[Lowfer] No LF ham band in US
paulc
[email protected]
Wed, 14 May 2003 21:21:46 -0400
Folks,
I am very saddened, or may be pissed off is a better term, by the FCC's
decision concerning 137 & 160 LF.
I also cannot believe that in this day of "terrorism and homeland security"
that the Power companies would depend on, nay, put the future of the entire
power grid in the hands of the "Incumbent PlC's"
I would think that the Department of Homeland Security, was remiss in their
duties if this were the case!!
Just image Bill, Jay or Lyle Farting around with a new antenna, and suddenly
scratching their heads as they hear the news that the whole Northeast
Corridor power grid has suddenly, and inexplicably gone down.
Then as Lyle packs up his tool and his turns off his antenna bridge the grid
suddenly and even more amazingly returns to normal!!
The engineers at the power transmission companies are stymied, experts,
contractors and all sorts of goverment agencies are called to action.
Or perhaps some electronic savvy terrorist gets a hold of a large audio
amplifyer and God forbid an oscillator in the 137 Khz rangea and decides to
arbitrarily screw with the grid wihile sitting outside a sub station
somewhere!!
Is the power grid really that vunerable?
Thank God for my 2 windmills and bank of photvoltaics out back or I could
not sleep at night!!!
What the hell is going on here?
How is the rest of the world doing it ... using 137?
PaulC
W1VLF
Section 15.113 permits Power Line Carrier (�PLC�) systems to operate on
power transmission lines for communications important to the reliability and
security of electric service to the public in the 9-490 kHz band. PLC
systems in this frequency band are primarily used to trip protection
circuits if a fault, such as a downed power line, is detected in the power
grid.
8. The Commission also sought comment on whether the United
Telecommunications Council (�UTC�) PLC database, containing information on
the location of the PLCs, could be used by amateur operators to reduce the
likelihood of interference.
Commenters also unanimously agree that the UTC database should not be
released for security reasons.