[Lowfer] Should we make comments on 1750M?

[John Davis]

WE�H writes:


>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???

Yes, I do!

They addressed that concern by:
(a.) rationalizing that within the authorized bandwidth, there are
relatively few PLCs;
(b.) knowing explicitly where each station is authorized to operate from,
hence, the non-triviality of adding new stations to the authorization;
(c.) limiting your ERP (it's *not* just "any" antenna with the full 400
watts into it!);
(d.) being able to rescind PART OR ALL of a Part 5 license at any time if
interference occurs or band usage circumstances change, as SHMRG well knows
from experience.  That 5 years is a maximum time before renewal, not a
guarantee.

Having said that, I do agree with you that they are likely to budge on 1750m
and the power issue eventually.  But from the FCC's already stated views on
PLCs, I perceive this is not the time to push the power issue aggressively.

I don't believe one can cite the experimental authorization as precedent,
for at least two reasons:
(a) its stated purpose was something other than development of the band for
amateur radio; and,
(b) that authorization has not received enough actual usage yet to
demonstrate non-interference.

It's very possible that bringing the Part 5 license into the picture at this
time would both taint the ham band concept and draw into question the point
of the experimental license.

73,
John