Am I missing something on this networking principle...

Typically a kit contains one 14Mbps plug and one 85Mbps plug. Which to me
implies I will be choked to 14Mbps.

Why does it get so much praise when this is 1/4 of my wireless system.

In article , Jef Roe says...
> 
> Am I missing something on this networking principle...
> 
> Typically a kit contains one 14Mbps plug and one 85Mbps plug. Which to me
> implies I will be choked to 14Mbps.
> 
> Why does it get so much praise when this is 1/4 of my wireless system.

Because it allows stupid people to connect their computer upstairs to 
the hub downstairs. It also allows anyone with a HF receiver within a 
500 yard radius to monitor the network traffic as well but that 
"feature" isn't advertised. 

-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

On 17/10/2009 12:13, Jef Roe wrote:
> Am I missing something on this networking principle...
>
> Typically a kit contains one 14Mbps plug and one 85Mbps plug. Which to me
> implies I will be choked to 14Mbps.
>
> Why does it get so much praise when this is 1/4 of my wireless system.
>
>
They do not come as a kit containing 1x14Mbs unit and 1x85Mbs unit, they 
are usually matched. Since 2007 there has been HomeplugAV which will 
give you a Data throughput of 70-80Mbps for it's "transfer rate" of 
200Mbs. While the AV devices can exist on the same AC wiring as the 
14Mbs and 85Mbs units they are unable to communicate with them.

> They do not come as a kit containing 1x14Mbs unit and 1x85Mbs unit, they
> are usually matched.


uhmmm


http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/prods/Networking-Wired/Powerline/Novatech/NOVATECH85MBPSPOWERLINETWIN.html

On 17/10/2009 12:26, Conor wrote:
> It also allows anyone with a HF receiver within a
> 500 yard radius to monitor the network traffic as well but that
> "feature" isn't advertised.
>
Do you have a ref for this. Given that the bandwidth used by most HF 
receivers is small compared to the Band used by Homeplug and the fact 
that HomeplugAV does have AES encryption I think it is highly unlikely 
for anything meaningful to be obtained, the modulation used is also 
different.
  A HF receiver may be tuned to one of the bands and may be subject to 
interference but the newer homeplug devices have notch filters include 
to reduce signal levels on some of the bands to try and reduce this.
see para 4.3 
<http://www.intellon.com/pdfs/whitepaper_PLCPerformanceTesting.pdf>

On 17/10/2009 15:03, Jef Roe wrote:
>> They do not come as a kit containing 1x14Mbs unit and 1x85Mbs unit, they
>> are usually matched.
>
>
> uhmmm
>
>
> http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/prods/Networking-Wired/Powerline/Novatech/NOVATECH85MBPSPOWERLINETWIN.html
>
>
>
The spec merely says that it supports the homeplug1.0 standard.
"Standard Support 	HomePlug 1.0 (14Mbps) & 1.0 Turbo (85Mbps)"
You would get 2x85Mbs units.

In article , LR says...
> 
> On 17/10/2009 12:26, Conor wrote:
> > It also allows anyone with a HF receiver within a
> > 500 yard radius to monitor the network traffic as well but that
> > "feature" isn't advertised.
> >
> Do you have a ref for this.

Yes. 
> Given that the bandwidth used by most HF 
> receivers is small compared to the Band used by Homeplug and the fact 
> that HomeplugAV does have AES encryption I think it is highly unlikely 
> for anything meaningful to be obtained, the modulation used is also 
> different.
>   A HF receiver may be tuned to one of the bands and may be subject to 
> interference

No - clear signal.

> but the newer homeplug devices have notch filters include 
> to reduce signal levels on some of the bands to try and reduce this.
> see para 4.3 

BWAHAHA.

I've put in 3 complaints to Ofcom myself about PLT interference on 
amateur radio bands.


-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:36:09 +0100
Conor  wrote:

> In article , LR says...

