John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp | Behind The Curve
Investor's are typically a year behind what is happening. They didn't "think this up" yesterday...
We'll see how this shakes out.
--
A is A |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
 ·AT&T Southwest
| Another investment scam?
Trust me -- we have no need for any feeble broadband options here in the DFW area. BPL is only useful in those rural areas where it is impossible to make a profit anyway.
Please watch "Current Communications" bleed huge sums of your 401K "investor" dollars into the coffers of their CEO and pals -- before going bankrupt. Here we go again  |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| Interference Potential
Current has been one of the better companies as it relates to interference. They've been running the Cincinatti trials which have done well; they tend to stay out of amateur radio bands and in general avoid HF bands. Other vendors like Amperion and Ambient have had less than stellar interference track records. TXU had dumped an Amperion trial earlier in the year due to interference.
A ten year deal is pretty aggressive. This will make or break some decisionmaker's career at TXU  |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit |  This BPL selling hook is high speed symetrical BB
They claim the can provide up to 4 mbps symetrical(75 x 56kbps).
Link to TXU news blurb about their plans:
»www.txucorp.com/media/newsrel/de···prid=916
»www.txucorp.com/internal/newsdb/···INAL.pdf
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page |
|
Sgtslaughtr
join:2005-08-29
Knox, IN | Move back
I like this, I might move back to Azle, Texas. |
|
BuriedCaesar
It's Not Polite To Stare.
join:2004-03-27
Richardson, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Yahoo
| Interference to ham radio operators? Hmph...
How about ways to keep ham radio operators - okay, specifically, the one guy across the alley from me with a REALLY BIG ANTENNA - from interfering with my TV reception?
--
That was preposterous! Utter Nonsense! Totally unsupportable drivel! You can't be serious!....Um, what did you say? |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| First off, there are rules to this.
Have you ever tried to ask him about it? Most are very helpful with interference issues (unlike the CB crowd.)
If he tells you go screw yourself, then make a complaint to the FCC noting his name (if you have it), address, call sign (if you know it), and times and types of interference. They will ask him to rectify the situation or he will lose his license.
HOWEVER, if you do not work with him AT ALL, then your chances of getting it resolved are very slim.
And if you don't think the FCC takes action against those who interfere with the airwaves, guess again:
»www.arrl.org/news/enforcement_lo···tml?nc=1
Second listing is interesting.
|
|
BigMac777
join:2001-07-21
Green Valley, AZ
·Qwest.net
| Most Ham Radio operators do not care about there neighbors. All they really care about is talking to Alaska, Hawaii, England or where-ever. If possible I feel they are the ones who should be out in the country side away from everyone and everything. The FEDS should enforce the guidelines for HAM operators but they don't. So the general public has to suffer there signal interferring with there TV's. HAM operators are not your friends period. |
|
qdemn7
Smurf in My Loop
Premium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX | I'm Still Leery of BPL
I definitely will not be an early adopter of BPL, no matter what kind of deal TXU / Current offers. I'll let someone else be the goat this time. |
|
grumpygeek
join:2004-12-14
Houston, TX
| Sell, buy, sell...
TXU sold off most of their communication assets a while back. They were a good supplier when I used them, though I got the impression they never had close to enough customers to break even.
If they farm out the actual install/support work to some third party, it might actually do well. But they do have a history of building "battery factories" when they need a flashlight, so.... |
|
clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
| reply to BigMac777
Re: Interference to ham radio operators? Hmph...
"Most car audio enthusiasts do not care about there (sic) neighbors. All they relaly care about is impressing their friends with booming audio and ear splitting base or what-ever. If possible I feel they are the ones who should be out in the country side away from everyone and everything. The FEDS should enforce the guidelines for car audio enthusiasts but they don't. So the general public has to suffer there (sic) audio intruding upon their common space. Car audio enthusiasts are not your friends period."
