "taketh away." There's no reason for an irrelevant and relatively *tiny* group of people to force the public to continue on an outdated path which increasingly serves less of a public service.
said by W1RFI :
It is clear that you think that this should be changed.
Nope. Just that nothing's sacred.
Mark
reply
amigo_boy @ 24th Mar 12:02PM:Re: Question...said by W1RFI :said by W1RFI :
Do you really mean that all 650,000 licensed hams needed to have worked with the BPL industry or you have made your point?
said by amigo_boy :
We know that the number of licensees isn't the same as the number of active participants. With a 10-year license, there's a good chance many passed away in the last 10 years. Without any requirements for renewal, those who didn't can renew without any activity (or modicum of interest in activity).
Fair enough, although "many" typically would be about 5-10% or so of licensees dropping out in the renwal period.
I notice you keep avoiding the topic of 650k licensees doesn't translate into active participants. From my own experience I suggest that impacts the 650k far more than non-renewals.
said by W1RFI :
If all of the hams don't agree with you, can I act like you and claim that their not working with you has proven my point?
Sure. But, I don't think anyone's confused on that point. They may be confused by the absolutist rhetoric of radio hobbyists.
That's the reason to point out that 650k licensees means different things depending upon perspective. It's not as flattering when viewed from a non-hobbyist perspective. Or, that "public service" might mean something else (20 people participating in regional flood relief). Or, that all hobbyists march in lockstep (as they like to portray, when ARRL represents only a fraction.).
Mark
reply
N3EVL @ 24th Mar 02:43PM:Re: Question...Would I be correct in inferring that your position regarding the use of BPL is as follows:
"Regardless of any real or perceived interference potential, a widespread deployment of BPL, even if it rendered the HF spectrum unusable, is quite acceptable."
If this is an incorrect inference, would you please present a corrected form for consideration as I'd really like to understand your motivation and the extent to which it applies to the HF spectrum, either as a whole, or just the part populated by radio amateurs.
Thankyou
reply
amigo_boy @ 24th Mar 03:04PM:Re: Question...said by N3EVL :
Would I be correct in inferring that your position regarding the use of BPL is as follows:
"Regardless of any real or perceived interference potential, a widespread deployment of BPL, even if it rendered the HF spectrum unusable, is quite acceptable."
Primarily that hobby use shouldn't be a concern. Particularly when hobbyists are relatively small in number, and their participation in public service (disaster relief) events is vastly smaller still. And, considering there are other means to perform disaster communications which would allow (require) more hobbyists to serve the public (which we're told is a primary reason for retaining hobby radio).
I understand there are other users of HF. That may be a reason to protect it from interference. But, hobby use (by itself) isn't. I believe hobbyists realize this when they point to the other (non-hobby) users in order to ride their coattails (when hobbyist's arguments of self-importance fall apart).
Mark
reply
W1RFI @ 24th Mar 03:15PM:Re: Question...said by amigo_boy :
Primarily that hobby use shouldn't be a concern.
Notwithstanding the fact that Amateur Radio being only a hobby use exists primarily by your proclamation that it so, very conveniently ignoring any information that shows value that extends past pure recreation . . .
Even so, would you advocate that boating on lakes, bicycling, skiing or any other hobby be similarly restrained for a public good that to date encompasses 0.0054% of a much bigger picture and for which it is FAR from clear that the long term goals that BPL sets out to address are best addressed by BPL?
That's a pretty weak case.
And a case that is entirely moot, because irrespective of what you think the law should be, Amateur Radio is a licensed radio service under national law and international treaty and as such, if an unlicensed emitter of noise causes harmful interference, it unconditionally must correct the interference or stop operating.
I would think that if BPL were as important as you think it is (all 0.0054% worth), it should have deployed under the rules governing licensed use of spectrum instead of under rules that relegate it to the bottom of the spectral heap.
Ed, W1RFI
reply
amigo_boy @ 24th Mar 03:22PM:Re: Question...said by W1RFI :
would you advocate that boating on lakes, bicycling, skiing or any other hobby be similarly restrained for a public good
Sure. We do it all the time. I'm familiar with a number of public parks converted to public schools, or housing to bring revenue to the city. Lanes of city streets converted to bus-only. Freeway lanes converted to mass-transit only. Society always retains the right to reevaluate the benefit served by [fill in the blank].
said by W1RFI :
irrespective of what you think the law should be, Amateur Radio is a licensed radio service under national law and international treaty and as such,
Prudence has to start somewhere. Challenging the self-important claims of hobbyists is a good place to start. If public service is supposed to sway the public to continue to respect the *free* grant of radio spectrum, maybe we should require mandatory participation. Not just 30 people out of 650,000. (Just one example.).
Mark
reply
W1RFI @ 24th Mar 03:24PM:Re: Outstandingsaid by amigo_boy :
This is becoming quite predictable.
