Mixed Conclusions About Powerline Networking vs. Ham Radio

Barence writes "Since writing about the success he's had with powerline networking, a number of readers emailed PC Pro's Paul Ockendon to castigate him for recommending these products, such as HomePlug. They were all amateur radio enthusiasts, claiming the products affect their hobby in much the same way that urban lighting affects amateur astronomers, but rather than causing light pollution they claim powerline networking causes radio pollution in the HF band (otherwise known as shortwave). Paul's follow-up feature, 'Does powerline networking nuke radio hams?' documents his investigation into these claims, which found evidence to support both sides of an intriguing debate."

Comments

Sheesh

[MightyMartian]

It's not a debate. Doing this turns those power lines into big antennas. You can't debate the laws of physics.

It's easy to get confused on this topic

[Bruce Perens]

There are two different things that can be considered power-line networking. One is the kind where the powerline is used to provide internet to many homes all the way from a central location through intermediate power transformers. This, fortunately, is already obsolete, because it could not provide good enough bandwidth to pay for itself. It did interfere with many radio users, not just hams.

The other is within-home networking like Homeplug. ARRL dealt with early interference issues and has not reported any recent ones as far as I'm aware. But the very earliest models allowed us to hear your phone call on shortwave! Fortunately, people who owned those were found and warned, for the most part.

Bruce

Big Props

[Anonymous Coward]

Props to the egghead who called me after Katrina with a message from my sister saying she was okay.

HF is the only communications safety net

[mpoulton]

"keeping the HF bands clear for low signal communication is a bit like keeping the rail tracks clear of fast express trains so that nostalgists can run steam trains over them."

The author's analogy belies the fatal flaw in his though process: HF communications may be older and slower than the internet, but the internet is highly unreliable and fails when communications are most critical. HF always works. HF is the ONLY completely reliable means of long-distance communication that humans have. To destroy mankind's sole means of completely reliable communication in favor of a system which fails when needed most is simply foolish. This isn't about amateur radio. It's merely incidental that most HF communications these days are by hams, and that hams handle disaster comms when the networks go down. These communications could be handled by any group of people, and the result would be the same: without a reliable HF infrastructure, humans screw themselves doubly when nature screws us.

Re:It isn't just a hobby

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

At the moment, sure; but if interference has been the rule for long enough, most hams will presumably have given up, mothballed their stuff, died off, not taken up the hobby because "what's the point?", and so forth...

The number of people willing to maintain ham gear and skills waiting for the day it'll be useful is, presumably, a fair bit smaller than the number willing to pursue ham day to day as a hobby.

The issue is simple

[davygrvy]

Power lines were never meant to carry RF energy. When they are, they radiate. Cable TV doesn't radiate. It doesn't radiate because it uses a proper transmission medium (Coax). If the power line folks want to distribute DATA, they should string the poles with fiber optic. Better yet, we the people should string it, and sell access to the content providers.. ala municipal fiber networks. They can work folks!

Re:It isn't just a hobby

[TerribleNews]

And I would MUCH rather trust the organization of a relief effort to trained professionals -- like state, federal, and military emergency staff -- to a bunch of "volunteers."

You are obviously not from New Orleans.

Re:It isn't just a hobby

[UnrealisticWhample]

1. Guy writes an article about a product.
2. Guy gets feedback, some of it far less than civil, stating that he was being irresponsible in his product recommendations.
3. Guy, rather than dismissing the issue as no doubt many would, actually does some research and writes a follow up.

I hardly think that this qualifies as "just about the most ignorant, one-sided article" on this topic, at least among those that you've read. This guy isn't a government agency or an academic group tasked with doing research into public safety concerns so it isn't his job to launch a comprehensive study into the issue.

I get that there seem to be some credible concerns, but you aren't going to win anyone over by making hyperbolic claims about anyone that fails to agree with you. Posting "ignorant, one-sided" insult laden posts on Slashdot isn't exactly helping your cause.