| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 25.03.04 22:43l 202 Lines 6759 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 3047-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Mar 22, 2/2
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0MRW<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<ZL2BAU<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 040325/1151Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:21369 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:3047-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: RE: BPL Contests and Flash Mobs
From: "Ken Brown" <W2KB@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:01:33 -0500
X-Message-Number: 11
Bob and the others who have suggested similar:
I don't think it is wise to attempt to intentionally, either individually or
through concerted action, interfere with BPL operations. While Part 15
devices must under the rules accept interference from licensed services,
that means in the ordinary course of the licensed service's operations, not
an operator intentionally operating so as to interfere with the Part 15
device even in the guise of a contest, or 'testing' or moving an antenna
next to the power line, or the like.
Indeed, under the amateur rules, it is forbidden to willfully or maliciously
interfere with *any* radio communication, not just licensed transmissions.
To wit:
TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION
COMMISSION (CONTINUED)
PART 97_AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE--Table of Contents
Subpart B_Station Operation Standards
Sec. 97.101 General standards.
(a) . . .
(b) . . .
(c) . . .
(d) No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere
with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal.
73,
---Ken W2KB
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: BPL Contests and Flash Mobs
From: Robert Kirk <isobar@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:24:26 -0500
X-Message-Number: 12
At 08:43 AM 3/22/04 -0500, Bob Bruninga wrote:
>[...] What we need are some opportunities
>for all HF mobiles to "flash" to a BPL neighborhood during any
>BPL tests.
It may be a losing battle; even some in the ham world would rather have
broadband.
See today's Wall Street Journal:
"High-Speed Internet Access
In regard to the March 12 Letter from American Radio Relay League CEO David
Sumner in response to your March 2 article "The Web's New Outlet" : While
it's interesting for Mr. Sumner to provide us with lessons in radio
propagation, the underlying concern of the ARRL is protection of radio
bandwidth for amateur radio use. Although I am a fellow radio operator, I'm
not as enthused toward the ARRL's preservation project. If BPL can allow
consumers more choice in broad-band technology, then it will most
certainly propagate something much more impartant-price competition.
I believe it's fair to say that there are millions more people interested
in high-speed Internet access than in the dwindling thousands of radio
operators Mr. Sumner represents.
Bill Hartzell Bald Eagle Press
Philadelphia "
Bob Kirk
N3OZB
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: APRS wx t... on aprsworld and findu
From: "Matt Werner" <kb0kqa@arrl.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:31:23 -0600
X-Message-Number: 13
I am in the middle of rerouting my temp probe and ended up leaving it
unplugged today. Xastir is correctly substituting ... for the temp in the
temp field of the report (the station call is KB0KQA):
=4659.65N/09217.93W_326/006g014t...r000P000p000b10158XU2k
aprsworld.net and findu.com both are incorrectly interpreting this though.
Findu's graph correctly stops drawing the temp when I quit sending it but
the text at the top of the wxpage.cgi says my temp is 0F.
Aprsworld says my temp is 32F and my wind chill is 32F. The temp graph
holds at 32.
Not really a big deal as a wx station that doesn't include the temp is
probably pretty rare, but it's something that just "isn't right" either...
73 - Matt
KB0KQA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: BPL Contests and Flash Mobs
From: "Christensen, Eric" <CHRISTENSENE@MAIL.ECU.EDU>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:44:40 -0500
X-Message-Number: 14
Great... Another ill-informed idiot with access to the press.
IMO, while Mr. Sumner represents the ARRL and amateur radio users, he is
also speaking for the vast amount of military, maritime, and governmental
users as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: BPL Contests and Flash Mobs
From: "Christensen, Eric" <CHRISTENSENE@MAIL.ECU.EDU>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:56:10 -0500
X-Message-Number: 15
Let me apologize... That was a flame that came out faster than I had
wanted...
Let me try again:
IMO, while Mr. Sumner represents the ARRL and amateur radio users, he is
also speaking for the vast amount of military, maritime, and governmental
users as well that will also suffer from the ill effects of BPL. Our basic
forms of communications are on the line, here, and it is apparent that most
of the FCC Board are either getting paid to say "OKAY!" or are too dumb to
realize the problems that can happen with such a system.
How are they going to explain to the users, after a few months, that they
WON'T be able to continue such broadband service because they are
interfering with the DoD's voice network that controls our nuclear weapons.
Kind of like dangling that carrot and letting them taste it but not actually
finish it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: 441.125 APRS Freq?
From: "Chris Rose" <kb8uih@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 23:02:50 -0500
X-Message-Number: 16
OK,
There is already a nationwide frequency for APRS. Why make another one? I
understand local lans or short backbones regionally but for UHF nationwide?
Am I not understanding the intent of the post? Setting aside channel
spacing, UHF is short range, VHF is long range to compare the two, no? Its
like comparing apples to oranges.
73,
Chris
KB8UIH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: APRS wx t... on aprsworld and findu
From: "AE5PL Lists" <HamLists@ametx.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:10:45 -0600
X-Message-Number: 17
www.jfindu.net reports it correctly.
73,
Pete Loveall AE5PL
pete@ae5pl.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: 441.125 APRS Freq?
From: "Christensen, Eric" <CHRISTENSENE@MAIL.ECU.EDU>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 23:17:16 -0500
X-Message-Number: 18
This is true... And maybe a UHF frequency would be a better choice for the
future v. a VHF frequency.
With the general trend of more users per digi, more digipeaters (and more
advanced routing) will be necessary. In keeping with a
one-frequency-for-everywhere mind set, a UHF frequency may be more
appropriate to reduce interference between LANs.
As the two meter band is VERY crowded, now may be the time to push for a
nation-wide UHF frequency allocation for APRS before those bands (70cm at
this time) become filled beyond capacity.
73s,
Eric KF4OTN
---
END OF DIGEST
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