Now, let's repeat with "garage bands", "race car teams", "truckers using jake-brakes" and any other people who create offensive noise and interference. Perhaps you're just talking about a few inconsiderate people; after all, I think you'd agree that not all car audio enthusiasts, garage bands, race car teams or truckers are inconsiderate idiots. Right? |
|
TODDRICK
join:2001-08-27
Milwaukee, WI
| RE:Interferance to Ham Radio Operators
Moonpuppy, I beg to differ. If you send a complaint to the FCC regarding interference from a Ham Operator to your consumer electronic equipment, two things will happen. 1)the Ham will get a letter noting the problem and asking him/her to make sure the Ham station is in proper working order and 2) the complainant will get a letter explaining that if the station is in proper working order then it is up to the CONSUMER to apply corrective filtering devices on their consumer electronic equipment and they will get a link to the FCC website article which explains how to go about this and to contact the manufacturer of the equipment for assistance.
»www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Compliance/N···5009.txt
»www.arrl.org/tis/info/rfigen.html
This is because the vast majority of consumer electronics has no RFI filtering and plastic cases (cabinets) that provide no protection. Every time someone proposes a RFI standard for consumer gear it gets shot down by the consumer electronics lobby, as the manufacturers don't want to provide the filters/better designed equipment due to a few dollars per unit saved by them.
If you meant the Gerritsen case by the reference to the second notation in your link, this has nothing to do whatsoever with interference to TVs or any other consumer electronics. He has for years deliberately interfered with Amateur, business and public safety transmissions, including after his license was revoked. Previous fines and jail time didn't stop him either.
Probably not what you wanted to hear but this is the way it works.
Todd |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to BigMac777
Re: Interference to ham radio operators? Hmph...
said by BigMac777  :Most Ham Radio operators do not care about there neighbors. All they really care about is talking to Alaska, Hawaii, England or where-ever. If possible I feel they are the ones who should be out in the country side away from everyone and everything. The FEDS should enforce the guidelines for HAM operators but they don't. So the general public has to suffer there signal interferring with there TV's. HAM operators are not your friends period. The FCC does enforce the rules for amateurs, it's called Title 47 Part 97. The reason why your TV or other consumer electronics receives interference is because manufacturers usually don't include the 50 cents worth of parts to prevent RF ingress into components like A/V cables, AC lines, and speaker cables.
Hams are your friends if you talk to them. I'm a ham and have good relations with my neighbors. If I interfere, I fix the problem, regardless if it's their problem under FCC rules. You'll find most hams are the same, although I get the feeling you've never talked to one or met one. |
|
W5JGV
join:2001-02-03
Natchitoches, LA
 ·WildBlue
| reply to TODDRICK
Re: RE:Interferance to Ham Radio Operators
said by TODDRICK :Moonpuppy, I beg to differ. If you send a complaint to the FCC regarding interference from a Ham Operator to your consumer electronic equipment, two things will happen. Todd Most Amateur Radio Operators (and I am excepting a few ornery characters I have known) are considerate of their neighbors, after all, Hams don't want interference either, as have co-exist in the same neighborhood - preferrably without tar and feathers.;).
Living with crappy consumer electronics can be done, but it's not easy. I have lived at this location now for 20+ years, and during that time I have operated extensively on HF and VHF with power levels from a few milliwatts to the maximum power allowed. In all that time, I have not had a single interference complaint. And all the neighbors know who I am, what I do for a hobby, and where I am - after all, it's hard to miss the 65 foot high tower in the back yard and the tri-band beam on top f it. (Well, it WAS, at least until Katrina came through!) Heck; I even enlisted their help to erect my antennas!
Good engineering practices and common sense can eliminate almost all the interference should it appear. Keep your transmitted signal clean, use a properly installed antenna, and uses the minimum power necessary for effective communications, and make sure you don't interfere with your own consumer electronics.
However, in some cases, you run across a piece of real consumer electronics JUNK that nothing - and I mean NOTHING seems to fix. One neighbor near my previous home had a cordless phone that heard everything from Hams to CB'ers and commercial stuff. The only fix for that was for them to replace it.
I also once bought a brand name VCR that turned out to be a fantastic receiver on 160 meters - if I fired up my transmitter with more than one watt, it would curl up and die. After a lot of testing and trying to clean up the interference, I simply tossed it in the trash and bought a different brand.
