Design around _this_!

Paul Hovnanian P.E. · May 27, 2004

Mark Fergerson wrote:

What the hell are they thinking?

http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/

For those who hate to click-through, the FCC is about to
approve something we were previously told was "impossible",
or at least "unfeasible"; namely, Broadband Over Powerline
(previously known as "carrier current", but at lower
frequencies). Idea is you won't need a modem or cable to get
Internet connectivity, just a plain old power socket.

What if I don't want a power socket? What about my laptop? PDA?

[snip]

Not to mention there'll be no such thing as a
"standalone" computer invulnerable to hacking afterward.

Not a problem. Just install a firewall or turn off networking
altogether. Unless they are removing the capability to modify network
settings in the next Windows release. There's always Linux.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto

aul@Hovnanian.com
note to spammers: a Washington State resident
------------------------------------------------------------------
Error reading FAT record: Try the SKINNY one? (Y/N)

Mark Fergerson · May 27, 2004

Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

What the hell are they thinking?

http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/

For those who hate to click-through, the FCC is about to
approve something we were previously told was "impossible",
or at least "unfeasible"; namely, Broadband Over Powerline
(previously known as "carrier current", but at lower
frequencies). Idea is you won't need a modem or cable to get
Internet connectivity, just a plain old power socket.

What if I don't want a power socket? What about my laptop? PDA?

I'm wondering if part of the idea is to eventually get
rid of other internet access technologies. Yes, I'm a little
bit paranoid; lots of politicians are pissed that the 'net
is so hard to regulate (thought-wise, that is). They all
hate samizdat.

Not to mention there'll be no such thing as a
"standalone" computer invulnerable to hacking afterward.

Not a problem. Just install a firewall or turn off networking
altogether. Unless they are removing the capability to modify network
settings in the next Windows release. There's always Linux.

As I point out elsewhere, manufacturers will rush to
include modeming through power supplies as a "feature". If
hackers (private or "professional") can get in through your
power supply, how safe can you be?

Mark L. Fergerson

Mark Fergerson · May 27, 2004

Dave VanHorn wrote:

"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:t0Psc.32440$PU5.27214@fed1read06...

Joerg wrote:

Hi Mark,

What frequently is overlooked is that interference tends to go
both directions. Just imagine what happens when an above-ground
powerline is close and maybe even parallel to a ham radio
antenna? I bet that the connected (and paying) Internet users
would grow pretty irate and the customer support rep at the other
end of the phone line would start losing their hair. Because they
probably wouldn't understand what's going on.

Thing is, hams have to go off-air if they cause _any_
interference.

No, they don't. They are primary users on their frequencies, and the part 15
devices are the ones that have to accept any and all interference, including
that which may cause undesired operation.

Not after this goes through, they won't be; they'll be
sharing them. If they're still allowed there at all; hams
are famous for losing "rights" as soon as some corporate
entity gets interested in a chunk of "their" bands.

Mark L. Fergerson

Mark Fergerson · May 27, 2004

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 25 May 2004 17:20:48 -0700) it happened Tim Wescott
tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote in <10b7omijl23474e@corp.supernews.com>:

No, they're going to put the signal on the wires. They've already
tested it a couple of places. The power companies say "see, no one
complained!". The ham radio operators say "look! They selected an area
with no licensed hams!".

At the same time that the BPL folks are claiming low noise, etc., the
amateur radio community is noting interference severe enough to knock
out the kind of world-wide non-network assisted communications you can
get on HF (shortwave) radio.

If that is so, and I was thinking that some hundreds of meters of unscreened
cable makes a good antenna, you guys better get together and write some
politicians!
Or lose the amateur bands!
I am glad we do not have this here!

Where exactly is "here", Jan? Did you check those links
for the outside-U.S. test areas?

Mark L. Fergerson

Mark Fergerson · May 27, 2004

Tim Auton wrote:

Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> wrote:

Tim Auton wrote:

Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> wrote:

[snip]

Not to mention there'll be no such thing as a
"standalone" computer invulnerable to hacking afterward.

