The military ARE very concerned. That is one of the main reasons (along
with the BBC and RSGB pressure) that the UK limit has been set much
lower, and even that was 10 - 20dB up on what we really wanted.
Representations are being made via NATO and other defence organisations,
but seem to be falling on deaf ears where Germany is concerned.
Andy G4JNT
-----Original Message-----
From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 2001-04-11 14:18
To: [email protected]
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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
--
The Information contained in this E-Mail and any subsequent correspondence
is private and is intended solely for the intended recipient(s).
For those other than the recipient any disclosure, copying, distribution,
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on such information is
prohibited and may be unlawful.
|
