FCC Rules
Sal M. Onella
my grandson's school next month and I'm going to include ham radio,
with some of the kids presumably getting on the air. Of course, an
unlicensed person can operate if a properly licensed control operator
is present. Is there a source of more detailed information? I
keyword searched Part 97 and found no surprises. I think good sense
prevails.
But:
If I set up two HTs to talk simplex across a room, how do I/we ID?
KD6VKW/Alfa and KD6VKW/Bravo, maybe?
Can the kids call CQ?
Do they ID with my callsign or must I provide the ID in my own
voice?
Are there other sticking points?
In the absence of official guidance, your opinions are welcome.
Thanks.
"Sal"
(John, KD6VKW)
ecregger
"Sal M. Onella" <sob...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:c9cc3fba-7ae9-42a9...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Sal, the only kind of people that would like to talk to kids is exactly the
kind of people that you want to keep your little kids away from.
Why not go find a couple of el cheapo PRS handi-talkies (Personal Radio
Service - 450 plus MHz) and let the kiddies talk to each other that way? Why
bring ham radio into it at all?
The FCC rules are available to everyone for free at the FCC website.
www.fcc.gov.
Ed Cregger
Helmut Wabnig
Don't ask too many questions.
Marconi would not have invented radio transmissions
according to FCC rules if he lived today.
We would still live without radio.
w.
Tom Horne
John
Yes you have to ID but not in your own voice. Yes the kids can call
CQ under your supervision. If you use the lowest power setting and an
unpopular simplex frequency for the unit to unit calls it is rather
unlikely that anyone except the kids and you will hear it. Check with
your club and find a woman operator to respond to the CQ. Smaller
children will respond better to a woman's voice.
--
Tom Horne
Cyclone651
Cyclone651
Jeff Liebermann
<sob...@cox.net> wrote:
>Please pardon the slightly off-topic subject. I'm giving a class at
>my grandson's school next month and I'm going to include ham radio,
>with some of the kids presumably getting on the air. Of course, an
>unlicensed person can operate if a properly licensed control operator
>is present. Is there a source of more detailed information? I
>keyword searched Part 97 and found no surprises. I think good sense
>prevails.
It's mixed in under the term "control operator". That's the licensed
operator in charge of the station by the station owner. Note that
much of the wording comes from the days when there were seperate
station and operator licenses. The duties are scattered all over Part
97. For example:
<http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/b.html>
>But:
>If I set up two HTs to talk simplex across a room, how do I/we ID?
>KD6VKW/Alfa and KD6VKW/Bravo, maybe?
The same way you do during field day or any other multi-operator
station. Just the call sign of the station. If you want to get down
to details, see 97.119(c) which discusses "self assigned designators".
You could just use tactical call signs as in a typical emergency net,
but that would really be a stretch. As long as there's a licensed
operator in charge, and they ID every 10 minutes, you're fine.
>Can the kids call CQ?
Yes. They can do anything that the control operator allows.
>Do they ID with my callsign or must I provide the ID in my own
>voice?
They can ID on your behalf because it's a station license, not an
operator license.
>Are there other sticking points?
Yes. You'll bore the kids to death with such minutae and trivia.
>In the absence of official guidance, your opinions are welcome.
One of the harzards of being a licensed radio operator is that it
instantly tansforms one into a legal expert. If the rules were
obvious and simple, we wouldn't need devine, official, or amateur
guidance, but that's another rant.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> Yes. You'll bore the kids to death with such minutae and trivia.
Show them the Jay leno morse code versus texting clip.
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel g...@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the
situation. i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in
the Wikipedia
Jeff Liebermann
<g...@cable.mendelson.com> wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> Yes. You'll bore the kids to death with such minutae and trivia.
>Show them the Jay leno morse code versus texting clip.
>Geoff.
The most effective song and dance I did in front of a Jr High Skool
class was tearing apart various cell phones, walkie talkies,
computahs, and consumer electronics to demonstrate that they should
not be afraid of such things. Unfortunately, the parents hated my
guts when the kids starting practicing what I showed them. Learn by
Destroying(tm).
2nd best was dragging in my collection of old cell phones including an
IMTS control head, various bag phones, and an unbelievable brick like
handset that's VERY heavy. I also brought an early Motorola tube type
Breaky-Backy with wet cells inside. Some of the stuff still works.
Nobody was interested in Morse Code until I mentioned that it could be
used for "secret communications". That means that the parents and
teachers couldn't understand what the kids were saying. Lots of
interest (and potential problems) there.
The problem with todays version of ham radio is that it's really
boring. Nobody wants to talk to someone around the world, when they
can pickup a POTS or cell phone and do it with much less effort and
expense. With the demise of Heathkit, building radios is no longer a
draw. The magic of radio is gone. So, show them what they can do
with radio. Weather stations, APRS, satellite, construction, etc are
a good start.
Gaius
> The problem with todays version of ham radio is that it's really
> boring. Nobody wants to talk to someone around the world, when they
> can pickup a POTS or cell phone and do it with much less effort and
> expense. With the demise of Heathkit, building radios is no longer a
> draw. The magic of radio is gone. So, show them what they can do
> with radio. Weather stations, APRS, satellite, construction, etc are
> a good start.
>
>
enthusiasts may drop, but those left will be more focussed and
dedicated. The quantity is being replaced by quality. For every ten new
hams who buy an off-the-shelf radio, play with it for a year or two,
then lose interest, there is one in whom the spark is truly lit.
Building is alive and well in the form of QRP. The satisfaction of
operating a TX which is the product of your own efforts and ideas beats
driving a commercial radio any day.
(There is a mirror to all this in the model aircraft hobby. Many now
begin by buying a top-dollar almost-ready-to-fly radio controlled plane.
All you need is money. Little achievement, little reward, other than
the transient buzz of flying the thing. Same effect - 90 percent drop
out, ten percent go on to greater things: building and designing their
own creations).
Don't believe the prophets of doom who tell us that ham radio is dead.
They're just pessimists and losers. Ignore them and move on.
tom
> The magic hasn't gone - it's just been refined. The numbers of
> enthusiasts may drop, but those left will be more focussed and
> dedicated. The quantity is being replaced by quality. For every ten new
> hams who buy an off-the-shelf radio, play with it for a year or two,
> then lose interest, there is one in whom the spark is truly lit.