Of course there will be. You still need some kind of modem to hook up
to the network. Any computer without a power-line modem thingy will be
just as isolated as it is now.

Yeah, as long as you can still buy replacement PS's
without the built-in modem. But what are new computers going
to come with, after this is approved? Before long, if you
want a PS without the modem capability, you'll have to build
it (or hack it out), but Joe Average is screwed.

This is sci.electronics.design. The problem is to remove >1.7Mhz
"noise" from your 60Hz "signal". That's just a low-pass filter, albeit
one with a lot of juice going through it. Within a couple of hours
even I could come up with a decent solution. I have no doubt the
experts here could do it in minutes.

How "tight" is the case of your 'puter? Got an AM radio
to check with? Cases leak both ways.

You also presume someone will be providing the network connectivity
for free without your intervention. I find this rather unlikely.

I presume "somebody" wants to listen to my 'puter without
my permission. I presume the FCC will find a "good reason"
(likely under Homeland Severity) to poke around without
obtaining a warrant. I presume my 'puter will suffer
interference.

OK, so I'm paranoid. I still think it's a damn stupid plan.

Mark L. FErgerson

Jan Panteltje · May 27, 2004

On a sunny day (Thu, 27 May 2004 05:11:10 -0700) it happened Mark Fergerson
<nunya@biz.ness> wrote in <VVktc.7$dJ2.1@fed1read06>:

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 25 May 2004 17:20:48 -0700) it happened Tim Wescott
tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote in <10b7omijl23474e@corp.supernews.com>:

No, they're going to put the signal on the wires. They've already
tested it a couple of places. The power companies say "see, no one
complained!". The ham radio operators say "look! They selected an area
with no licensed hams!".

At the same time that the BPL folks are claiming low noise, etc., the
amateur radio community is noting interference severe enough to knock
out the kind of world-wide non-network assisted communications you can
get on HF (shortwave) radio.

If that is so, and I was thinking that some hundreds of meters of unscreened
cable makes a good antenna, you guys better get together and write some
politicians!
Or lose the amateur bands!
I am glad we do not have this here!

Where exactly is "here", Jan? Did you check those links
for the outside-U.S. test areas?
'here' is in the Netherlands, that is west side of Europe, between Germany

and the North Sea (if you cross that you are in the UK).
Europe is that place you can get to swimming the atlantic.
The power companies have their own glass fiber network, together or along
(can't remember) the rail road company.
JP

Jan Panteltje · May 27, 2004

On a sunny day (Thu, 27 May 2004 05:15:59 -0700) it happened Mark Fergerson
<nunya@biz.ness> wrote in <p_ktc.8$dJ2.5@fed1read06>:

I presume "somebody" wants to listen to my 'puter without
my permission. I presume the FCC will find a "good reason"
(likely under Homeland Severity) to poke around without
obtaining a warrant. I presume my 'puter will suffer
interference.

OK, so I'm paranoid. I still think it's a damn stupid plan.

Mark L. FErgerson
Duo yo uhave an external miodem with thiose LEDs on it?

Some time ago in sci.crypt we were discussing how you can optically
(telescope + photodiode) get Rx data from the 'RD' LED on the modem.
I have checked this, works fine with mine.
There was also the optical tempest to read your computer screen,
photo multiplier, compensaton amp (anti smear), and some more
signal processing.
You are not safe from 'them' ever.
JP

N. Thornton · May 31, 2004

Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message news:<O5wsc.23844$PU5.4321@fed1read06>...

What the hell are they thinking?

http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/

For those who hate to click-through, the FCC is about to
approve something we were previously told was "impossible",
or at least "unfeasible"; namely, Broadband Over Powerline
(previously known as "carrier current", but at lower
frequencies). Idea is you won't need a modem or cable to get
Internet connectivity, just a plain old power socket.