Of course. What else do you expect when you completely ignore any information provided to you and blithely go about repeating yourself ad nauseum.
Hobby radio should be protected because it serves a public purpose (once every few years). When it's pointed out that only 20-30 people out of 650k licensees participate, the argument in favor of hobby radio changes to something else.
Any and all information ignored that shows that far more than 20 Amateurs participate in EMComm work and that it occurs far more than once every few years.
Your misinformation is intentional, IMHO.
If circumstances have changed (and they obviously have in the past 2-3 decades, increasing the options for emergency communications) the public can "taketh away."
The public can taketh away, but primarily by influencing the national treaty that has established the primary use of the spectrum under discussion as being allocated to the Amateur Radio Service.
Get back to us when you have completed changing that. Everyone will be most interested in how it turns out.
Ed, W1RFI
reply
amigo_boy @ 24th Mar 03:34PM:Re: Outstandingsaid by W1RFI :
far more than 20 Amateurs participate in EMComm work and that it occurs far more than once every few years.
How many? And, how often?
What I was referring to was the news reports of 20-30 hobbyists performing communications during the recent Northwest flood. That was portrayed (in this forum) as the reason to protect hobby radio.
Most reasonable people would wonder how significant that is relative to the 650k licensees (which isn't representative of actual active users). If public service is a selling point, perhaps it should be mandatory.
said by W1RFI :
Your misinformation is intentional, IMHO.
Ditto.
said by W1RFI :
Get back to us when you have completed changing that. Everyone will be most interested in how it turns out.
Be careful what you wish for. It seems to me like hobbyists would be better served by looking for ways to be more relevant today, including mandatory service. Taunting the public to go further in disrespecting their hobby seems counter-intuitive to me.
Mark
reply
N3EVL @ 24th Mar 04:12PM:Re: Question...said by amigo_boy :
I understand there are other users of HF. That may be a reason to protect it from interference.
Then considering the tiny bandwidth that radio amateur allocations in the HF spectrum amount to, and the slight difference the absence or presence of those allocations make in the overall BPL polluting anywhere picture, it seems your arguments to date represent an agenda that is as much anti-amateur as it is pro-BPL. Pardon those of us with an interest in preserving what small allocations we might have for speaking out on behalf of the HF spectrum in general.
reply
rf_engineer @ 24th Mar 04:34PM:Re: Question...said by N3EVL :said by amigo_boy :
I understand there are other users of HF. That may be a reason to protect it from interference.
Then considering the tiny bandwidth that radio amateur allocations in the HF spectrum amount to, and the slight difference the absence or presence of those allocations make in the overall BPL polluting anywhere picture, it seems your arguments to date represent an agenda that is as much anti-amateur as it is pro-BPL. Pardon those of us with an interest in preserving what small allocations we might have for speaking out on behalf of the HF spectrum in general.
Oh, I know the answer, I know! Pick me, pick me [raising hand]!!! He's speaking out for the gazillion Internet users. They're more important than any wireless communications (unless it's a cell phone or wifi).
This is his MO: minimize the interference to just affecting amateur radio, then minimize amateur radio down to a hobby full of extremists who don't have 100% cooperation from every licensed amateur with BPL companies. When the Emcomm aspects of amateur radio are brought up, he minimizes that by saying not everyone participates in Emcomm, and then after that he'll start making wrong claims about morse code being "eliminated", try to tie that into an arcane spectral efficiency argument, and then tie that into an illogical argument against the preservation of HF spectrum. Oh, and he's not an amateur but he "knows" that 2 meter and 70 cm can replace HF, how amateur bands have been deteriorating and his friends tell him everything he knows about amateur radio. And the stagnation of BPL numbers? That's due to utilities being slow; give it another 10 or 15 years! Did I miss anything?
Three or four years ago guys like this were scary. We were hearing much of the same rhetoric from advocacy group spokespeople and vendors and BPL actually looked like it was going to be successful. Now it's just people who discovered BPL recently or bandwidth hungry game playing adolescents who are spewing this drivel. I don't wish failure on the BPL industry, but it's clear that it's on life support. It's probably best to let amigo and his kind sit in their basements believing what they're saying waiting for the broadband fantasy to arrive.
reply
rf_engineer @ 24th Mar 04:53PM:Re: Outstandingsaid by amigo_boy :said by W1RFI :
far more than 20 Amateurs participate in EMComm work and that it occurs far more than once every few years.
How many? And, how often?
What I was referring to was the news reports of 20-30 hobbyists performing communications during the recent Northwest flood. That was portrayed (in this forum) as the reason to protect hobby radio.
Most reasonable people would wonder how significant that is relative to the 650k licensees (which isn't representative of actual active users). If public service is a selling point, perhaps it should be mandatory.
said by W1RFI :
Your misinformation is intentional, IMHO.