> Building is alive and well in the form of QRP. The satisfaction of
> operating a TX which is the product of your own efforts and ideas beats
> driving a commercial radio any day.
>
> (There is a mirror to all this in the model aircraft hobby. Many now
> begin by buying a top-dollar almost-ready-to-fly radio controlled plane.
> All you need is money. Little achievement, little reward, other than
> the transient buzz of flying the thing. Same effect - 90 percent drop
> out, ten percent go on to greater things: building and designing their
> own creations).
>
> Don't believe the prophets of doom who tell us that ham radio is dead.
> They're just pessimists and losers. Ignore them and move on.
>
>
Correct - The magic hasn't gone. Take 10GHz. A 10 GHz SSB setup can do
well over 200 miles with only 2 watts with an old DSS dish. You can
call CQ in a 10G contest off of a local 30 story building, or even
better - a local rain cloud. The systems are normally built as
transverters from kits. And learning is involved in construction as you
figure out how to interface a 2m SSB rig to a transverter, and where you
find mini hardline, and SMA relays for cheap. Using them teaches the
user a lot about practical microwave propagation.
Interested persons from the Midwest or those from anywhere else check
out www.nlrs.org. We are one of the most active microwave groups in the US.
tom
K0TAR
KU2S
>Please pardon the slightly off-topic subject. I'm giving a class at
>my grandson's school next month and I'm going to include ham radio,
>with some of the kids presumably getting on the air. Of course, an
>unlicensed person can operate if a properly licensed control operator
>is present. Is there a source of more detailed information? I
>keyword searched Part 97 and found no surprises. I think good sense
>prevails.
>
>But:
>If I set up two HTs to talk simplex across a room, how do I/we ID?
>KD6VKW/Alfa and KD6VKW/Bravo, maybe?
>Can the kids call CQ?
>Do they ID with my callsign or must I provide the ID in my own
>voice?
Seems to me that "KD6VKW Portable 1" and and "KD6VKW Portable 2"
would be appropriate. The addition of arbitrary letters and or
numbers after your call sign could be misconstrued as meaning
something other than what you intend. The use of Portable 1, Portable
2, etc., is more straightforward and accurately describes the type of
conversation in progress.
--
Raymond Sirois - KU2S
http://www.hamxam.org
10-10 #70270
Jeff Liebermann
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> The problem with todays version of ham radio is that it's really
>> boring. Nobody wants to talk to someone around the world, when they
>> can pickup a POTS or cell phone and do it with much less effort and
>> expense. With the demise of Heathkit, building radios is no longer a
>> draw. The magic of radio is gone. So, show them what they can do
>> with radio. Weather stations, APRS, satellite, construction, etc are
>> a good start.
>The magic hasn't gone - it's just been refined.
For someone that's been in the hobby from before I could (legally)
drive a car, the magic is gone. To someone new to the hobby,
communicating with peoples on the other side of the planet is
commonplace. Pickup a cell phone, dial, and talk. There's no magic
in that. In the past, showing potential new hams how it works got an
"amazing" reaction. These days, I get asked "what's all that noise"?
It's no longer a technical hobby, but more like a "radio sport". It's
no longer about building and refining a radio to the bleeding edge of
the state of the art. It's now what you can do with a radio.
Fortunately, there's plenty to do with a radio. I listed a few.
There's plenty more (contesting, CW, boat anchors, xmitter hunts,
microwave, field day, packet, meteor scatter, etc). Plenty to
interest a Jr High Skool brat, but you have to show them first. I
used to worry about overwhelming them. Not any more. I show them in
everything I can find and let them find their own inspiration. Oddly,
the local new hams seem to be coming from the 4-H Organization.
>The numbers of
>enthusiasts may drop, but those left will be more focussed and
>dedicated. The quantity is being replaced by quality.
There was a surge of new hams wanting to use ham radio as a cheap cell
phone. That didn't last, but it sure fattened the various club
treasuries. I'm not sure those remaining are more dedicated. Most of
the radio club members are 50 or more years old. There are younger
members, that also tend to be very technical, but they're disappointed
at the general lack of technical expertise of the older hams. Comments
like "how do you expect to operate a software defined radio without
any programming skills?" are common. I give at least one technical
talk a year to the local clubs. I can tell by the audience's faces
that only a few have a clue what I'm talking about. I passed out about
30 CD's with 4NEC2, EZNEC demo, and a zillion models at one meeting.
I think perhaps 1 or 2 people tried it.
>Don't believe the prophets of doom who tell us that ham radio is dead.
>They're just pessimists and losers. Ignore them and move on.
I like to think of myself of being part of the solution, rather than
the prophet of doom and despair. Please ignore me and move on.
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com je...@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
Lostgallifreyan
news:4b26e129$0$47479$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net:
Another lively form of ham radio exists where people use Pringles tubes and
such to make small directional relays for RF-based localised internet. While
the TCP protocol comes ready made, the spirit of ham radio is very alive in
the way people coerce a pringles tube into doing these things.
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> Another lively form of ham radio exists where people use Pringles tubes and
> such to make small directional relays for RF-based localised internet. While
> the TCP protocol comes ready made, the spirit of ham radio is very alive in
> the way people coerce a pringles tube into doing these things.
Unfortunately if they are properly made, they are illegal to use in the US
and other places in the world.
The EIRP limit in the US is 1W for portable/mobile and 4W for fixed
(point to point use), a properly made Pringles antenna produces slightly over
4W with 100mW input.
Here it's even worse, the EIRP limit is 100mW, so any gain antenna is
technicaly illegal, though 5dbi ones they are sold here.
It's become IMHO more like the spirit of modifiying CB rigs to transmit and
receive in that little slice of radio spectrum between CB and the 10m ham
band aka "freebanding" than the spirit of lawful, respectful ham radio.
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel g...@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation.
i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia.
Richard Clark
<g...@cable.mendelson.com> wrote:
>> It is not illegal if it is done on an amateur frequency by a licensed amateur.
>
>You forgot the words "in the US".
>
>Is using WiFi equipment for ham radio legal?