Great idea, right? Except the frequencies they want to
use (1.7-80 MHz) to get past the transmission limitations of
the 60 Hz US power grid will make a large swath of the EM
spectrum utterly useless, including much of the AM broadcast
band, parts of the FM and TV spectrum, the entire shortwave
spectrum, many police and other emergency radio systems,
FEMA's radio setup, and so on throughout the continental US
and more. This is because powerlines make dandy transmitting
and receiving antennas over the band considered.

So are they going to use only parts of this bandwidth, to allow things
like emergency comms and medium wave to remain, or take the lot? I
dont have a problem with them taking some, but all of it wouldnt be so
clever.

Regards, NT

Joel Kolstad · May 31, 2004

N. Thornton <bigcat@meeow.co.uk> wrote:

Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:<O5wsc.23844$PU5.4321@fed1read06>...
For those who hate to click-through, the FCC is about to
approve something we were previously told was "impossible",
or at least "unfeasible"; namely, Broadband Over Powerline

Before DSPs (or ASICs performing significant DSP functions) became dirt
cheap, BPL _was_ infeasible. Some four? years ago when they started selling
'in-house' 10Mbps powerline adapters it should have been clear that
broadband over long distances was only a matter of time.

Great idea, right? Except the frequencies they want to
use (1.7-80 MHz) to get past the transmission limitations of
the 60 Hz US power grid will make a large swath of the EM
spectrum utterly useless, including much of the AM broadcast
band, parts of the FM and TV spectrum, the entire shortwave
spectrum, many police and other emergency radio systems,
FEMA's radio setup, and so on throughout the continental US
and more.

I think you're overstating the problem in that, as far as I can tell, how
well regulated BPL ends up is unfortunately going to be much more of a
political process than a technical one. The BPLers have the ability to
split up their spectrum usage pretty arbitrarily (but obviously the less
bandwidth they have the slower their service), and you can bet that if
government (FEMA) or commercial (FM/TV) interests are interfered with,
someone with money behind them is pretty quickly going to get the spectrum
usage changed. It's mainly the amateur radio guys who don't have much
political/financial clout who are the most likely to get screwed by BPL...
you can head on over to their newsgroups (or web sites such as eham.net) and
see that they're been ticked about BPL for a long time now.

This is because powerlines make dandy transmitting
and receiving antennas over the band considered.

Actually, powerlines don't make particular good antennas over that entire ra
nge of frequencies, and even the power levels involved aren't that enormous,
but the fact that you have power lines literally within inches and feet of
the radio equipment you're trying to use means that it's very difficult to
avoid significant signal pickup.

So are they going to use only parts of this bandwidth, to allow things
like emergency comms and medium wave to remain, or take the lot? I
dont have a problem with them taking some, but all of it wouldnt be so
clever.

Not to be unkind, N., but this is precisely the rational that may
politicians and other naive on-lookers are going to take. "Oh, look, they
only want _some_ of the spectrum, and think of all the benefits that BPL
will have for rural communities [and this is arguably true], so why don't we
just take some of what amateur radio guys spectrum. That's fair, isn't it?"
:-( (Given how much Jim Thompson's house is worth, I'm thinking surely he
has a spare bedroom he wouldn't mind my moving into?) It's looking like the
FCC is not helping the amateurs in that rather than being proactive and
forcing the BPLers to _demonstrate_ they're in compliance with all current
regulations, they're simply _accepting their word_ that this is the case and
everyone who feels otherwise is going to have an uphill battle to get their
spectrum back.

I'd be curious if anyone knows of similar historical precedents with the
FCC. I'm surprised they're taking such a laxadasical
view about BPL.

---Joel Kolstad

Luhan Monat · May 31, 2004

Joel Kolstad wrote:

N. Thornton <bigcat@meeow.co.uk> wrote:

Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:<O5wsc.23844$PU5.4321@fed1read06>...

For those who hate to click-through, the FCC is about to
approve something we were previously told was "impossible",
or at least "unfeasible"; namely, Broadband Over Powerline

Before DSPs (or ASICs performing significant DSP functions) became dirt
cheap, BPL _was_ infeasible. Some four? years ago when they started selling
'in-house' 10Mbps powerline adapters it should have been clear that
broadband over long distances was only a matter of time.

Great idea, right? Except the frequencies they want to
use (1.7-80 MHz) to get past the transmission limitations of
the 60 Hz US power grid will make a large swath of the EM
spectrum utterly useless, including much of the AM broadcast
band, parts of the FM and TV spectrum, the entire shortwave
spectrum, many police and other emergency radio systems,
FEMA's radio setup, and so on throughout the continental US
and more.

I think you're overstating the problem in that, as far as I can tell, how
well regulated BPL ends up is unfortunately going to be much more of a
political process than a technical one. The BPLers have the ability to
split up their spectrum usage pretty arbitrarily (but obviously the less
bandwidth they have the slower their service), and you can bet that if
government (FEMA) or commercial (FM/TV) interests are interfered with,
someone with money behind them is pretty quickly going to get the spectrum
usage changed. It's mainly the amateur radio guys who don't have much
political/financial clout who are the most likely to get screwed by BPL...
you can head on over to their newsgroups (or web sites such as eham.net) and
see that they're been ticked about BPL for a long time now.

This is because powerlines make dandy transmitting
and receiving antennas over the band considered.

Actually, powerlines don't make particular good antennas over that entire ra
nge of frequencies, and even the power levels involved aren't that enormous,
but the fact that you have power lines literally within inches and feet of
the radio equipment you're trying to use means that it's very difficult to
avoid significant signal pickup.

So are they going to use only parts of this bandwidth, to allow things
like emergency comms and medium wave to remain, or take the lot? I
dont have a problem with them taking some, but all of it wouldnt be so
clever.

Not to be unkind, N., but this is precisely the rational that may
politicians and other naive on-lookers are going to take. "Oh, look, they
only want _some_ of the spectrum, and think of all the benefits that BPL
will have for rural communities [and this is arguably true], so why don't we
just take some of what amateur radio guys spectrum. That's fair, isn't it?"
:-( (Given how much Jim Thompson's house is worth, I'm thinking surely he
has a spare bedroom he wouldn't mind my moving into?) It's looking like the
FCC is not helping the amateurs in that rather than being proactive and
forcing the BPLers to _demonstrate_ they're in compliance with all current
regulations, they're simply _accepting their word_ that this is the case and
everyone who feels otherwise is going to have an uphill battle to get their
spectrum back.

I'd be curious if anyone knows of similar historical precedents with the
FCC. I'm surprised they're taking such a laxadasical
view about BPL.

---Joel Kolstad

Hey,

Nikola Tesla wanted to transmit power to ships at sea by using the
entire EM spectrum. What would the FCC make of that today?

--
Luhan Monat: Luhan Knows at Yahoo dot Com
http://members.cox.net/berniekm
"The Future is not what it used to be."

Jim Thompson · May 31, 2004

On Mon, 31 May 2004 10:00:20 -0700, Luhan Monat
<fakemeout@nowhere.xyz> wrote:
[snip]

Hey,

Nikola Tesla wanted to transmit power to ships at sea by using the
entire EM spectrum. What would the FCC make of that today?

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Rich Grise · May 31, 2004

"Luhan Monat" <fakemeout@nowhere.xyz> wrote in message news:0wJuc.7015

Hey,

Nikola Tesla wanted to transmit power to ships at sea by using the
entire EM spectrum. What would the FCC make of that today?

I saw an alleged photo of Teslas alleged "power transmission" apparatus -
and the whole setup was inside a huge inductor! (i.e., it's easy to
transmit power to the secondary of a transformer. ;-) )

Cheers!
Rich

Luhan Monat · May 31, 2004

N. Thornton wrote:

Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message news:<O5wsc.23844$PU5.4321@fed1read06>...

What the hell are they thinking?

http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/

For those who hate to click-through, the FCC is about to
approve something we were previously told was "impossible",
or at least "unfeasible"; namely, Broadband Over Powerline
(previously known as "carrier current", but at lower
frequencies). Idea is you won't need a modem or cable to get
Internet connectivity, just a plain old power socket.

