 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / Radio Controlled / Air Models / May 2004BPL to be tested in Cincinnati area
http://equipped.msn.com/article.aspx?aid=4 The claim is that they will operate 'somewhere' between 1.7 Mhz and 30Mhz. "The FCC has acknowledged that BPL transmission may interfere with amateur ham-radio broadcasts, and that problem will likely need to be solved before BPL can become as common as cable and DSL connections." What kind of statement is this? The problem will "likely need" to be solved before proliferation? Why no mention of RC? > http://equipped.msn.com/article.aspx?aid=4 > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > What kind of statement is this? The problem will "likely need" to be > solved before proliferation? Why no mention of RC? Because compared to other RF services RC is a drop in the ocean. Perhaps... But then I know far more rc'ers than I do HAM enthusiasts. > > http://equipped.msn.com/article.aspx?aid=4 > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > Because compared to other RF services RC is a drop in the ocean. > Perhaps... But then I know far more rc'ers than I do HAM enthusiasts. Maybe so, oh great top poster, BUT the hams have the ARRL and direct relations with the FCC. How 'bout the AMA and other RC groups? Also, being radio guys the hams could bring an intelligent discussion to the table, not just a bunch of "The sky is falling" hysteria. Also, I would think that since you are an RC enthusiast you would naturally know more RC people. I'll bet the Hams know more radio enthusiasts than RC enthusiasts. I know we have several Hamfests and the like here per year and only Perry once a year for RC. Jim > > Perhaps... But then I know far more rc'ers than I do HAM enthusiasts. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Jim BOTTOM: The AMA has Jim Mealy as an FAA liaison. There should be an equivalent role to interface with the FCC since radio is such an important aspect of 'Radio Controled Airplanes'. Many of the hams that I know from proffesional contact also fly rc. I was only briefly involved with a small rc club, so I do not personally know a great number of rc'ers, but I know fewer ham'ers. Ham'ers are in rather close communication with each other, so it is natural that they are more organized/networked. R/C'ers should follow suit or support them in opposing BPL. There is a significant crossover between our camps already. How many HAM/rc conversions are out there? How many 2.4Ghz video users? ....divided we fall.... > > > Perhaps... But then I know far more rc'ers than I do HAM enthusiasts. > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > ....divided we fall.... I agree, the AMA should have intimate ties to the FCC, but I am not of the mind that this is going to kill RC or HAM services just yet. The reason this is being tested is to TEST what happens during a large roll out. It might be a total screwup and it never become main stream. I don't know, but I'm willing to let them try it and see what happens, and I'm also willing to raise a stink if it causes problems. In my book, if they splatter garbage all over the spectrum they are violation of FCC rules and should be treated as such. Until we know for sure....... Jim | http://equipped.msn.com/article.aspx?aid=4 | | The claim is that they will operate 'somewhere' between 1.7 Mhz and | 30Mhz. By `somewhere', they mean `just about everywhere'. They used to go up to 80 mhz ... I wonder what happened. | "The FCC has acknowledged that BPL transmission may interfere with | amateur ham-radio broadcasts, and that problem will likely need to be | solved before BPL can become as common as cable and DSL connections." | | What kind of statement is this? The problem will "likely need" to be | solved before proliferation? Why no mention of RC? R/C doesn't deal with the weak signals that ham radio DXing does, so it's not at as much risk. Exactly how much of a risk it is remains to be seen, but it's not guaranteed to be a disaster for us. In fact, it may not affect us at all. What's quite possible is that you'd find that flying really close to whatever powerlines are nearby would cause you to start glitching -- which may not be an issue, because flying really close to powerlines is never a good idea anyways. How far `really close' is remains to be seen, of course. If it's 20 feet, then that's ok. If it's 500 ft, then that's a problem. Also, if they're really not going over 30 mhz, then the 72/75 mhz bands should be fairly safe, though of course there's always the danger of harmonics. The 27 mhz band would be affected, of course, but if the interference is low enough it shouldn't be an issue. We'll see if it's low enough ... Of course, we should still be fighting it, because it certainly does have the ability to cause us grief. But it's not automatically `the end of R/C' as some have predicted.  SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com `"Sally eats like a bird" is what people used to say. Then one day at the park Sally ate a bird. Everyone stared. Sally shrugged. "Now I eat like a cat."' - Ken's Deep Thoughts Thanks for you post. I both hope and expect that you are correct. > | http://equipped.msn.com/article.aspx?aid=4 > | [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > have the ability to cause us grief. But it's not automatically `the > end of R/C' as some have predicted. > http://equipped.msn.com/article.aspx?aid=4 > > Why no mention of RC? Perhaps you should ask the AMA! The AMA is an empty suit. I would expect them to support BPL if they could somehow charge more money or force more people to join. > > http://equipped.msn.com/article.aspx?aid=4 > > > > Why no mention of RC? > > Perhaps you should ask the AMA! OK, I will ask the stupid question. What the hell is BPL? Does it have anything to do with British Petroleum Lubricants? Ron > The AMA is an empty suit. I would expect them to support BPL if they > could somehow charge more money or force more people to join. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > Perhaps you should ask the AMA! | OK, I will ask the stupid question. What the hell is BPL? Does it have | anything to do with British Petroleum Lubricants? Broadband over Powerlines. Basically rather than running fiber or other forms of data communication to each house, they use the existing power lines. It's supposed to overcome the `last mile problem' where it's easy to get fast Internet access close to the end user, but the last mile is the expensive part. The problem is that when you pump data over a power line, the power line acts like a big antenna, broadcasting it's data everywhere that the powerline is. (Coax cable and fiber optics don't broadcast like this, which is why this isn't a problem with current cable and phone systems.) To make matters worse, they need to use a large spectrum to move the data as fast as they need to, so this interference will cover 2-80 mhz -- including all the HF ham bands, and the R/C frequencies. The interference should be weak, but it will still be there. Ham radio is going to be devastated by BPL -- much of the long distance communication uses very weak signals, signals that will be overwhelmed by the interference from the BPL. R/C signals rarely have to go even a mile, so it's likely not to be nearly as big an issue for us, but that's something that needs more testing. SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com There is never time to do it right, but always time to do it over. Just to muddy the waters a little, or make things clearer, take you pick. RC airplanes are not the only thing on 72mhz. RC trains are too. By that i mean the full sized locomotives being used more and more by both railroads and private industry. Somehow i don't think any lawsuit involving a rc plane could come near the dollar figure of a runaway train. Of course i could be wrong.......... remove my-wife to reply :-) | Just to muddy the waters a little, or make things clearer, take you | pick. RC airplanes are not the only thing on 72mhz. Well, since they're talking about spewing interference over 2-80 mhz, there's NO shortage of applications that they could affect. R/C uses less than 1% of the chunk of bandwidth that would be affected, and this assumes that there won't be any problems with harmonics affecting even higher frequencies. ham radio and shortware listening near the power lines in question will be devastated -- there's no doubt there, and it's already been shown quite convincingly. Other applications it's not so clear. They will be affected, but how much remains to be seen. | RC trains are too. By that i mean the full sized locomotives being | used more and more by both railroads and private industry. Somehow i | don't think any lawsuit involving a rc plane could come near the | dollar figure of a runaway train. Well, I would hope that any use of RF frequencies involving a full sized train would not actually control the train itself. Somehow I can't picture a guy in the caboose driving the train with a Futaba 9C (though I do know that Futaba does make industrial R/C equipment too.) And don't underestimate the possible lawsuit from a R/C plane, crashing into a school bus, full of children with affluent parents, which then crashes into a convention center full of personal injury attorneys and explodes. (: SignatureDoug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10);' > Well, I would hope that any use of RF frequencies involving a full > sized train would not actually control the train itself. Somehow I > can't picture a guy in the caboose driving the train with a Futaba 9C > (though I do know that Futaba does make industrial R/C equipment too.) Full size trains have been operated many years by radio control at Granite City Steel, now US Steel. The guys are much of the time very far away from the locomotive when they are operating them. They are out in the yard switching various cars on to different spurs. >> Well, I would hope that any use of RF frequencies involving a full >> sized train would not actually control the train itself. Somehow I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >are operating them. They >are out in the yard switching various cars on to different spurs. Not just spurs either. There are several railroads operating radio controlled trains in and around Chicago, on mainlines, and over public crossings. Kinda gives you that nice warm fuzzy feeling, don't it? remove my-wife to reply :-) That spread is what's termed the "HF" ham bands for the most part. I have to ponder what effect ham radio transmissions will have on BPL. Didn't read any mention of that in the article. Mike > http://equipped.msn.com/article.aspx?aid=4 > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > What kind of statement is this? The problem will "likely need" to be > solved before proliferation? Why no mention of RC? It will be interesting to see as we are allowed to run 1,500 watts on some of the bands in that spread!!! Eddie Fulmer AMA 63713 > That spread is what's termed the "HF" ham bands for the most part. > > I have to ponder what effect ham radio transmissions will have on BPL. > Didn't read any mention of that in the article. Not much unless you stand underneath it. However, find out where the tests are being carried out, then take teh biggest fatsete RC plane you have and fly it straight into tehoffice window of whoever is doing teh tests. Then sue them for the damage caused by 'their' 'interference' with 'your legitimate activity' Take a video ca,mera and remebmer to make the model behave perfectlty till it gets near the power lines, and then do a convincing yell of 'I've lost it' as you wiggle the sticks furiously...cut to power dive of model plane doing a tomahawk run into aforesaid window.... The prospect of endless litigation will halt the thing dead in its tracks. > Mike > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>What kind of statement is this? The problem will "likely need" to be >>solved before proliferation? Why no mention of RC? >> That spread is what's termed the "HF" ham bands for the most part. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > The prospect of endless litigation will halt the thing dead in its tracks. I like this proposition..... It will make a damn good video as well >:-) Reg The FCC is currently testing BPL in a controlled environment (with brand new, taxpayer paid for equipment) and they have already acknowledged that the HAM frequencies are important to maintain as they are for national security reasons (which is why HAM came about in the first place). The testing is to determine which HAM band frequencies that are to be blocked FROM use by the BPL providers. Now, I know that we (R/C) are NOT a HAM band, but we ARE a designated slice of frequencies that the FCC is very aware of. Since I'm not a believer in governmental conspiracies, I'm going to avoid getting my panties in a wad (that is, on the days when I wear panties :-), and take an "assumed" attitude that the R/C bands will be blocked as well if it is shown that BPL affects them. Simply put, BPL does NOT need that much of the band, and it's only a matter of the FCC deciding which parts of the band that will be blocked from BPL. The FCC testing going on right now will determine (very accurately and definitively) how BPL affects radio broadcasts so let's wait and see what they come up with before moving and starting our own small community in the outback of Montana. MJC > That spread is what's termed the "HF" ham bands for the most part. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > What kind of statement is this? The problem will "likely need" to be > > solved before proliferation? Why no mention of RC? MJC, While far from the most popular R/C band, 11 meters (27.xxx mHz) is used for radio control....Not that I'd care to use it however. Maybe my original query wasn't clear enough. The thought was, hams transmitting, sometimes with high power, even mobile, and those transmitted signals interfering with BPL. Mike > The FCC is currently testing BPL in a controlled environment (with brand > new, taxpayer paid for equipment) and they have already acknowledged that [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > > What kind of statement is this? The problem will "likely need" to be > > > solved before proliferation? Why no mention of RC? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.