Hi Geoff,
If it is done by a Ham radio operator. Ham radio operators (in the
US) are the ONLY class of radio operation that do NOT have a type
acceptance requirement.
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Dave Platt
Richard Clark <kb7...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> It is not illegal if it is done on an amateur frequency by a licensed
>amateur.
>>
>>You forgot the words "in the US".
>>
>>Is using WiFi equipment for ham radio legal?
>
>Hi Geoff,
>
>If it is done by a Ham radio operator. Ham radio operators (in the
>US) are the ONLY class of radio operation that do NOT have a type
>acceptance requirement.
There are, of course, certain restrictions.
The 13 cm band privileges for hams in the U.S. are not an exact
overlap for the license-free 802.11b/g frequencies. You can't assert
the use of your ham privileges if you're transmitting on channels not
covered by the ham authorizations.
You must ID properly (often done by setting the ESSID to the ham
callsign).
You may not encrypt the transmission for the purpose of obscuring its
meaning. [Some feel that encryption is permitted for the purpose of
ensuring that the link is used only by licensed hams, or for
"privacy". Some feel that encryption is OK if you make the actual
encryption key publicly available e.g. on a web site.]
If you have a valid U.S. ham license, and respect all of these (and
other) Part 97 ham restrictions, then you can legally use commercial
WiFi gear to transmit on these frequencies. Under those conditions,
you can use as much power as Part 97 will allow... the Part 15 rules
do not apply.
--
Dave Platt <dpl...@radagast.org> AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Mike Coslo
>
> For someone that's been in the hobby from before I could (legally)
> drive a car, the magic is gone.
For you, it is perhaps. Not for me.
> To someone new to the hobby,
> communicating with peoples on the other side of the planet is
> commonplace.
Has been for years.
> Pickup a cell phone, dial, and talk. There's no magic
> in that.
I remember making telephone calls to other countries when I was a little
kid in the 60's. The Transatlantic cable was laid in the mid 19th
century. People could talk a long way away then too. Worldwide
communications pre-dates radio communications. It's a matter of
infrastructure.
<some snippage>
> I like to think of myself of being part of the solution, rather than
> the prophet of doom and despair. Please ignore me and move on.
Not trying to bust your chops or anything, Jeff, but if you have no more
magic in you for Ham radio, its going to be really hard being part of
the solution.
- 73 de Mike N3LI -
You
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@cable.mendelson.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately if they are properly made, they are illegal to use in the US
> and other places in the world.
Not for a Hams in the USA, with a Tech or higher License, on the Ham
portion of the 2.4 Ghz band... We can use up to 1 Kw output power, not
in a Pringles can, but with the appropriate Feedhorn, and an old 8 ft
TVRO Dish, Moon bounce is a very real activity. It is the Tracking
Hardware that gets expensive.... that and the 2.4 Ghz TWT's.....
Richard Clark
>> Pickup a cell phone, dial, and talk. There's no magic
>> in that.
>
>I remember making telephone calls to other countries when I was a little
>kid in the 60's. The Transatlantic cable was laid in the mid 19th
>century. People could talk a long way away then too. Worldwide
>communications pre-dates radio communications. It's a matter of
>infrastructure.
I think I will drop my oar into this one too.
Being able to call someone in China is not the same thing as calling
out, and getting a response from someone in China. A.G. Bell's
practical invention of telephony long preceded practical (or even
impractical) radiotelephony and no one seemed to care, but many got
excited.
And to invert the argument. When I lived in Europe in the late 50s
early 60s, Paris had such a funky telephone system that reportedly you
could dial a "special number" that put you into an open common trunk
where others would have been already deep in spontaneous conversation.
It was very popular and "exciting...." until they fixed it (in their
own time, of course - for the French that could have been many years
later).
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>I don't want to comment on the legal part of the puzzle (because I
>already have a headache).
Oops. I forgot the link:
<http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/part15.html>
Sal M. Onella
>
> Why not go find a couple of el cheapo PRS handi-talkies (Personal Radio
> Service - 450 plus MHz) and let the kiddies talk to each other that way? Why
> bring ham radio into it at all?
It was by way of introducing them to our hobby in the course of giving
a lesson. That's all.
Thanks for your input.
"Sal"
Sal M. Onella
> your club and find a woman operator to respond to the CQ. Smaller
> children will respond better to a woman's voice.
> --
> Tom Horne
Ah -- good idea. It will be out of my home area, but I'll bet if I
scouted around after I get there, I'll be able to find someone.
Thanks.
Sal M. Onella
>
> >Are there other sticking points?
>
> Yes. You'll bore the kids to death with such minutae and trivia.
>
LOL TKS..
"Sal"
Sal M. Onella
>
> Nobody was interested in Morse Code until I mentioned that it could be
> used for "secret communications". That means that the parents and
> teachers couldn't understand what the kids were saying. Lots of
> interest (and potential problems) there.
>
> The problem with todays version of ham radio is that it's really
> boring. Nobody wants to talk to someone around the world, when they
> can pickup a POTS or cell phone and do it with much less effort and
> expense. With the demise of Heathkit, building radios is no longer a
> draw. The magic of radio is gone.
I have a diverse collection of demonstrations for them, hoping to
catch each one of them with something they find interesting. I have a
handout with eight Morse Code characters on it, enough to spell out
some easy words, They're mostly 4th graders. I'm doing magnetism and
communications and showing how they relate. I taught school in the
Navy, but I have no experience with little kids, except my own. My
Navy students were almost always well-motivated but I have no idea
what the 4th graders are going to be like. They are all in the
Gifted And Talented Education program and I think it's either going
to be great or awful -- no in-between.
Sal M. Onella
> Seems to me that "KD6VKW Portable 1" and and "KD6VKW Portable 2"
> would be appropriate. The addition of arbitrary letters and or
> numbers after your call sign could be misconstrued as meaning
> something other than what you intend. The use of Portable 1, Portable
> 2, etc., is more straightforward and accurately describes the type of
> conversation in progress.
I thought of that but the numbers would seem to imply geography, like
when
I was in Colorado in the summer, I signed "Portable 0."