Ditto.
said by W1RFI :
Get back to us when you have completed changing that. Everyone will be most interested in how it turns out.
Be careful what you wish for. It seems to me like hobbyists would be better served by looking for ways to be more relevant today, including mandatory service. Taunting the public to go further in disrespecting their hobby seems counter-intuitive to me.
We haven't taunted the public; ironically it seems to be your focus to taunt us. While the amateur service may not garner the same recognition and respect it did in the past, I think it's far from disrespect. You've mischaracterized the focus on the BPL interference issues as public taunting or protecting self interests. This has been an often used tactic against movements which brought to light environmental, industry, or government atrocities; movements that ultimately were right and brought about much needed change. Granted, the BPL interference issue isn't to that level, but you and others have used the same smear tactics in an effort to discredit valid arguments.
Mandatory public service may sound good on paper but in reality it's logistically difficult to administrate. The beauty of the amateur service is that it's not just Emcomm; there's also an educational and personal growth aspect. As the regulations state, one of the purposes is to advance the radio art. Being an amateur doesn't necessarily have to include public service. It's a multi-faceted activity that can be either a service or a hobby and can benefit you personally or the public.
People like you amaze me. Amateur radio is one of the few resources these days that are free and given to the public to enjoy. It's something that you or anyone can do, yet you seem to be bent on seeing it destroyed and indifferent to the value it provides others. It's unfortunate as I've seen this attitude from others here and seems to be a common theme coming from those who want cheap broadband and really couldn't give a damn about much else.
reply
W1RFI @ 25th Mar 05:45AM:Re: Question...said by amigo_boy :
If public service is supposed to sway the public to continue to respect the *free* grant of radio spectrum, maybe we should require mandatory participation.
You can begain to actually affecgt that by filing a petition for rulemaking with the FCC. Let us know how you make out with that.
Not just 30 people out of 650,000. (Just one example.)
And you were doing so good, but seem to have slipped backwards. Keep trying, though; you can be realistic in your estimates if you work at it.
A realistic description of Amateur Radio's EMComm participation can be found at:
»
www.arrl.org/FandES/field/emergency/Ed, W1RFI
reply
W1RFI @ 25th Mar 12:37PM:Re: Outstandingsaid by amigo_boy :said by W1RFI :
Get back to us when you have completed changing that. Everyone will be most interested in how it turns out.
Be careful what you wish for.
I think it highly unlikely that we will see you any time soon as a member of the US delegation to the ITU, seeking to change the international treaties that continue the Amateur Radio Service. That is a lot more work than continually referring to a licensed radio service as "a hobby" on an Internet discussion board. A lot can talk that talk, but very few walk it.
If I am wrong, say hello to the ARRL staff who do participate.
Ed, W1RFI
reply
W1RFI @ 25th Mar 12:42PM:Re: Outstandingsaid by amigo_boy :said by W1RFI :
far more than 20 Amateurs participate in EMComm work and that it occurs far more than once every few years.
How many? And, how often?
A snapshot from a list I compiled in 2006:
More articles about Amateur Radio and emergency communications:
»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/04/21/2/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/0···02/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/04/07/1/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/04/05/3/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/03/13/2/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/03/09/4/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/02/28/4/?nc=1»
www.whitehouse.gov/reports/katri···x-b.html»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/12/15/2/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/11/30/2/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/1···01/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/11/11/3/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/features/2005/···/1/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/1···01/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/1···01/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/10/24/1/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/10/21/3/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/10/20/1/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/10/19/1/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/10/11/2/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/10/07/2/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/1···00/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/1···00/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/1···00/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/30/2/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/28/2/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/23/6/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/22/1/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/19/2/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/14/1/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···01/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/12/1/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···03/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···05/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···06/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/02/1/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/01/2/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/09/01/1/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···01/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/08/30/1/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/08/29/2/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/08/26/1/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/08/25/1/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/08/20/1/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···00/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/08/03/7/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/29/1/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/27/2/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/27/1/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/20/4/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/15/3/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···04/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/07/2/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/05/18/2/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/28/4/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/08/4/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/06/2/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···01/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···01/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/0···01/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/01/04/2/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/1···00/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/1···00/?nc=1»
www.arrl.org/news/features/2004/···/1/?nc=1A bit more than every 2 or 3 years like one poster misrepresented here...
Ed, W1RFI
reply
anon @ 3rd Apr 12:35AM:Re: Symmetrical?this is great conversion to a Smarter Electric Power Grids !
reply
mwtea @ 29th Apr 11:27AM:Re: Dallas BPLI am looking at DirecTV's BPL service as well. Can you tell me what you think so far? Also, do you have any info on their packages?
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC
DirecTV, Current Offer Broadband Over Powerline - Plan to serve 2 million residents in the Dallas area