In reply to a post by professor973:

So when can we expect a plane crash disaster due to HomePlugs?

About five minutes after some fool plugs one in at NATS Prestwick !


Do you have insider knowledge that someone hasn't already done so? They may be happily running homeplug for their network.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by professor973:

Any idea of the day, month and year?

Look!

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

Even Henny Penny might have understood that if you've got two lots of folk attempting to use the same radio frequencies for different things, it may end in tears. She may not even have needed evidence, because she might have understood it from the days of AM radio when the sky went dark and you got two stations on the same frequency.

My name isn't Henny Penny, (who is/was that?), but wasn't pleased about the poor reception on Radio Luxemburg at night.

In reply to a post by professor973:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by professor973:

Any idea of the day, month and year?

[http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0LsEtlzNZXY/SpDjSLWTRbI/AAAAAAAAA6o/bkO8wpdI9JM/s400/no+eye+deer.jpg
look! [/q]

No thanks

http://www.authorama.com/english-fairy-tales-23.html

Perhaps Batboy isn't aware, but there already is a set of agreements to allocate frequencies appropriately. Given that much of the market is global, and some of the spectrum travels globally, there are global agreements on who gets what spectrum.

Licenced amateurs get some, FM radio gets some, broadcast TV gets some. You get the gist. Pretty much everything is allocated to someone somewhere.

Sometimes folk need a licence to operate a transmitter (eg in the broadcast bands). Sometimes you can buy and operate kit which is made under a generic licence (CB, 2.4GHz, etc) and the end user doesn't need a licence, typically because the kit is built to regulations which ensure that any effects it has are localised geographically and kept within the specific frequency ranges as specified under that licence.

PLT doesn't have any frequency allocation, even though these folks are transmitting on frequencies all the way from relatively low frequencies to tens and sometimes hundreds of MHz. Even if they were allocated a few MHz or tens of MHz (from where?) it would be no good to them as due to the nature of physics, the data rates they could achieve would be such that almost nobody would be interested in it. It certainly wouldn't be mass market technology.

Ofcom does have a role in this. Ofcom's role, as successor to the Radio Authority in these matters, is the enforcement of the existing regulations referring to unauthorised radio transmissions (accidental or otherwise).

Given what we know of Ofcom as a competent and effective regulator, should anybody be surprised that there's nothing that Batboy would class as "evidence"?

What *should* any reasonable member of the public class as evidence?

Perhaps some reasonable folk might consider it as "evidence" that the industry professionals and other competent bodies and individuals, other than those directly or indirectly dependent on the PLT industry, have generally said the existing emissions regulations should be properly enforced, which would see PLT off the market.

What doesn't count as meaningful evidence is interested bystanders saying "I tried it and it all worked OK for me". Even if well intended, that kind of thing is not evidence, that's anecdote.

Two sets of mains cables in a big open space, powered by two sets of indepdent generators, talking to each other via PLT without any wired connection between the two sets of cables might arguably be considered as evidence that PLT is an unauthorised radio transmitter. There have been several demonstrations of that happening.

So we can discount any youtube videos as they are also interested bystanders?

What PLT devices were used in this field test? And how far apart were the cables?

Looks like an admission of a further lack of evidence.
Is there *any* documented evidence for this hysteria at all?

Why would you discoount a youtube video because it's a youtube video?

You'd look at the parties involved, their backgrounds, the credibility of their evidence, the consistency of their argument, whether they had anything to bring to the table.

Then you might discount it, you might not. That's the way science works. Facts, analysis.

If they were just interested bystanders, you'd ask the questions you quite rightly asked, as I did at the time, which was a while ago.

I don't have the answers to those questions right now, nor do I have the time right now.

Feel free to go and dig it up.

Meanwhile, the EMC professionals and other interested parties who are independent of the PLT outfits, just want the existing EMC regulations enforced.

If the existing EMC regulations had been properly enforced, there would have been no instances of "Christmas tree lights broke my DSL".

That didn't happen with every set of lights, but mostly with broken by design ones.

PLT is broken by design, the EVIDENCE from the EMC professionals is that it can't meet the agreed existing regulations when realistically tested, because it relies on sending high levels of wideband RF down wiring never intended to handle RF, into an environment where various services depend on a relatively clean RF environment.

Widespread use of PLT is incompatible with the continued use of existing services which need a clean RF spectrum. DSL is one, another is amateur radio, there are others.

The PLT people gave the chosen few spectrum users their "notches". What about the rest?

Why don't amateur radio users embrace the internet for communications, like everyone else?