Great idea, right? Except the frequencies they want to
use (1.7-80 MHz) to get past the transmission limitations of
the 60 Hz US power grid will make a large swath of the EM
spectrum utterly useless, including much of the AM broadcast
band, parts of the FM and TV spectrum, the entire shortwave
spectrum, many police and other emergency radio systems,
FEMA's radio setup, and so on throughout the continental US
and more. This is because powerlines make dandy transmitting
and receiving antennas over the band considered.

So are they going to use only parts of this bandwidth, to allow things
like emergency comms and medium wave to remain, or take the lot? I
dont have a problem with them taking some, but all of it wouldnt be so
clever.

Regards, NT

Obviously, they are intending to use the imfamous X-10 protocol - should
load a web page in about a week.

--
Luhan Monat: Luhan Knows at Yahoo dot Com
http://members.cox.net/berniekm
"The Future is not what it used to be."

Luhan Monat · May 31, 2004

N. Thornton wrote:

Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message news:<O5wsc.23844$PU5.4321@fed1read06>...

What the hell are they thinking?

http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/

For those who hate to click-through, the FCC is about to
approve something we were previously told was "impossible",
or at least "unfeasible"; namely, Broadband Over Powerline
(previously known as "carrier current", but at lower
frequencies). Idea is you won't need a modem or cable to get
Internet connectivity, just a plain old power socket.

Great idea, right? Except the frequencies they want to
use (1.7-80 MHz) to get past the transmission limitations of
the 60 Hz US power grid will make a large swath of the EM
spectrum utterly useless, including much of the AM broadcast
band, parts of the FM and TV spectrum, the entire shortwave
spectrum, many police and other emergency radio systems,
FEMA's radio setup, and so on throughout the continental US
and more. This is because powerlines make dandy transmitting
and receiving antennas over the band considered.

So are they going to use only parts of this bandwidth, to allow things
like emergency comms and medium wave to remain, or take the lot? I
dont have a problem with them taking some, but all of it wouldnt be so
clever.

Regards, NT

Obviously, they are intending to use the imfamous X-10 protocol - should
load a web page in about a week.

--
Luhan Monat: Luhan Knows at Yahoo dot Com
http://members.cox.net/berniekm
"The Future is not what it used to be."

Luhan Monat · May 31, 2004

N. Thornton wrote:

Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message news:<O5wsc.23844$PU5.4321@fed1read06>...

What the hell are they thinking?

http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/

For those who hate to click-through, the FCC is about to
approve something we were previously told was "impossible",
or at least "unfeasible"; namely, Broadband Over Powerline
(previously known as "carrier current", but at lower
frequencies). Idea is you won't need a modem or cable to get
Internet connectivity, just a plain old power socket.

Great idea, right? Except the frequencies they want to
use (1.7-80 MHz) to get past the transmission limitations of
the 60 Hz US power grid will make a large swath of the EM
spectrum utterly useless, including much of the AM broadcast
band, parts of the FM and TV spectrum, the entire shortwave
spectrum, many police and other emergency radio systems,
FEMA's radio setup, and so on throughout the continental US
and more. This is because powerlines make dandy transmitting
and receiving antennas over the band considered.

So are they going to use only parts of this bandwidth, to allow things
like emergency comms and medium wave to remain, or take the lot? I
dont have a problem with them taking some, but all of it wouldnt be so
clever.

Regards, NT

Obviously, they intend on using the imfamous X-10 protocol. Should load
a web page in about a week.

--
Luhan Monat: Luhan Knows at Yahoo dot Com
http://members.cox.net/berniekm
"The Future is not what it used to be."

N. Thornton · May 31, 2004

"Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesSpam@Yahoo.Com> wrote in message news:<c9fkfe$eol$1@news.oregonstate.edu>...

N. Thornton <bigcat@meeow.co.uk> wrote:

So are they going to use only parts of this bandwidth, to allow things
like emergency comms and medium wave to remain, or take the lot? I
dont have a problem with them taking some, but all of it wouldnt be so
clever.