Thanks for the suggestion.
tom
>
> And to invert the argument. When I lived in Europe in the late 50s
> early 60s, Paris had such a funky telephone system that reportedly you
> could dial a "special number" that put you into an open common trunk
> where others would have been already deep in spontaneous conversation.
> It was very popular and "exciting...." until they fixed it (in their
> own time, of course - for the French that could have been many years
> later).
>
> 73's
> Richard Clark, KB7QHC
It probably wasn't "funky". It was just hacked.
It also existed in the US. The chances are that it was the same
destination type as it was here. In the US you could dial a number that
effectively put you into a conference. It was used for telco meet-me
maintenance traffic. Neither person needed to know the other's number.
I know someone that used to do music requests to their 6 MHz
(plus/minus) pirate broadcasts using this hidden conference bridge.
They were the first on the air as a pirate station in the US as far as I
know.
I don't condone it, but it was a long time ago, and the persons involved
have paid their dues. And are all good taxpaying citizens now.
tom
K0TAR
ecregger
"Sal M. Onella" <sob...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:bd8684bd-e801-45cd...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Sal, who do you suppose that they will talk to if they did take the bait and
get a license and a radio?
I've heard kids calling CQ many times, only to go unanswered - even by me, I
shamefully admit. I leave my ham rigs running while I'm working in my shop,
so I seldom answer anyone's CQ if I'm busy working, so the kids weren't a
special case, although I did feel guilty that I didn't answer their call.
Ed, NM2K
Jeff Liebermann
<sob...@cox.net> wrote:
>I have a diverse collection of demonstrations for them, hoping to
>catch each one of them with something they find interesting.
Perfect. That's the right idea. Lots of show and very little tell
(unless they ask).
>I have a
>handout with eight Morse Code characters on it, enough to spell out
>some easy words,
Good idea. Mind if I steal it?
>They're mostly 4th graders. I'm doing magnetism and
>communications and showing how they relate.
9-10 years old is the right age to start. Between 8 and 15, I tried
literally everything I could find. Cooking, guns, sewing, carpentry,
elecronics (buzzer and magnets), chemistry, fizzix, etc. Getting my
attention for only a few minutes was easy. More than an hour was
impossible. Somewhat later, I took the ones that were of interest and
went deeper. I still recall round the clock repeater building
sessions in my fathers garage.
>I taught school in the
>Navy, but I have no experience with little kids, except my own.
When I took teacher prep, one of the first exercises was to reduce my
vocabulary to about 9,000 words which was about right for a 12 year
old. I later found out that the typical 12 year old knew far more
words than officially recognized. Just avoid any technobabble with 3
or more syllables and you'll do ok. Try to get them to ask questions
and answer the questions at the same level as was asked.
>My
>Navy students were almost always well-motivated but I have no idea
>what the 4th graders are going to be like.
They will be out to see how far they can push or taunt you. Don't
fight it. Just be their friend and not their diciplinarian. If they
go over the top and riot, then maybe sacrifice the leaders for the
greater good. Smart kids are much easier to deal with than the
academic losers. My favorite line for getting them curious is "wanna
see what's inside" or "wanna know how this thing works"? Don't be
surprised if you get high level questions. Most of these kid so read
magazines and techy stuff online, mostly ammunition to make themselves
look good in class. Be prepared to answer tough basic questions like
"why does one radio talk around the world, while others just talk down
the street"? You might learn as much from their questions as they're
learning from your demo.
>They are all in the
>Gifted And Talented Education program and I think it's either going
>to be great or awful -- no in-between.
In the accellerated classes, they'll all be trying to show off how
much (or little) they know.
Richard Clark
<sob...@cox.net> wrote:
> I taught school in the
>Navy, but I have no experience with little kids, except my own. My
>Navy students were almost always well-motivated but I have no idea
>what the 4th graders are going to be like.
I know what you mean because our experience has converged there.
Outside of the Navy, and just yesterday, I was Mentoring 3 of my high
school students to varying degrees of success. When asked how it
went, I responded "up, down, and sideways." Luckily this response is
not the typical experience. These kids are from the lower end of the
socio-economic spectrum, but the school system here in Seattle has
made an investment, and community (I do this through the NW Assoc. for
Biological Researcher) does its part to. Computer literacy is tops
(without the golden hand of Chairman Bill Gates being felt). From
their interest and drive, their challenged background (or challenged
emotional/developmental life) doesn't disrupt their momentum.
One of the most profound lectures I have ever read, insofar as
teaching science goes, dates back roughly 150 years to one of our own.
"The Chemical History of the Candle" by Michael Faraday is a series of
lectures by the master of inductance given to young students. It is
the classic of its type and sets the standard even to this day.
One might ponder about the significance of a history of the candle. In
one sense, it is quite complete to that heading alone. But beyond it,
and he goes vastly beyond it, there is coverage that is topical to the
current energy debate, the current green debate, and current to the
state of biology that is understandable by the mid-schooler on.
One point that still astonishes me is when Faraday makes the point
(and I will extrapolate to current capacities) that for every barrel
of oil burned, a barrel of water is produced in the combustion
process. I have to wonder at the plight of science understanding (not
just training) when I see huge flame geysers burning in the desert
(waste gas) of an oil rich country that has to import water:
"What the FUCK? Over"
Richard Clark
wrote:
>"The Chemical History of the Candle" by Michael Faraday
complete text available at:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14474
Lostgallifreyan
news:6dkgi5hh3ujvlt06u...@4ax.com:
>>I have a
>>handout with eight Morse Code characters on it, enough to spell out
>>some easy words,
>
> Good idea. Mind if I steal it?
>
Or make it a puzzle. Some text they're likely to know, maybe a long and
eventful paragraph of Harry Potter or similar, and translate for a short line
that uses only a few letters of the alphabet and that does not identify the
source text or content, but allows substitution to fill in other words,
completed by working out what other parts of the text are saying, or by
simple elimination within a word. I never did learn Morse well, never needed
to, but playing with that method with other people on an internet forum was
by far the closest I ever got, and the most fun. Someone would paste
something into a code translator, and instead of doing the reverse I'd start
with the few I always remember, E,A,N,S,T,O,H, and build on those.
