Red Wave Radio

Only within line of light. For longer distances, its all HF. Look up the
frequencies and take a listen. Any time, day or night there is traffic, lots
of it.

Quote:

> > the military HF network. I can see them now. Sitting around the pentagon
> > saying "forget national security, people have to get their email". Think
> > about it.

> BPL chipsets can keep some frequency ranges free from QRM. Somebody in
> the German ham newsgroup has looked at it with a spectrum analyzer
> or whatever.

> And I think military users could change to VHF or UHF, even sat
> communications anyway if they wanted. They could also keep BPL
> out of special areas. I doubt military users in suburban environments
> give a damn about HF.

> BPL *is* a real threat.

There are active military  and government frequencies spread throughout the
HF bands, I have, sitting in front of me, two pages worth of active military
frequencies. This does not include FEMA, DEA, ect. Yes, they also use VHF
and satellite but maintain activity on HF for long distance as VHF is line
of sight and satellites are to vulnerable. You can do everything you want to
maintain your chicken little views but some of us know better.

Quote:> The freebanders use it all the time and they wouldn't stop.

I haven't heard the freebanders there, but I was hearing about half a dozen
of the 26 Mhz link transmitters, back about three years ago.  I'm not
disputing what you're saying, but I think the bulk of the freebanders
transmit up a bit higher.

Anyway, the reason the freebanders can transmit without any restrictions is
not because there are no rules, but because they're aren't enough people who
will go to the effort to enforce them.  Freebanders don't bother me, so I
guess I'm one of those who don't care, as well.

But I'd like to see some people move into SW radio's abandonded property.
Sure, they may have a different idea of fun than some of the current
residents, but if they keep the place up, who'd care?  Especially if they're
entertaining sorts of people who have plenty of loyal friends incase a real
threat turns up someday.  And the squatters just might move out or go legit.

Frank Dresser

Frank Dresser

Problem: most portables don't go that high. My DX396, for example, only
goes up to 21850 khz. Also, thewre's a lot of freebanders in that area,
apparently. 13m (starting around 21450) is barely used by major
stations, and would have similar propagation to 11m.

Quote:

> Problem: most portables don't go that high. My DX396, for example, only
> goes up to 21850 khz. Also, thewre's a lot of freebanders in that area,
> apparently. 13m (starting around 21450) is barely used by major
> stations, and would have similar propagation to 11m.

11 meters has been quiet for me.  I've figured that if I had a really good
radio and antenna setup, I'd be hearing the radio tumbleweeds rolling down
11 meter's mainstreet.  Maybe propagation is keeping me in a skip zone.

But where's that radio hobbyist "can-do" spirit?  Get the radio you need.
Make a converter.  Find someone who can make a converter.  It's alot easier
now than it was back in the days of the 01A!

Frank Dresser

Quote:> There are active military  and government frequencies spread throughout the
> HF bands, I have, sitting in front of me, two pages worth of active military
> frequencies. This does not include FEMA, DEA, ect. Yes, they also use VHF
> and satellite but maintain activity on HF for long distance as VHF is line
> of sight and satellites are to vulnerable. You can do everything you want to
> maintain your chicken little views but some of us know better.

As I have written, BPL devices *do* have the possibility to keep out
of *some* HF frequencies AFAIK. Ham radio would not be the first candidate
for this. Air mobile and military users would be more likely to benefit
from it.

And maybe it is a different perspective here in Austria, as our military
has a lot less influence on our society. We've got utilities actively
deploying this stuff, and while it is far from being everywhere, it is
a real threat in some areas. I suppose they could not care less about
implications of BPL for the military. They just do good lobbying,
and they have shown their political influence in many issues in the
past.

Don't count too much on the military. They might just use this as
an excuse to get funding for a new satellite based infrastructure or
other alternatives. Moreover I suppose HF is most valuable to the
military in crisis regions, where there is no BPL anyway ; )

/ralph

Will BPL have the same effect on military radio as it has on radio
hobbyists?  Don't they have spread spectrum capability which is highly
resistant to interference?

Frank Dresser

Quote:

> Will BPL have the same effect on military radio as it has on radio
> hobbyists?  Don't they have spread spectrum capability which is highly
> resistant to interference?

> Frank Dresser

Thing is, BPL is also spread spectrum.. would not two spread spectrum
systems on the same bands interfere with one another??

Submit a petition to the FCC to allow hobby broadcasting.  Unless someone
expresses an interest nothing will happen as the FCC generally doesn't
initiate changes.  So try to get something going by submitting a petition
and getting people to support that petition.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Quote:

> Thing is, BPL is also spread spectrum.. would not two spread spectrum
> systems on the same bands interfere with one another??

I don't know alot about spread spectrum, but it's my impression that the
receiver and transmitter are in sync.  If the interference doesn't match the
expected synchronization, the receiver ignores it.  Also, the bandwidth of
spread spectrum is so wide that spread spectrum operations would have to
overlap, otherwise there would only be a few allowable channels.