Not to be unkind, N., but this is precisely the rational that may
politicians and other naive on-lookers are going to take. "Oh, look, they
only want _some_ of the spectrum, and think of all the benefits that BPL
will have for rural communities [and this is arguably true], so why don't we
just take some of what amateur radio guys spectrum. That's fair, isn't it?"
:-( (Given how much Jim Thompson's house is worth, I'm thinking surely he
has a spare bedroom he wouldn't mind my moving into?) It's looking like the
FCC is not helping the amateurs in that rather than being proactive and
forcing the BPLers to _demonstrate_ they're in compliance with all current
regulations, they're simply _accepting their word_ that this is the case and
everyone who feels otherwise is going to have an uphill battle to get their
spectrum back.

I'd be curious if anyone knows of similar historical precedents with the
FCC. I'm surprised they're taking such a laxadasical
view about BPL.

Well I was all primed to get a more informed perspective, but I'm not
sure I have. Radio ham use has always been considered the least
valuable of all spectrum uses, and thus was given spectrum that no-one
else wanted. Of course it became of far more value as technology moved
on from the distant past when it was allocated (1920s?).

It's mainly the amateur radio guys who don't have much
political/financial clout who are the most likely to get screwed by BPL...
you can head on over to their newsgroups (or web sites such as eham.net) and
see that they're been ticked about BPL for a long time now.

Which do you think is more use to society, Radio hamming or widespread
broadband access? The perspective on amateur radio use has changed
dramatically with the rise of the net. It no longer has much to do
with freedom of speech and broadcast, as that is far more available on
the net now. Ditto any audio channel you care for: you can do it all
online with much better results all round. A net connection is also
far more accessible than a ham license. So in all realistic terms, far
more freedom of speech online.

I used to DX, but with the net it all seems quite obsolescent. I
understand the emotional attachment, and the financial and time
investment in the gear, but I'm not clear what else there is left.
Struggling with fade, hop, sun activity, low power transmissions, agc
issues, and massive interference, and erecting a huge aerial is no
longer needed when you can get a worldwide clear connection by just
dialling up. Looks like ham has had its day.

I dont yet see why this should take precedence over widespread
broadband access. I'm certainly open to feedback on this though.

That leaves the question of demonstrating non interference with more
important uses, and there I gather is a possible problem waiting to
emerge there. Presumably companies with systems that do interfere will
be liable to legal action.

Regards, NT

Joel Kolstad · May 31, 2004

Hi NT,

N. Thornton <bigcat@meeow.co.uk> wrote:

Well I was all primed to get a more informed perspective, but I'm not
sure I have. Radio ham use has always been considered the least
valuable of all spectrum uses, and thus was given spectrum that no-one
else wanted.

Considered least valuable _by who_? From an economic perspective, yes, I
imagine you're correct. On the other hand, to someone whose life was saved
by a passing amateur radio operator after, e.g., an automobile collision,
there's clearly recognizable value. (And while I'd grant you that cell
phones, On*Star, etc. provide viable alternatives to the emergency services
hams provide, I'd also venture that the later is _far_ under-recognized by
most politicians, bean counters, etc. They're similar to the Red Cross --
you can't imagine how valuable they are until you really need them.)

Which do you think is more use to society, Radio hamming or widespread
broadband access?

Both have value, and while you could probably demonstrate that more people
will choose to _use_ BPL than will ever use the amateur radio spectrum,
there are many other means by which the basic problem of providing broadband
access can be addressed that don't require pollution of the HF spectrum.
You might argue back that these solutions COULD be more costly (which is in
itself a debatable point, but it's at least conceivable), but what it boils
down to is that the electromagnetic spectrum is an effectively limited
natural resource and therefore governments must divyv it up in some way that
maximizes the overall benefit to society. That's obviously a very difficult
optimization problem

, but hopefully you'd agree that using a natrual
resource in such a way as to strictly maximize the present-day benefit to
the economy is typically a poor choice. (If not, presumably you'd also
argue that there's no point in having national parks, nature/wilderness
preserves, mandatory emissions/mileage standards on automobiles, etc.)