It might sound like a lot for a young child, but if more than one are keen to
find out what's being said they won't need much motivating, that will take
care of itself. They won't remember every letter, but most adults who type
every day would be hard put to locate every letter on a QUERTY keyboard
without actually looking at one, what is retained is the memory of an
important process.
Michael Coslo
>
> I don't want to comment on the legal part of the puzzle (because I
> a potential conflict between unlicensed Part 15 operation, and
> licensed part 97 operation on 2.4GHz. Place your bets and blast a way
> with kilowatts on 2.4Ghz. Will 800,000 licensed US hams prevail over
> perhaps 300 million unlicensed wireless devices? Want to bet on who
> will win before an FCC tribunal? If there is a conflict, I'll place
> my bets on Part 15.
>
No one in their right mind is going to be running that much power -
being line of sight, at those frequencies, there isn't any point.
Regarding your hypothetical situation though, The likely outcome is that
the Amateur would be asked to turn down the power. They usually ask the
two parties to work together to get rid of the interference. But the
real onus is on the part 15 device owner. Dunno if you read the F.C.C.
enforcement actions, but the licensed service still "wins". BPL was an
attempt by economic interests to turn technical reality aside for
pecuniary reasons, but it looks like th elicensed services are going to
win that war now also. After the ARRL got hold of the original documents
the F.C.C. used during the run up to BPL, and founf out thet the
commission ignored their own engineers findings, then tried to hide that
fact, it kinda let the air outta that tire.
Michael Coslo
> One of the most profound lectures I have ever read, insofar as
> teaching science goes, dates back roughly 150 years to one of our own.
> "The Chemical History of the Candle" by Michael Faraday is a series of
> lectures by the master of inductance given to young students. It is
> the classic of its type and sets the standard even to this day.
Thankyew! I'm reading it now. The first thing I am struck by is the
readability of the thing. So much from that era was so hyperliterate.
> One point that still astonishes me is when Faraday makes the point
> (and I will extrapolate to current capacities) that for every barrel
> of oil burned, a barrel of water is produced in the combustion
> process. I have to wonder at the plight of science understanding (not
> just training) when I see huge flame geysers burning in the desert
> (waste gas) of an oil rich country that has to import water:
Most of those places have borrowed the technology to extract the oil in
the first place. It isn't inherent in their lifestyle. They probably
don't know about the water because we didn't tell them. And we were just
worried about the oil.
Excellent point however.
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>
>> I don't want to comment on the legal part of the puzzle (because I
>> already have a headache). However, it should be obvious that there's
>> a potential conflict between unlicensed Part 15 operation, and
>> licensed part 97 operation on 2.4GHz. Place your bets and blast a way
>> with kilowatts on 2.4Ghz. Will 800,000 licensed US hams prevail over
>> perhaps 300 million unlicensed wireless devices? Want to bet on who
>> will win before an FCC tribunal? If there is a conflict, I'll place
>> my bets on Part 15.
>No one in their right mind is going to be running that much power -
>being line of sight, at those frequencies, there isn't any point.
Most of the Wi-Fi installations are setup to go through walls where
power is helpful. Not exactly line of sight. Some of the outdoor
installations are installed by WISPs (Wireless Internet Service
Providers) that sometimes user maximum legal power amplifiers. You
can also buy relatively high power client radios:
<http://www.ubnt.com/products/xr2.php>
That's +28dBm or 630mw, which is considerably more power than the
typical 50mw radios. There are also bi-directional power amplifiers
allegedly sold only for ham, government, and industrial use only:
<http://www.ssbusa.com/kunamp1.html>
and the video equivalent:
<http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/505472-REG/RF_Video_AMP_5000M_10_AMP_5000M_10_High_Power.html>
from of all places a camera store. I've also helped identify and shut
down 3 such overpowered installations.
What's happening is as the 2.4GHz band gets more and more polluted,
some individuals seem to think that the solution is to increase their
TX power level. That's resulting in a very slow power war. The Wi-Fi
device manufacturers have caught on and are now advertising "high
power" devices, which seems to be anything over +20dBm (100mw).
Various pundits have predicted a power war, which fortunately hasn't
happened.
>Regarding your hypothetical situation though, The likely outcome is that
>the Amateur would be asked to turn down the power.
That's exactly what has happened in one of the situations that I was
involved. He didn't realize he was causing a problem and was very
cooperative. I also monitor the FCC enforcement actions:
<http://www.fcc.gov/eb/AmateurActions/Welcome.html>
and have not seen anything on 2.4 or 5.6GHz that required official
action. However, I do know of some warnings sent to WISPs over the
last 10 years or so for using too much power. So far so good.
>They usually ask the
>two parties to work together to get rid of the interference. But the
>real onus is on the part 15 device owner. Dunno if you read the F.C.C.
>enforcement actions, but the licensed service still "wins".
That's exactly the problem I mentioned. The licensed ham using 2.4Ghz
is within his rights to use 1Kw. He can also legally cause
interference to unlicensed devices without much consideration. So it
is written, and it must be. However, all it's going to take is a few
industry groups (i.e. lobbying interests) to claim that ham radio
operation on 2.4Ghz is somehow detrimental to the economy by impacting
Wi-Fi equipment sales, and I suspect there will be changes that impact
ham radio. Please consider my comments more as a warning than as a
denunciation.
>BPL was an
>attempt by economic interests to turn technical reality aside for
>pecuniary reasons, but it looks like th elicensed services are going to
>win that war now also.
BPL is going to die because the electric utility companies are not
seeing any revenue from the exercise, are getting some really bad
press, and really don't need the hassle. The interference issue gets
the press, but the decisions are always made on the basis of dollars.
>After the ARRL got hold of the original documents
>the F.C.C. used during the run up to BPL, and founf out thet the
>commission ignored their own engineers findings, then tried to hide that
>fact, it kinda let the air outta that tire.
True. Much credit to the ARRL for being able to do that. Still,
nothing has really changed at the FCC end. BPL systems that are
leaking well over established limits are still "working on the
problem". Most are still running in what is becoming a permanent
"trial" mode.
