[Lowfer] Part 5 rules link enclosed...

Sat, 17 May 2003 22:25:40 -0400

Mike and John D,

True, it looks like the FCC may be in the mood to grant some more part 5 
licenses, now that they have pulled the rug out from under us (and they must 
be feeling at least some level of guilt), but from my standpoint there are a 
number of unknowns that should be addressed before going ahead and applying 
for a license. Some of them are:

1. What are the typical 'good reasons' for applying for these grants that 
the FCC is likely to approve?

2. Is a group license more likely or less likely to be approved?  I have 
about 10 ideas I'd like to explore relating to refinement of TX loop theory. 
I may have better luck going for a separate application - not that I 
wouldn't be in favor of going with your idea, as well, Mike.

3. What Is the practical limit to the number of grants in the LF band?

4. Are frequencies in the 136 to 137k range available? This is certainly a 
desirable location as it allows for transcontinental experimentation.

5. If the application indicates non-amateurs will be permitted, does this 
make it less likely the FCC will  grant approval? I'm not sure where I stand 
on the of permitting of non-amateur usage (and that may sound strange coming 
from a non-Amateur).  I can see a number of positives for both sides of the 
argument.

6. Are approvals more likely if the application is limited in power? 
Frequency?

Bill

>From: "John Davis" <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: [Lowfer] Group Part-5 license for LF???
>Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 20:32:08 -0400
>
> >Since we are not going to get a 136kc Amateur band in the near future, we
> >may as well go Part-5 as the FCC suggested when they shot us down for the
> >136 Amateur band. It is only available to licensed Amateur Radio 
>operators.
> >Is there another band of frequencies of interest instead of 136kc?
>
>
>Not sure I follow what you're saying here, Mike.
>
>Are you saying 136 would ONLY be available for licensed amateurs?  (I'm not
>aware of any rule that would preclude a Part 5 license there.)  Or are you
>proposing the experimental license only be open to hams?  (Seems to me the
>three or four existing Part 5 licensees have already been too exclusive in
>that regard.)
>
>Thanks for any clarification.
>
>John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>From the Lowfer mailing list
>Send messages to: [email protected]
>To sub/unsub visit: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online  
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963