The perspective on amateur radio use has changed
dramatically with the rise of the net. It no longer has much to do
with freedom of speech and broadcast, as that is far more available on
the net now.

The HF spectrum that the amateurs are up in arms about is all of 30MHz;
that's NOTHING compared to the bandwidth you can get over a single fiber
optic line. But, presumably (and I'd admit to not knowing the numbers here)
it's cheaper _for the guys trying to make a profit off of the Internet_ to
lease the power lines that have already been built and send their signals
over that rather than putting up new lines (especially the 'last mile' to
the end-user's home). Keep in mind that based on this planet's atmosphere,
size and the laws of physics, propagation in the HF bands exhibits unique
worldwide communication abilities with very low power that is simply not
readily reproduced on other hands. On the other hand, there's no
_technological_ problem in running literally tens of gigahertz of bandwidth
into every home in this country. So perhaps we should lean towards the
solution that doesn't permanently disrupt a much-less-replaceable use of the
spectrum rather than one that's motivated almost entirely by a profit
motive?

I'd also suggest the BPL is a stop-gap measure anyway: Getting some
many-hundreds of kilobits of data to your home today is a huge improvement
over a 56kbps dial-up modem (for those who don't already have DSL or cable
modem access), yet it's still about an order of magntude shy of what you're
going to need for, e.g., HDTV movies on demand and there simply isn't enough
bandwidth with BPL to support such needs (for a reasonable sized
population); there's a reason that Comcast has invested million of dollars
in fiber lately! Given a few decades (perhaps as few as _one_) I'd expect
that BPL will be abandoned, yet the damage it has meanwhile done in terms of
setting a precedent for spectrum pollution will be much further reaching and
very difficult to reverse.

A net connection is also
far more accessible than a ham license.

You know there are weekend classes for the 'technician' amateur radio
licenses that have something over a 95% success rate, right? The licensing
issue for ham radio is constantly being debated, but I think everyone would
agree that over time it's gotten easier and these days isn't any more of a
burden for the average person than a driver's license.

Struggling with fade, hop, sun activity, low power transmissions, agc
issues, and massive interference, and erecting a huge aerial is no
longer needed when you can get a worldwide clear connection by just
dialling up. Looks like ham has had its day.

For those of us fortunate enough to be in a first world country, a lot of
this is true. But keep in mind that for the foreseeable future, shortwave
radio is going to serve the needs of keeping many citizens of more
socio-economically depressed countries at least a _little bit_ informed as
to what's going on in this world.

I dont yet see why this should take precedence over widespread
broadband access. I'm certainly open to feedback on this though.

Given your position I'd hope you'd find my, "it's just a stop-gap measure
anyway" argument somewhat compelling.

The amateur radio guys aren't asking for any 'new' privileges here --
they're just asking the FCC to enforce the rules that are already on the
books (and have been for years), and the perception that this simply isn't
going to happen (they have ample evidence to suggest this is the case from
BPL field trials that have already occurred) is what has them up in arms.

---Joel

Ken Smith · Jun 1, 2004

In article <c9gh8u$rks$1@news.oregonstate.edu>,
Joel Kolstad <JKolstad71HatesSpam@Yahoo.Com> wrote:
[...]

most politicians, bean counters, etc. They're similar to the Red Cross --
you can't imagine how valuable they are until you really need them.)

Hams are better than the Red Cross. They don't send me junk mail.

[....]

itself a debatable point, but it's at least conceivable), but what it boils
down to is that the electromagnetic spectrum is an effectively limited
natural resource and therefore governments must divyv it up in some way that
maximizes the overall benefit to society.

Change that "must" to "should but aren't very likely to" and I'd agree
with you.