<http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/ex2.html>
Meanwhile, a rather large number of HomePlug devices, which is
essentially BPL for home internet, are being sold. They don't leak as
much RF power as real BPL systems, but still manage to make plenty of
noise:
<http://www.mds975.co.uk/Content/amateur_radio_BPL_interference.html>
Hmmm... It's QRN, not QRM. Oh well.
<http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/Testing_HomePlug.htm>
At least the ARRL is involved. Some HomePlug devices have
pre-programmed notch filters to reduce power on "sensitive"
frequencies which include ham bands.
> - 73 de Mike N3LI -
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
JIMMIE
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:24:03 +0000 (UTC), "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"
>
> <g...@cable.mendelson.com> wrote:
> >Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >> Yes. You'll bore the kids to death with such minutae and trivia.
> >Geoff.
>
> The most effective song and dance I did in front of a Jr High Skool
> class was tearing apart various cell phones, walkie talkies,
> computahs, and consumer electronics to demonstrate that they should
> not be afraid of such things. Unfortunately, the parents hated my
> guts when the kids starting practicing what I showed them. Learn by
> Destroying(tm).
>
> 2nd best was dragging in my collection of old cell phones including an
> IMTS control head, various bag phones, and an unbelievable brick like
> handset that's VERY heavy. I also brought an early Motorola tube type
> Breaky-Backy with wet cells inside. Some of the stuff still works.
>
> Nobody was interested in Morse Code until I mentioned that it could be
> used for "secret communications". That means that the parents and
> teachers couldn't understand what the kids were saying. Lots of
> interest (and potential problems) there.
>
> The problem with todays version of ham radio is that it's really
> boring. Nobody wants to talk to someone around the world, when they
> can pickup a POTS or cell phone and do it with much less effort and
> expense. With the demise of Heathkit, building radios is no longer a
> with radio. Weather stations, APRS, satellite, construction, etc are
> a good start. > Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
LOL I showed showed some kids how to disassembe and reassemble a
desktop computer. I understand a few did well on the disassembly part
but not so well on putting it back together their parents computers.
Jimmie
Jeff Liebermann
<JIMMIE...@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>On Dec 14, 1:14�pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>> The most effective song and dance I did in front of a Jr High Skool
>> class was tearing apart various cell phones, walkie talkies,
>> computahs, and consumer electronics to demonstrate that they should
>> not be afraid of such things. �Unfortunately, the parents hated my
>> guts when the kids starting practicing what I showed them. �Learn by
>> Destroying(tm).
>LOL I showed showed some kids how to disassembe and reassemble a
>desktop computer. I understand a few did well on the disassembly part
>but not so well on putting it back together their parents computers.
>Jimmie
That's the way we all learn. Next time, they'll do better. You've
hit on one of my many pet peeves. The skools are so afraid of
liability issues that any activity that involves potentially dangerous
tools or devices are proscribed by the administration. The result is
a generation (or two) that don't know which end of the soldering iron
to grab, don't know how to use hand tools, and have zero experience
with machinery beyond simple power tools.
They really have to learn to use such tools early in life or they'll
never learn. A friend of mine's father was an auto mechanic. He
didn't want his son to also become an auto mechanic. Every time his
son would pickup a tool, his father would take it away from him. It
worked. We met when he was about 40 years old. Despite practice and
some instruction, he was a total klutz with hand tool, and a hazard to
life and property with power tools. Try as he might, he couldn't
recover from the lack of childhood experience with tools. However, he
was far from useless. He taught me Unix and some programming in trade
for me maintaining his (Plexus and NCR) servers.
One of my standard birthday (and sometime Hanukah) gifts is a tool box
stuffed full of quality hand tools. I build the kit myself which
includes everything from jewelers screwdrivers to a claw hammer. When
I have time, I hot stamp the birthday brat's name into the plastic
handles, mostly to discourage anyone from borrowing tools. Years
later, the kit is invariably dispersed and half missing, but during
those years, the birthday brat gets some very useful experience with
hand tools.
I was encouraged to take things apart when I was fairly young. I had
my own tool collection by age 7 or so and was encouraged to use it. I
managed to break many things. My father and I would sit down, and he
would fix it. One day, I decided to take apart a brass mantle wind-up
clock. The main spring went boing. Instead of my father fixing it
while I watched, I got to fix it, while he watched. I fumbled,
blundered, and generally made a mess while my father offered advice,
but no direct help. At about an hour a day, we got it back together
and mostly working after about 12 days. I noticed that my father was
sitting on his hands. When I asked about it much later, he said it
wasn't to stop him from grabbing the clock and fixing it himself. It
was to keep him from grabbing my throat and strangling me because I
was doing such a lousy job. Years later, I was rebuilding his factory
sewing machines and later worked on rebuilding teletype machines.
Without that early experience, I wouldn't have had a chance.
Learn by Destroying(tm) which means if you haven't broken it, ripped
it apart, and fixed it, you don't understand how it works.
tom
>> being line of sight, at those frequencies, there isn't any point.
>
> Most of the Wi-Fi installations are setup to go through walls where
> power is helpful. Not exactly line of sight. Some of the outdoor
But. The alligator syndrome gets nailed every time here, although with
some dB recovered due to better receive front ends. But still doesn't
overcome the 30 to 100mW coupled to negative gain antennas on the link
back to the AP.
The semi-exception that I know of, as of about 2 years ago when my
ex-employer ISP that did (somewhat successfully) muni wifi, was testing
and eventually installed, Go Networks APs. They were the only ones at
the time that could use 20W ERP because they were phased array antenna
APs. And they mapped the vector vs MAC address so it knew the best
antenna angle to your PC.
tom
K0TAR
Jeff Liebermann
>The semi-exception that I know of, as of about 2 years ago when my
>ex-employer ISP that did (somewhat successfully) muni wifi, was testing
> and eventually installed, Go Networks APs. They were the only ones at
>the time that could use 20W ERP because they were phased array antenna
>APs. And they mapped the vector vs MAC address so it knew the best
>antenna angle to your PC.
>
>tom
>K0TAR
What "vector"? The beamwidth width was 120 degrees for Go Networks
and 60 degress for Vivato. That's not a beam. That's a barn door.
That nonsense got me rather irate when the FCC concluded that an
overpowerful alligator, with beam steering, will somehow cause less
interference than a sector antenna system.
