Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27822 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2001 07:13:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO murphys-inbound.servers.plus.net) (212.159.14.225) by 10.226.25.101 with SMTP; 12 Apr 2001 07:13:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 29658 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2001 07:13:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by murphys with SMTP; 12 Apr 2001 07:13:16 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.16 #2) id 14nb6n-0007Lw-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:01:37 +0100 Received: from tor-smtp4.attcanada.ca ([207.181.101.72] helo=attcanada.ca) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #2) id 14nb6i-0007Lr-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:01:32 +0100 Received: from david (ham-on51-146.netcom.ca [142.154.68.50]) by attcanada.ca (8.8.7-s-4/8.8.7) with SMTP id DAA08152 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 03:01:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <01a601c0c315$945371c0$6655872c@david> From: "Tenty" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <3AD37870.409FD8D8@ieee.org> <14n81Z-1IfNWjC@fwd00.sul.t-online.com> <3AD45970.EC20DE1B@virgin.net> Subject: Re: LF: More QRM ? Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 06:58:19 +0100 Organization: Holland Data and Wireless MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: Many people died for one of those right's in Europe 60 years ago! Bob, ve3tok / pa0tok ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stewart Bryant" To: Sent: April 11, 2001 14:17 PM Subject: Re: LF: More QRM ? I wonder if the European Human Rights Legislation applies and takes prescient? This change in the noise floor takes away our right and pre-existing ability to communicate with other human beings via a natural phenomina. The Human Rights legislation has had a considerable impact in the UK in forcing the government to change their policies. I would have thought that the military would have taken a serious view about the loss of this resource. I also understand that there is a new MF broadcast digital entertainment system that would be effected by this. Why have both of these lobby groups been quite on this? 73 Stewart G3YSX Hans-Joachim Brandt wrote: > Dear all, > > in order to convert just words into figures I feel it necessary to describe the > situation in Germany more in detail. > > The german NB30 standard has been rejected by all german radio users and > radio equipment manufacturers since it has been proposed. For those who know the > british MPT 1570 the problem is that NB30 allows interfering fieldstrengths 20 > dB higher. But even the resistance of the german broadcasters could not prevent > the adoption of the NB30 standard. The declared aim of the german government > and the upper house of parliament has been to give "modern telecommunications > technologies" a chance. The CENELEC standard on CATV systems covering 5 MHz to > 3000 MHz has also been aligned to the NB30 limits earlier, at least in the HF > and VHF-UHF range. (NB is simply a german abbreviation for Nutzungsbestimmung = > operational condition or regulation. There are other NB numbers within the > german frequency allocation table.) > > A radio amateur living in a house in which cables are operated under the > conditions of the NB30 and having a half wave antenna 10 meters away from his > house will have to expect the following calculated S meter readings: > > Band, MHz 1,8 3,6 7 14 21 28 > NB30 > dB(muV/m) 37,8 35,1 32,6 29,9 28,4 27,3 > S-Meter S9 +12 dB S9 +3 dB S8 S6-7 S5-6 S5 > > I hope the table will be delivered in the same order in which I have typed it. > > The second line gives the interfering fieldstrength permitted by NB30. The > situation is bad, especially for QRPers. But all efforts of DARC to prevent such > a decision were in vain. > > Regarding the frequency depending levels of the NB30 it must be stated that it > will allow VDSL and telecommunication over CATV, but only low-level PLC. > High-level PLC producing interfering fieldstrengths of 80 dB(muV/m) or even > more, is not permitted, this being the reason for the SIEMENS company to leave > the PLC business some weeks ago. ASCOM (who now will supply power line companies > which formerly had decided to use SIEMENS equipment) has claimed in a newspaper > interview that NB30 low-level PLC would not enable a bit failure rate > sufficiently low for 75% of all mains outlets. Therefore PLC becomes more costy, > less dependable, repeaters are needed etc. The real winners of the german > government decision seem to be those companies which will operate VDSL over > telephone lines because they will have no (or only few) problems to meet the > NB30 radiation levels. We know that in the U. K. the MPT 1570 (the range 1.6 to > 30 MHz, from December 1999) is also under pressure because its low levels even > do not permit VDSL operation, but offers much better protection for radio > services. > > The European Commission is also in favour of PLC, because a network independant > of the telephone net could be used. But after the PLC Forum had conducted a PLC > workshop before the Commission, where strong opposition by radio users had been > presented, the Commission is said to be at least unsafe whom to believe. But > basically the Commission still thinks that a compromise with radio users should > be possible, and still hopes that a standard would solve all problems. > > For the time being, german radio amateurs hope, of course, that this german > example will not be copied by other nations and that european standardization > (especially the way being carried out in CEPT SE35) will result in lower > interference radiation levels, for the benefit of radio services. And we also > hope that the german administration will be able to effectively control the NB30 > limits throughout the country; otherwise a chaos would develop, no question. > > Sorry to report such a situation here over the server. > > 73 Ha-Jo, DJ1ZB > > Andre' Kesteloot schrieb: > > Power lines win German support > > By Reuters > > March 30, 2001, 11:05 a.m. PT > > FRANKFURT--Germany's Bundesrat upper house of parliament on Friday > > cleared > > regulatory hurdles for the so-called power-line technology for fast > > Internet > > access via electricity lines. A statement issued by the economics > > ministry > > in Berlin said three laws setting out the conditions for power-line > > operations had been approved, clearing the way for nationwide > > implementation > > in the 16 states in due course. > > > > The move gives power line the chance of competing with other established > > > > communications channels such as cable television and telephone networks. > > > > Analysts say that by delivering high-speed Internet connections through > > residential wall sockets, utilities could break the phone companies' > > grip on > > Internet access while also offsetting recent losses due to shrinking > > retail > > power margins. > > > > Story Copyright C 2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. > > > > > > > >