[Lowfer] Simple check list for Part 5 idea...

Sun, 18 May 2003 09:27:08 -0500

OK, so who is going to retain the attorney for all this???

Mike Reid

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Mike Staines
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 9:01 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Lowfer] Simple check list for Part 5 idea...

Just for the record... John and I agree on just about everything he wrote.

It's scary....   8-)

Mike
wa1ptc

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of John Davis
> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 3:02 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Lowfer] Simple check list for Part 5 idea...
>
>
> May I encourage a more thoughtful approach...maybe not all ideas on the
> table, right up front, all in one weekend?
>
> I suspect it may lead the same kind of excess expectations and hasty
> reactions that we used to see out of the SHMRG: "Just who is this $#@%
> 'Coast Guard' and why are they stealing OUR frequencies?"
> Brainstorming is
> good in some circumstances, but maybe not when getting ready to deal with
> the FCC.  Considerable deliberation and even some legal counsel are likely
> to achieve better results.
>
> In my role as self-appointed wet blanket--not to be argumentative or
> discouraging, but only to serve as a reality check--here are some
> thoughts:
>
> >1: Freqs 135.7kc-137.8kc & 160-180kc
>
> Not sure I see the justification.  We know there's not going to be a ham
> band at 160-180 for probably quite some time after there's one at 137kHz.
> So there needs to be a better reason for asking for that 20kHz than "we
> wanna play old time radio" as has turned out to be the reality with some
> Part 5 licensees.  Is there some demonstrable need for SSB, for instance?
>
> >2: Power out of amp 500w
>
> Roughly in the right range, though again there needs to be some realistic
> justification.  We have reason to believe that if there ever is a real ham
> band, that 100W cap will come back again.  That's not to say there's no
> value in experimenting with higher power, but there needs to be a
> case made
> for it.
>
>
> >3: ERP 2w
>
>
> Do-able if there's some reason for it that doesn't amount to
> reinventing the
> wheel.  All the SHMRG and one or two others have proven so far is
> that with
> hundreds of watts of TPO, it's possible to duplicate the feats that have
> been accomplished by LowFERs at one watt TPO or aerobeacons at 25W.
>
> And bear in mind that 2W regular ERP is roughly three times the
> power of the
> 1W EIRP that had the power companies wetting themselves.
>
> >4: Antenna under 200' height unlimited horizontal dimensions
>
> Better to simply leave it at any antenna which will not require a full
> aeronautical study or lighting, as there are some locations where even 199
> feet would require both.  The SHMRG application provides a good
> guide to how
> this can be handled.
>
> Antennas (of less than commercial size, anyway) are one of the few topics
> that remain experimental in any sense at these frequencies, and could be
> used in part to justify the license, providing actual measurements will be
> made.
>
> >5: Any digital or analog mode of operation
>
> What analog modes might that be, apart from SSB?  All modes to be
> used will
> have to be described with some degree of specificity, although it appears
> they have given more latitude on digital modes so far.  If SSB is
> proposed,
> for instance, what indicates voice modes to be appropriate for serious
> communication at these frequencies.
>
> >6: Authority to communicate with other services and Part 5
> license holders
>
> Don't count on it.  This Commission is just plain not as flexible as its
> predecessors.  Despite the staff recommendation to apply for Part 5
> licenses, that doesn't mean they're going to let Part 5 licensees be the
> spectrum equivalent of Sooners, settling the territory before it's
> officially open.
>
> I'm willing to bet cash money that they will flatly refuse
> international ham
> communication!  Communication between Part 5 licensees--maybe,
> but I expect
> BOTH licenses would have to be modified to permit it.
>
> >7: 5 year license duration and be renewable
>
> Not really the licensee's call.  Renewal depends on demonstration that an
> experimental objective is actually being accomplished.  There are supposed
> to be regular reports to the Commission on the results.  The
> SHMRG may fall
> down badly on this.
>
> >8: Fixed stations in any US state
>
> Judging by the SHMRG model, do-able.
>
> >9: Ability to add or delete stations either by submitting an amendment to
> >the license or keeping a log of added stations and pertinent
> data about the
> >stations by the administrator of the license.
>
>
> Modification to the license upon application, perhaps.  But you've seen
> first-hand how efficiently that works.  There will be no ability
> on the part
> of the licensee to do it on their own...you can count on that.
>
> John D.