Go Networks was one of the later vendors to hop on the alligator
bandwagon:
<http://wifinetnews.com/archives/2006/04/go_networks_slips_veil_on_cellularmesh_metro_wi-fi.html>
They picked up the fumble after Vivato dropped the ball.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivato>
To add insult to injury, Go Networks somehow convinced the FCC that
120 degree wide steerable "beams" qualified for the higher power. I
could do better with common sector antennas. At least Vivato used 60
degree beams, which was marginally better. As I recall, their
literature had an illustrators imaginative drawing showing what might
be hundreds of beams with what appeared to be about 5 degree
beamwidth. The illustration also showed the steerable antenna hung on
a wall, thus eliminating half the "beams".
What I saw with the one Vivato 2210 controller I played with was that
the usable range was about the same as a lower powered omni or panel
system because of the alligator effect. The AP was deaf. So was
management.
Incidentally, one local Muni Wi-Fi network turned DOWN their mesh
nodes TX power when they were finally convinced that they were
creating almost all of their own interference. Things worked much
better when the access points and repeaters used approximately the
same tx power as the client radios.
Sal M. Onella
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:42:25 -0800 (PST), "Sal M. Onella"
>
> <sob...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >I have a
> >handout with eight Morse Code characters on it, enough to spell out
> >some easy words,
>
> Good idea. Mind if I steal it?
Feel free <g>
>
> 9-10 years old is the right age to start. Between 8 and 15, I tried
> literally everything I could find. Cooking, guns, sewing, carpentry,
> elecronics (buzzer and magnets), chemistry, fizzix, etc.
No serious Fizzix this time but I already have magnets and buzzers.
> You might learn as much from their questions as they're
> learning from your demo.
I'd be surprised if that didn't happen. I'm learning just from the
prep work.
John
KD6VKW
tom
Absolutely right on the power.
I was referring to the panel antennas, not the pole mount units, but
your point is well made. I didn't mean to imply that it was a good
solution.
I modeled the 4 vertical pole mount unit and it's nothing great. At
least the panel versions ended up with some front to back.
Unfortunately, few muni systems seem to use sector antennas. Probably
because you can lose money just as easily with a cheap system as an
expensive one.
I am just glad that I am no longer near the WiFi biz.
tom
K0TAR
Michael Coslo
Reading this post made me smile, as it brought back so many memories.
When I was a young'un, I had a curiosity that went way past what most
people would call common sense. I disassembled household appliances to
see what made them work. Unfortunately it wasn't until I was 16 or so
that I could put them back together. I tried chemically boring a
lawnmower engine - btw, while hydrochloric acid will attack an Aluminum
cylinder wall very well, it isn't too controllable. 8^) I took so many
things apart that it was starting to become a bit of a hardship, and my
folks were at a loss, because grounding me just gave more time at home
to find things to take apart.
My Grandfather found the answer. He worked at Bendix where they made car
and other radios. There were rejects and prototype radios that the
company would give away. Anyhow, he and I sat down and built a power
supply, and then he let me have at the radios. Ground rules were that I
had to limit my taking apart to the radios, or things my folks were
throwing out.
That was the start of both my electronics interest, and furthered my
total lack of fear to tear things apart. All I know is that it was about
as much fun as I ever had.
Michael Coslo
That was the tactic for the BPL folks. It has to be faced down whenever
they bring it up. The tail should never wag the dog. It becomes doomed
anyhow, because when the device with special privileges starts
interfering with other devices with special privileges, who wins then?
We cannot do an "Animal Farm" Some are more equal than others situation
without chaos.
>> BPL was an
>> attempt by economic interests to turn technical reality aside for
>> pecuniary reasons, but it looks like th elicensed services are going to
>> win that war now also.
>
> BPL is going to die because the electric utility companies are not
> seeing any revenue from the exercise, are getting some really bad
> press, and really don't need the hassle. The interference issue gets
> the press, but the decisions are always made on the basis of dollars.
BPL proponents allowed people to believe that they were going to just
send the signals along the lines from some sort of "head end" site, and
they would be there for the tapping. In fact, they were a last mile
solution the Fiber would have to be run almost to the house, then the
signal injected into a H-V line - the bpl signals could not survive
going through transformers - finally a device to couple the BPL signal
from the HV to the Household line after the transformer would allow the
signal into the house.
That's bad technology on so many levels it's obvious that the decisions
were based on economics and perhaps some politics (not R vs D, but the
idea that belief trumps science, that the intuitive idea of sending
multiple signals on one wire just has to work.
Are we going to bet our life on that H-V line isolator - injector never
failing closed, and allowing Several KV into our home electrical system?
But the final issue for me was that the source of the data signal had to
come almost to my house. Clean, yummy, digital goodness being degraded
to a shaky easy to disrupt DSL speed signal. No thanks, folks. But let's
talk about get me hooked directly into that fiber, pleeze!
>> After the ARRL got hold of the original documents
>> the F.C.C. used during the run up to BPL, and founf out thet the
>> commission ignored their own engineers findings, then tried to hide that
>> fact, it kinda let the air outta that tire.
>
> True. Much credit to the ARRL for being able to do that. Still,
> nothing has really changed at the FCC end. BPL systems that are
> leaking well over established limits are still "working on the
> problem". Most are still running in what is becoming a permanent
> "trial" mode.
> <http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/ex2.html>
Fortunately, they are going to eventually go away. Unless BPL is going
to become some sort of welfare system with companies sinking money into
it's maintenance for just a few customers.
I had always wondered what was going to happen to BPL systems when the
sunspot cycle hits it's peak.
I'd been assured that propagation wouldn't have any effect on it, but
we'll see.
>
> Meanwhile, a rather large number of HomePlug devices, which is
> essentially BPL for home internet, are being sold. They don't leak as
> much RF power as real BPL systems, but still manage to make plenty of
> noise:
> <http://www.mds975.co.uk/Content/amateur_radio_BPL_interference.html>
> Hmmm... It's QRN, not QRM. Oh well.
> <http://p1k.arrl.org/~ehare/bpl/Testing_HomePlug.htm>
> At least the ARRL is involved. Some HomePlug devices have
> pre-programmed notch filters to reduce power on "sensitive"
> frequencies which include ham bands.