> > but the newer homeplug devices have notch filters include 
> > to reduce signal levels on some of the bands to try and reduce this.
> > see para 4.3 
> 
> BWAHAHA.
> 
> I've put in 3 complaints to Ofcom myself about PLT interference on 
> amateur radio bands.
> 
> 
I noticed this a couple of weeks back
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/01/rsgb_ofcom/

On 17/10/2009 15:36, Conor wrote:
> In article, LR says...
>>
>> On 17/10/2009 12:26, Conor wrote:
>>> It also allows anyone with a HF receiver within a
>>> 500 yard radius to monitor the network traffic as well but that
>>> "feature" isn't advertised.
>>>
>> Do you have a ref for this.
>
> Yes.
So where is it?
>> Given that the bandwidth used by most HF
>> receivers is small compared to the Band used by Homeplug and the fact
>> that HomeplugAV does have AES encryption I think it is highly unlikely
>> for anything meaningful to be obtained, the modulation used is also
>> different.
>>    A HF receiver may be tuned to one of the bands and may be subject to
>> interference
>
> No - clear signal.
So what type of signal is it?
>
>> but the newer homeplug devices have notch filters include
>> to reduce signal levels on some of the bands to try and reduce this.
>> see para 4.3
>
> BWAHAHA.
>
> I've put in 3 complaints to Ofcom myself about PLT interference on
> amateur radio bands.
>
>
Did the devices have notch filters or not? What was Ofcoms response?

"LR"  wrote in message 
news:Aq-dnaFkYeJbTUTXnZ2dnUVZ8hli4p2d@bt.com...
> On 17/10/2009 15:03, Jef Roe wrote:
>>> They do not come as a kit containing 1x14Mbs unit and 1x85Mbs unit, they
>>> are usually matched.
>>
>>
>> uhmmm
>>
>>
>> http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/prods/Networking-Wired/Powerline/Novatech/NOVATECH85MBPSPOWERLINETWIN.html
>>
>>
>>
> The spec merely says that it supports the homeplug1.0 standard.
> "Standard Support HomePlug 1.0 (14Mbps) & 1.0 Turbo (85Mbps)"
> You would get 2x85Mbs units.

Ah OK, perhaps the wording Twin Pack in the title could be made a little 
more explicit.

In article <20091017153926.7db3ea26@bluemoon>, Rob Morley says...
> 
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:36:09 +0100
> Conor  wrote:
> 
> > In article , LR says...
> 
> > > but the newer homeplug devices have notch filters include 
> > > to reduce signal levels on some of the bands to try and reduce this.
> > > see para 4.3 
> > 
> > BWAHAHA.
> > 
> > I've put in 3 complaints to Ofcom myself about PLT interference on 
> > amateur radio bands.
> > 
> > 
> I noticed this a couple of weeks back
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/01/rsgb_ofcom/

Its farcical considering Ofcom set up a dedicated PLT complaints page 
and team and the field engineer who visited said it formed a large 
portion of his work.

-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

In article , LR says...
> 
> On 17/10/2009 15:36, Conor wrote:
> > In article, LR says...
> >>
> >> On 17/10/2009 12:26, Conor wrote:
> >>> It also allows anyone with a HF receiver within a
> >>> 500 yard radius to monitor the network traffic as well but that
> >>> "feature" isn't advertised.
> >>>
> >> Do you have a ref for this.
> >
> > Yes.
> So where is it?

Google PLT interference.

> >> Given that the bandwidth used by most HF
> >> receivers is small compared to the Band used by Homeplug and the fact
> >> that HomeplugAV does have AES encryption I think it is highly unlikely
> >> for anything meaningful to be obtained, the modulation used is also
> >> different.
> >>    A HF receiver may be tuned to one of the bands and may be subject to
> >> interference
> >
> > No - clear signal.
> So what type of signal is it?
> 
FM data.

> >> but the newer homeplug devices have notch filters include
> >> to reduce signal levels on some of the bands to try and reduce this.
> >> see para 4.3
> >
> > BWAHAHA.
> >
> > I've put in 3 complaints to Ofcom myself about PLT interference on
> > amateur radio bands.
> >
> >
> Did the devices have notch filters or not?

Yes.

> What was Ofcoms response?

Field engineer came and visited me, went to offending house, forced BT 
to remove them.