But, any spread spectrum experts out there are free to correct me.

Frank Dresser

They probably do but not in widespread use nor is it likely to be. They do
also have the capability to replace most of that HF traffic by satellite.
They did, at one time, start to scale back the HF ops in favor of satellite
but decided that was a bad idea from a reliability standpoint. They do have
the satalite capablity but maintain HF to. The military, in any case, is
only a part of the government HF operation. If bpl has the capability of not
using certain segments of the band, due to the amount of space that would
have to be left alone, the bpl spectrum is going to be pretty holy. In any
case, I really don't think it is a viable technology, I seriously doubt it
will be the major rf disaster that some are saying it will be and I don't
think it will last long if it gets off the ground at all.

Quote:

> Will BPL have the same effect on military radio as it has on radio
> hobbyists?  Don't they have spread spectrum capability which is highly
> resistant to interference?

> Frank Dresser

        I wonder if the lab has defective transformers that spew out rfi? I
wonder if the lab regulary simulates lightning strikes on the lines
carrying BPL? I wonder if the labs simulate the sometimes awful
antiquated power lines that the signal would have to go over?

        - Mike KB3EIA -

Yes, but to a limited degree.

One characteristic which distinguishes a spread-spectrum
(whether frequency-hopping, or direct-sequence) system from
a channelized one, is the gradual way the channel
signal-to-noise ratio can degrade as more stations are added
in the same spectrum space.  This "graceful degradation" is
in stark contrast to interference in standard
single-frequency applications, where a collision of two
signals means no link.

Think of two different transmitters sharing the same 1000
frequencies.  Each "hops" to a new frequency every few
milliseconds at most.  If both systems use different channel
sequences, it's just occasionally that both would land on
the same frequency and interfere with each other.  And even
in this case, the total amount of time where they're
mutually interfering is perhaps a millisecond or less.  So
the extra signal sharing the frequency has mostly the effect
of making the channel a tiny bit noisier for all users, but
not to blot out other signals.

As you add more and more spread-spectrum stations, the
probability of a "channel collision" of course increases.
However, by carefully choosing the sequences and making sure
they don't accidentally "lock horns" in synch for a while
following the same sequence of frequencies, the quality of
the link degrades slowly with each new station.

I suspect this "graceful degradation" property of spread
spectrum is more of a driving force than the potential
security and stealth that this system provides.  It allows
more users to share the same small frequency slice, than
would be possible if you just put narrow-band FM equipment
and jammed them together as close as possible.  

Funny how often unexpected benefits spin off of basic
research.  Here's to renewing science and basic research.
Not everything important to business can be measured in
quarterly profits.  Our competitors, who seem to get this
better than a lot of US companies do, will eat our lunch for
us if we don't start thinking long-term again.  IBM and HP
"get it".  It's Congress that we need to wake up next. :)

-- Ross

You're right about that. Unfortunately, the standard business plan is to
make as much as you can in the short term and then dump the company. They
have no interest in anything that won't pan out in 6 months.

Quote:>  Our competitors, who seem to get this
> better than a lot of US companies do, will eat our lunch for
> us if we don't start thinking long-term again.  IBM and HP
> "get it".  It's Congress that we need to wake up next. :)

> -- Ross

Right: Didja ever add up the number of published MF/HF freqs just the
Coast Guard and the HF air traffic controllers use?? And those are
just a few of the published gummint-used freqs. Then come who the hell
knows how many unpublished freqs also used by other civil gummint
types.

Quote:> If bpl has the capability of not
> using certain segments of the band, due to the amount of space that would
> have to be left alone, the bpl spectrum is going to be pretty holy.

It would be one big hole, "selective BPL interference" is a ridiculous
and completely unworkable concept.

Quote:> In any
> case, I really don't think it is a viable technology, I seriously doubt it
> will be the major rf disaster that some are saying it will be and I don't
> think it will last long if it gets off the ground at all.

If it's allowed to get off the ground at all a huge amount of damage
will be done even if it does eventually peter out. The closing the
gate after the cows get out syndrome, etc.

As far as BPL being an RF disaster is concerned I've travelled twice
to one of the BPL pilot areas specifically to listen to the stuff
hands on. Been there, done it myself and I need to tell you that yes
BPL is a potential HF/VHF disaster which needs to be squashed *before*
it even gets off the ground.

Anybody who belives otherwise needs to get off their butts and away
from their keyboards, pack up a rig and actually go listen to stuff
before they spout off about it.

Brian Kelly w3rv

No, sounds accurate to me.

Quote:

> >  Now if you're talking "open" like CB is open, that's a horse of an
> > entirely different color.

> >***

> More like pirate radio.  I've heard some very entertaining stuff, and I hope
> to hear alot more.  I know that time can be bought on an independent
> broadcaster, but I'd really like to know why what Alan Maxwell and the other
> do is illegal.  I think hobby broadcasting would bring alot of positive
> interest to SW radio.

As always,it's a $$$$$ thing, of course.