[Lowfer] Experimental License

[John Davis]

> The FCC was not subtle
>in offering the opportunity for experimental licensees to use
>these frequencies to generate experience with PLC interference.
>
>My reading of the Part 5 rules is that there is no restriction on 2-way
>communication between Experimental licensees.

I believe you are absolutely correct, John, on both points.  They were
pretty clear in their desire that people apply for this, from what I saw in
the Report & Order.  That's why I worded our story about the new license in
Alaska the way I did on the http://lwca.org home page.

And Section Sec. 5.125, Authorized points of communication, expressly says:
"Generally, stations in the Experimental Radio Service may communicate only
with other stations licensed in the Experimental Radio
Service."  You're right...it does _not_ say they have to be stations under
the same license!  (One can even be authorized to communicate with other
services, as spelled out later in that section, but it requires a formal
showing of need to do so.  I don't see any reason to open that can of worms,
however.  If we all could communicate with each other, that ought to be
sufficient for now.)

My guess is that the existing group licenses were a way of coping with the
50 bucks.  But I think the inherently closed nature of such groups meant
they ended up saddled with some members whose interest waned rapidly, and no
way to easily get others involved.  If we don't mind doing this as
individuals instead, we'll pay a whopping $10/year for the license, but
we'll (a) receive the licenses in much quicker time, (b) not feel as guilty
about letting the group down if something comes up where we can't
participate for a while, and (c) ensure that the licenses are more likely
going to serious-minded folks who really will do something with them.

This is the time to show the Commission we're serious about wanting an LF
ham band and that it can actually work without leaving North America in the
dark!

John Davis