-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

On 17/10/2009 18:22, Conor wrote:
> In article, LR says...
>>
>> On 17/10/2009 15:36, Conor wrote:
>>> In article, LR says...
>>>>
>>>> On 17/10/2009 12:26, Conor wrote:
>>>>> It also allows anyone with a HF receiver within a
>>>>> 500 yard radius to monitor the network traffic as well but that
>>>>> "feature" isn't advertised.
>>>>>
>>>> Do you have a ref for this.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>> So where is it?
>
> Google PLT interference.
What has interference got to do with the ability to monitor network traffic?

In article , LR says...
> 
> On 17/10/2009 18:22, Conor wrote:
> > In article, LR says...
> >>
> >> On 17/10/2009 15:36, Conor wrote:
> >>> In article, LR says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 17/10/2009 12:26, Conor wrote:
> >>>>> It also allows anyone with a HF receiver within a
> >>>>> 500 yard radius to monitor the network traffic as well but that
> >>>>> "feature" isn't advertised.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Do you have a ref for this.
> >>>
> >>> Yes.
> >> So where is it?
> >
> > Google PLT interference.
> What has interference got to do with the ability to monitor network traffic?

DYOH.


-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

"Conor"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.2543e6b25c9150b698981c@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article , LR says...
>>
>> On 17/10/2009 12:26, Conor wrote:
>> > It also allows anyone with a HF receiver within a
>> > 500 yard radius to monitor the network traffic as well but that
>> > "feature" isn't advertised.
>> >
>> Do you have a ref for this.
>
> Yes.
>> Given that the bandwidth used by most HF
>> receivers is small compared to the Band used by Homeplug and the fact
>> that HomeplugAV does have AES encryption I think it is highly unlikely
>> for anything meaningful to be obtained, the modulation used is also
>> different.
>>   A HF receiver may be tuned to one of the bands and may be subject to
>> interference
>
> No - clear signal.
>
>> but the newer homeplug devices have notch filters include
>> to reduce signal levels on some of the bands to try and reduce this.
>> see para 4.3
>
> BWAHAHA.
>
> I've put in 3 complaints to Ofcom myself about PLT interference on
> amateur radio bands.
>
>
> -- 
> Conor

You don't even have an amateur radio licence, so they will take no notice.
I have a class A and use filters that reduce PLT.  What you are listening to
is harmonics of wireless networks and processor noise, even fluorescents.
If you had any technical knowledge it would help you.  Stay with CB.

"Conor"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.25440d97e09497b3989821@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article , LR says...
>>
>> On 17/10/2009 15:36, Conor wrote:
>> > In article, LR says...
>> >>
>> >> On 17/10/2009 12:26, Conor wrote:
>> >>> It also allows anyone with a HF receiver within a
>> >>> 500 yard radius to monitor the network traffic as well but that
>> >>> "feature" isn't advertised.
>> >>>
>> >> Do you have a ref for this.
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> So where is it?
>
> Google PLT interference.
>
>> >> Given that the bandwidth used by most HF
>> >> receivers is small compared to the Band used by Homeplug and the fact
>> >> that HomeplugAV does have AES encryption I think it is highly unlikely
>> >> for anything meaningful to be obtained, the modulation used is also
>> >> different.
>> >>    A HF receiver may be tuned to one of the bands and may be subject 
>> >> to
>> >> interference
>> >
>> > No - clear signal.
>> So what type of signal is it?
>>
> FM data.
>


Jesus Christ!  Do you know what FM is?  Just because you can resolve
a signal using a particular mode doesn't mean it is that mode.


>> >> but the newer homeplug devices have notch filters include
>> >> to reduce signal levels on some of the bands to try and reduce this.
>> >> see para 4.3
>> >
>> > BWAHAHA.
>> >
>> > I've put in 3 complaints to Ofcom myself about PLT interference on
>> > amateur radio bands.
>> >
>> >
>> Did the devices have notch filters or not?
>
> Yes.
>
>> What was Ofcoms response?
>
> Field engineer came and visited me, went to offending house, forced BT
> to remove them.
>

Rubbish.  If they were illegal shops would be forced to stop selling and
companies would be prosecuted.  The devices are legal in the UK.


>
> -- 
> Conor
> www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
>
> I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

In article <hbdq2t$djr$1@news.albasani.net>, Roger says...

> You don't even have an amateur radio licence,

Yes I do.


