[Lowfer] Should we make comments on 1750M?

Mon, 20 May 2002 23:07:36 -0500

Look at the SHMRG group's limits, 400w and any antenna on 166.5kc. Do you
think the FCC was worried about interference with that 5-year permit??? I
think they will budge toward a more reasonable level.

Mike>WE0H
http://www.geocities.com/we0h/lf.html

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
Behalf Of Tod-Idaho
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 3:46 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Lowfer] Should we make comments on 1750M?

Lowfer List:

I think that interested parties should make comments. If it were not for the
'change of mind' on the part of the power company lobbyists I think we would
have gotten an allocation between 160-190 kHz for amateurs. Letter that make
suggestions also are recorded as "responses" and which are used by the FCC
to indicate public interest in a particular proposal. If the FCC had set out
frequencies in the 160-190 range I assure you that the power company
interests would have made comments --- those of us interested in these
frequencies should do so too.

The idea of leaving the part 15 rules "as-is" with a 'secondary allocation'
for amateurs is puzzling. Somehow I did not know that any Part 15 rules
implied a "Primary" allocation. It is my understanding that the power
companies use these frequencies 'without' any specific allocation from the
FCC. They are transmitting on their power lines and I suppose that would
exempt them. As far as I know they have no legal standing that protects them
from interference from FCC licensed services. Further, as far as I know,
their 'objections' based upon 'potential' interference to their complex (and
quite important to us all) power network control system has no back up data
to show that signals (amateur or military) in the 160-190 kHz range with the
power restrictions under consideration would actually be significant enough
to affect the control signal network.

Tod Olson, K�TO

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of John Andrews
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 12:54 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Lowfer] Should we make comments on 1750M?

In the FCC's NPRM for the new amateur allocations, they invited comments on
their exclusion of an amateur allocation at 160-190 kHz. I'm wondering how
they would react to the following items in a counter-proposal:

1. Leave the 160-190 kHz Part 15 rules exactly as-is.

2. Add a secondary Amateur allocation at 160-190 kHz. The rules would NOT be
the same as proposed for 136 kHz, though:
A. No specification of antenna type or dimensions.  Obviously, this would
allow considerably more experimentation than the Part 15 rules, and would
permit use of the same (larger) antennas on 136 and 160-190 kHz.
B. No reference to the transmission line. This relieves the need to keep the
PA at the antenna base.
C. Transmitter power OUTPUT limited to 1 watt PEP only. This is 20 dB lower
than the power level proposed for 136 kHz, and in line with the current Part
15 rules. But it would permit us to use linear PA's without being penalized
for their lower efficiency.
D. Emission BW should be confined to the 160-190 kHz band, but there would
appear to be no need to preclude any reasonable mode.

This would allow continuation of present Part 15 operations, and the overlay
of Amateur operation with improved antennas and more transmitter
flexibility. Since most of us can gain only so many dB within the bounds of
our real estate, I doubt that the Amateur signals could be so dominant as to
foul things up too badly for the unlicensed guys.

I'd be curious to hear comments, pro and con, with any additions or
deletions. Also, thoughts on even turning this rock over would be
appreciated.

John Andrews, W1TAG

_______________________________________________
Lowfer mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer

_______________________________________________
Lowfer mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer