[Lowfer] Part 5 rules link enclosed...

Sat, 17 May 2003 21:55:28 -0500

Here are responses to Bill's questions below.

1: To develop a nationwide communications network on LF. To co-exist with
the utility stations PLC signals.

2: That I am not sure of. I was told by a current Part 5 license holder that
it would be easier to get a more localized (surrounding states) license. We
need to prove that a nationwide LF communications network can function year
round utilizing various analog and digital modes with specialized antennas
to function in the stations environment (Loop vs Vertical).

3: I don't know that answer yet.

4: We have to monitor the proposed frequencies to log any signals heard or
not and report this on the application.

5: I am still printing the rules and need to read them completely. Chris
pointed out that if we can provide a good excuse to communicate with other
services or licenses, that could be granted. This could mean that Bill could
get Mal fired up on the loops when he sees Bill's looper signal over the
pond.

6: Most likely if we limit the power to something reasonable. Personally I
wouldn't want to see my electric bill with a few kilowatt amp running down
here. I don't think there would be too many worms for the robins to eat for
breakfast either!!! The SHMRG group had several different 6kc wide slots in
the MF and LF bands. The Coast Guard put the end to the old marine MF
allocations which left the group with only a 6kc wide slot at 166.5kc as of
today. We certainly could ask for 136kc with a wide bandwidth and also some
other LF allocation.

What would be another LF area of interest??? 73kc???

Mike Reid
WE0H

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Bill Ashlock
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 9:26 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Lowfer] Part 5 rules link enclosed...

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
>