[Lowfer] Should we make comments on 1750M?

[John Andrews]

John D,

I guess the central issue is that we might gladly accept a 20 dB transmitter
power penalty in return for the extra flexibility. I doubt that the
Commission considered that alternative. Of course, the actual penalty would
be less than 20 dB if you were comparing the signal from the same antenna at
136 and 160 kHz, as the efficiency would be better at 1750 meters.

And yes, it should clearly be presented as a way to lessen <<potential>>
interference to PLCs. That should actually be the starting point in the
argument to the FCC.

Your thoughts on doing the digital stuff in the lower part of the band is
interesting, and is a good argument. Another possibility might be to just
ask for 160 to 180 kHz in the amateur allocation, and leave 180-190 for Part
15. In that case, maybe the amateur part should be limited to digital modes,
though certainly with a wider BW than 100 Hz.

In terms of timing, I agree that we may be late with this. On the other
hand, I wouldn't have wanted to make the proposal in advance of learning the
FCC's concerns about the PLCs. Had they not taken that tack, we might have
gotten something more interesting at 1750 m.

I do think that such a proposal might be more effective if it came with the
blessings of the ARRL, and perhaps AMRAD or others. Let's collect some more
comments and draft a more sturdy trial balloon.

John Andrews