All eventually doomed to failure.
If I might conjecture, I think that the current crop of EE's did not pay
any attention to RF while grooming themselves for the brave new future
of "Everything is digital". The HF bands are an unruly beast. They are
prone to static, they are prone to propagation, where at some times a
strong signal can't go much of anywhere, and at other times a milliwatt
works the world. And to make things worse, the propagation varies by
frequency.
For most digital wireless situations, you want a noise free, propagation
free, short range system. HF will never satisfy these requirements. Some
times at sunspot minimum, they might look a little better, but even
then, they just aren't a good choice. Hell, VHF is only just usable.
Gotta be well into UHF before you get good stable conditions
But The new crop of engineers and econo-politicians would like to impose
their digital reality on sections of RF spectrum that just aren't going
to cooperate.
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> That's exactly the problem I mentioned. The licensed ham using 2.4Ghz
>> is within his rights to use 1Kw. He can also legally cause
>> interference to unlicensed devices without much consideration. So it
>> is written, and it must be. However, all it's going to take is a few
>> industry groups (i.e. lobbying interests) to claim that ham radio
>> operation on 2.4Ghz is somehow detrimental to the economy by impacting
>> Wi-Fi equipment sales, and I suspect there will be changes that impact
>> ham radio. Please consider my comments more as a warning than as a
>> denunciation.
>
>That was the tactic for the BPL folks. It has to be faced down whenever
>they bring it up.
Good luck. Money talks as do votes. Who's right? 800,000 hams or
perhaps 50 million Wi-Fi users backed by a 2000 members of the Wi-Fi
consortium:
<http://www.wi-fi.org/our_members.php>
David got lucky with Goliath but might not do so well against an
industry alliance.
>The tail should never wag the dog. It becomes doomed
>anyhow, because when the device with special privileges starts
>interfering with other devices with special privileges, who wins then?
That's easy. In a court-o-law, such issues are settled by whichever
party lasts the longest and has the biggest war chest. If those are
equal, the winner is decided by which one can bury the courts in the
most paper. The merits of the case are rarely relevant. Before the
FCC, it's now who presents the case, but who's behind those presenting
the case. The only time the underdog wins is if there's a sacred cow
involved, or if the chairman is on his way out and needs to make an
impression on the press.
>We cannot do an "Animal Farm" Some are more equal than others situation
>without chaos.
Fairness and equality are nice theories that take the back seat to
greed, money, power, politics, and public relations. I don't think
anyone ever accused the FCC of being "fair" to all parties.
>BPL proponents allowed people to believe that they were going to just
>send the signals along the lines from some sort of "head end" site, and
>they would be there for the tapping. In fact, they were a last mile
>solution the Fiber would have to be run almost to the house, then the
>signal injected into a H-V line - the bpl signals could not survive
>going through transformers - finally a device to couple the BPL signal
>from the HV to the Household line after the transformer would allow the
>signal into the house.
Yep, that's about it. It was also suppose to be a test, pilot, or
demonstration system, not a fully functional deployment. That wasn't
at the insistence of the FCC, but rather because the power companies
didn't know what was going to happen and wanted to pull the plug if
necessary. Never mind that anyone with a clue about internet topology
might note that the rather unstructured wiring tangle was going to be
both expensive and unmanageable.
>That's bad technology on so many levels it's obvious that the decisions
>were based on economics and perhaps some politics (not R vs D, but the
>idea that belief trumps science, that the intuitive idea of sending
>multiple signals on one wire just has to work.
Hey, I like to read science fiction. Having written a few business
plans, I some also write sci-fi. If the FCC wants to get into the
act, I have no problem. In this case, their own staff told them that
it wouldn't work, which they solved by selective suppression of
unfavorable reports. These days, technical decisions are not made by
Dilbert. They're made by the clueless Pointy Hair Boss.
>Are we going to bet our life on that H-V line isolator - injector never
>failing closed, and allowing Several KV into our home electrical system?
Yep. Any risk is justifiable in order to deliver cheap internet to
the GUM (great unwashed masses). If we sacrifice a few customers for
the greater good, I'm sure it can be justified or at least
rationalized.
>But the final issue for me was that the source of the data signal had to
>come almost to my house. Clean, yummy, digital goodness being degraded
>to a shaky easy to disrupt DSL speed signal. No thanks, folks. But let's
>talk about get me hooked directly into that fiber, pleeze!
How about FTTS (fiber through the sewer)?
<http://fiberopticnews.blogspot.com/2007/08/ftts-fiber-through-sewer.html>
It sorta solves the expensive right of way problem, but may still have
problems with topology and interface. "Don't flush the toilet right
now... I'm watching YouTube".
>> Meanwhile, a rather large number of HomePlug devices, which is
>> essentially BPL for home internet, are being sold.
>All eventually doomed to failure.
Really? Sales and product announcements for HomePlug AV devices seems
to be on the increase.
<http://www.homeplug.org>
There's talk of using HomePlug for home energy management as part of
the "Smart Grid" initiative.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid>
A few blurps of data from each house won't cause much interference,
but city wide, will probably make BPL look like a minor irritation.
>But The new crop of engineers and econo-politicians would like to impose
>their digital reality on sections of RF spectrum that just aren't going
>to cooperate.
Yeah, but their clients have made their money long before anyone
figures out it won't work. Some technically flawed RF based ideas
that have percolated to the top:
1. BPL
2. White Space
3. Terrestrial use of the Ka and Ku band shared with satellite TV.
4. Satellite broadcast radio with terrestrial repeaters.
5. 8VSB versus COFDM for digital TV.
6. Part 15 communications without automatic tx power control.
7. Narrow banding, spectrum rebranding, spectrum auctions, etc.
8.... I'm late. that should do for now. gotta run.
Jim Lux
I've always thought that BPL was a solution to getting metering and rate
data to and from the household from the head end. A fairly low rate
application. This has great value to the regulated side of the utility
(smart grid, before it was known as such). The idea that it could be
used for consumer data was probably promulgated by folks who wanted to
sell bigger/better modems, and latch onto "let's wire america" kinds of
funding. Especially if the unregulated side could get income from
infrastructure installed by the regulated side.