> so they will take no notice.

Yes they did.

> I have a class A 

No such thing and hasn't been for half a decade.

> and use filters that reduce PLT. 

And also what you can hear on that band.

> What you are listening to
> is harmonics of wireless networks 

Nope. The strongest signal was not a harmonic.

> and processor noise, even fluorescents.
> If you had any technical knowledge it would help you.

I seem to know more than many hams, including you.




-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

In article <hbdqfb$dur$1@news.albasani.net>, Roger says...

> Jesus Christ!  Do you know what FM is? 

Yes.

> Just because you can resolve
> a signal using a particular mode doesn't mean it is that mode.
> 
The Ofcom field engineers equipment confirmed it.
> > Field engineer came and visited me, went to offending house, forced 
BT
> > to remove them.
> >
> 
> Rubbish. 

PLease feel free to email alan.holmes@ofcom.org.uk who is the field 
engineer for my area.

> If they were illegal shops would be forced to stop selling and
> companies would be prosecuted.  The devices are legal in the UK.

Because they've CEPT certification which is a SELF CERTIFICATION and 
only requires ONE device to certify. BT have warehouses full of them and 
Ofcom are afraid to go up against BT for something that'll affect maybe 
50,000 people at the most.

Once they got put into real world use, it became apparent that they had 
to increase the TX power in order to work. This they did which broke the 
spec they'd been certified with to the point they're transmitting at +
20dB over their certified spec.

You claim to be an amateur radio operator but you fail to show any 
knowledge at all about what is the most singular serious issue to HF 
today. It is plastered all over the internet. RSGB are taking OFCOM to 
court over their failure to enforce the law with PLT devices.

There's only one amateur radio operator here it would seem and it ain't 
you.

-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 10:44:41 +0100
Conor  wrote:

> In article <hbdq2t$djr$1@news.albasani.net>, Roger says...
> 
<snip usual bollocks>
> 
> I seem to know more than many hams, including you.
> 
Just about everyone knows more than "Roger" the Tiscali Idiot - why are
you even bothering to respond (beyond telling him to fuck off)?

In article <20091018111127.41d002a2@bluemoon>, Rob Morley says...

> Just about everyone knows more than "Roger" the Tiscali Idiot - why are
> you even bothering to respond (beyond telling him to fuck off)?

Didn't realise who it was.

-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

"Conor"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.2543e6b25c9150b698981c@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article , LR says...
>>
>> On 17/10/2009 12:26, Conor wrote:
>> > It also allows anyone with a HF receiver within a
>> > 500 yard radius to monitor the network traffic as well but that
>> > "feature" isn't advertised.
>> >
>> Do you have a ref for this.
>
> Yes.
>> Given that the bandwidth used by most HF
>> receivers is small compared to the Band used by Homeplug and the fact
>> that HomeplugAV does have AES encryption I think it is highly unlikely
>> for anything meaningful to be obtained, the modulation used is also
>> different.
>>   A HF receiver may be tuned to one of the bands and may be subject to
>> interference
>
> No - clear signal.
>
>> but the newer homeplug devices have notch filters include
>> to reduce signal levels on some of the bands to try and reduce this.
>> see para 4.3
>
> BWAHAHA.
>
> I've put in 3 complaints to Ofcom myself about PLT interference on
> amateur radio bands.

Conor, you've also said in a previous thread when this subject was raised a
few months ago that some devices are worse than others for causing
interference. I don't have your exact posting but I believe you said
something along the lines of "Only devices which use chipset X cause
problems", with the implication that those which use other chipsets are OK.

Is that the case or do you consider all PLT devices, both those with and
those without notch filters, to be equally bad?

In article , Martin 
says...

> Conor, you've also said in a previous thread when this subject was raised a
> few months ago that some devices are worse than others for causing
> interference. I don't have your exact posting but I believe you said
> something along the lines of "Only devices which use chipset X cause
> problems", with the implication that those which use other chipsets are OK.
> 
> Is that the case or do you consider all PLT devices, both those with and
> those without notch filters, to be equally bad? 

Comtrend chipsets are the worst. Others do but at a level which is 
acceptable and likely to be lost in all the other man-made noise.

-- 
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.