You can't win 'em all, but you can try!
Ralph W5JGV WC2XSR/13 WD2XSH/7 |
|
rf_engineer
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to TODDRICK
I think moonpuppy is a ham, so he probably agrees with you. While I agree the Gerritsen case isn't relevant to interference to consumer electronics, I think it does show that the FCC enforces the rules that are on the books, at least in regards to amateurs. If an amateur had a spurious emission in violation of Part 97 and that was causing interference (as opposed to shoddy consumer electronics design), you can bet the FCC would apply enforcement action, unlike what some others have said in this forum. |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0 | reply to ronpin
Re: Another investment scam?
There's the rub ... that is where it is LEAST technically feasible where you have long lines and lots of attenuation of the signals and lots of chance for radiation. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to BigMac777
Re: Interference to ham radio operators? Hmph...
said by BigMac777 :Most Ham Radio operators do not care about there neighbors. All they really care about is talking to Alaska, Hawaii, England or where-ever. If possible I feel they are the ones who should be out in the country side away from everyone and everything. The FEDS should enforce the guidelines for HAM operators but they don't. So the general public has to suffer there signal interferring with there TV's. HAM operators are not your friends period. Such enragement. RRRRRAAAAAAAARRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!1111
If you bothered to read my link, you would see they do actually enforce the rules.  |
|
plattypus1
join:2005-04-08
Riverside, CA
·Charter Pipeline
| A massive urban area with BPL?
I have a feeling this is going to piss off a lot of people. Let's all hope that this thing is a massive flop, that it proves every one of our points, and they pack up their equipment and go home. (I somehow doubt that the Dallas-Fort Worth area is highly underserved by telco/cableco providers.)
To the hams out there, good luck.
KF6CZG |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to rf_engineer
Re: RE:Interferance to Ham Radio Operators
said by rf_engineer :I think moonpuppy is a ham, so he probably agrees with you. While I agree the Gerritsen case isn't relevant to interference to consumer electronics, I think it does show that the FCC enforces the rules that are on the books, at least in regards to amateurs. If an amateur had a spurious emission in violation of Part 97 and that was causing interference (as opposed to shoddy consumer electronics design), you can bet the FCC would apply enforcement action, unlike what some others have said in this forum. DING DING DING!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!! 
Fact is, consumer electronics are made so cheaply, that interference is almost a forgone conclusion. Quality be damned, get it out to market so we can make a dollar. Remember the old ATT desk phones that could probably survive being dropped off a building? Now, just breathe on a new phone wrong and it dies. 
And you are right, the Gerritsen case shows that not only will the FCC enforce the rules BUT will go after you, with teeth, if you keep on breaking the rules.
Look a bit deeply and you will find other enforcement actions including unlicensed operation of Amateur equipment, improper use of GMRS equipment, intentional interference complaints, etc.
And, yes, I am a HAM. |
|
TODDRICK
join:2001-08-27
Milwaukee, WI
| RE: Interferance to Ham Radio Operators
Hello again, I really should have directed my earlier post to several people instead of singling out Moonpuppy. The Gerritson commentary is the only part really directed at him. The rest should have been directed at BigMac777.
RF Engineer is correct, the FCC will and does enforce our rules and regulations. If someone is operating and causing intentional interference or refuses to clean up a dirty signal they deserve to be hung out to dry. In the instance of unintentional interference from a properly installed and operated station, I recall the FCC siding with the Ham (would have to search the ARRL website to find articles). I don't think I can remember reading that the FCC imposed 'quiet hours' on someone with a properly operated station (I have only had my ticket for 22 years but was interested and was a SWL for 20 years before that) much less pulling their ticket. Most of the enforcement activity I remember has been unlicensed or otherwise illegal operation, RFI remediation aimed at electric power companies or electric fence owners and retests for those with suspicious exams/upgrades.
Hope this clarifies a bit, was pressed for time before and wasn't composing well.
73 Todd N9DRY |
|