TV has been called a "Vast wasteland" because of its bad programming. If
you consider the use of bandwidth it is really awful. Watch a few minutes
of any "pre-game show" and ask your self the following questions. (A) Do
I need to see the talking heads at 30 frames per second? (B) Would a
fixed picture of each be just as good? (C) Why have a picture at all? (D)
Do I need a 17KHz stereo on the sound? (D) How about 7KHz? (E) Can we just
turn it off and play Crazy Eights?

The AM band isn't all that much band width so lets call it a "half vast
wasteland". AM radio doesn't use all that much bandwidth per channel but
the content on most stations could be encoded at about 12 BAUD with no
loss of information.

The FM band is being used to transmit voice grade or worse[1] signals.
Many of the channels broadcast music, but lets face it they have about 10
songs in their play list. The 10 songs could be downloaded into the
"radio" once and then played out of memory on demand.

[1] Country music.

but hopefully you'd agree that using a natrual
resource in such a way as to strictly maximize the present-day benefit to
the economy is typically a poor choice.

If we truely are in the "End Of Days", anything left over will just go to
waste, so may will disagree with that suggestion.

More seriously, unlike oil, iron ore and time, bandwidth will still be
there in the future even if we use it today. It makes a lot of sense to
make TV such that the receiver is very simple when the receiver is using
tubes (valves). Today, a TV should be smart and the signal narrower.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

Ken Smith · Jun 1, 2004

In article <JDMuc.8501$aM1.2629@fed1read02>,
Luhan Monat <fakemeout@nowhere.xyz> wrote:
[....]

Obviously, they intend on using the imfamous X-10 protocol. Should load
a web page in about a week.

I assume you posted that using X10 so you had to do it 10 times to make
sure it would work. Fortunately, the butter keeper was off. If it was
on, I wouldn't have seen any copies. What moron made X10 a one way system
with no feedback and didn't spec a frequency lock to a rational multiple
of the mains frequency?

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

Joel Kolstad · Jun 1, 2004

Ken Smith <kensmith@violet.rahul.net> wrote:

In article <c9gh8u$rks$1@news.oregonstate.edu>,
Joel Kolstad <JKolstad71HatesSpam@Yahoo.Com> wrote:
but hopefully you'd agree that using a natrual
resource in such a way as to strictly maximize the present-day benefit to
the economy is typically a poor choice.
If we truely are in the "End Of Days", anything left over will just go to
waste, so may will disagree with that suggestion.

True.

More seriously, unlike oil, iron ore and time, bandwidth will still be
there in the future even if we use it today.

The point I was triyng to make is that leaving some of the spectrum alone
for (supervised) 'play' (the amateur bands) is useful in that the hams
develop technology and skills that benefit society but aren't always
something that's initially commercially viable. I'm a little disappointed
that hams aren't into spread spectrum modulation more than they are given
that I'm convinced it's the future of data transmission (current packet
standards are pretty obsolete, IMO), but on the other hand ham's APRS system
is a well-developed successful system that the likes of FEMA has recently
latched onto as a clear winner for emergency work, and commercial vendors
are now scrambling to add similar capabilities to their own equipment.

Today, a TV should be smart and the signal narrower.

Hey, go see the HDTV thread also currently active! For HDTV broadcasts with
the same quality as what we get today, it's something like 2MHz instead of
6, right? I'm glad I'm not part of the HDTV committee... it's taken so long
that, while the MPEG-2 scheme that's being used was Hot Stuff a decade back
when it all started, today MPEG-4 could probably squeeze twice as many
channels into the same bandwidth.

---Joel

Design around _this_!

Paul Hovnanian P.E.

Guest

Mark Fergerson

Guest

Mark Fergerson

Guest

Mark Fergerson

Guest

Mark Fergerson

Guest

Jan Panteltje

Guest

Jan Panteltje

Guest

N. Thornton

Guest

Joel Kolstad

Guest

Luhan Monat

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

Luhan Monat

Guest

Luhan Monat

Guest

Luhan Monat

Guest

N. Thornton

Guest

Joel Kolstad

Guest

Ken Smith

Guest

Ken Smith

Guest

Joel Kolstad

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor