[Lowfer] Last Chance on 136 kHz Rulemaking

[Neil Klagge]

Craig, you made a lot of very good points. It might be good to put some of
them on the fcc comment page.

Neil

w0yse, Layton Utah


On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 9:32 AM, craig wasson <craig at wasson.com> wrote:

> The UTC comments seem to make a good case for an amateur allocation
> for the following reasons:
>
> 1. They point out that they have had no problem with the part 5
> stations which I believe operate at higher power than 1W ERP - so ham
> use would not cause problems.
> 2. If we took the UTC's advice and hundreds or thousands of hams
> requested part 5 licenses spread out over the entire 9-490KHz range
> (I'd be filing for one) the problem would be much worse.
> Concentrating these stations in a few small bands protects the
> majority of systems.
> 3. They mention the worry about interference to hams - has anyone ever
> seen a PLC signal?  With our narrowband techniques interference should
> not be a problem.
> 4. They admit that they do not intend to prevent interference to
> licensed operations - such flagrant violation of part 15 rules should
> not be protected.
> 5. They admit that a small transmitter could shut down the power grid.
>  This is a dangerous situation that threatens homeland security - so
> existing PLC systems should be  immediately shut down.  (I seem to
> recall a mandate from the US Department of Homeland Security that PLC
> systems be upgraded to be less vulnerable - does anyone else remember
> that?)
> 6. They say that PLC systems in Europe have not had problems - and
> they use them close to homes much more often.  I don't think it is
> just that these systems communicate over a short range with small
> impact - have there been any documented cases of interference of any
> kind?  If not this shows that PLC use near hams is not a problem.
>
> In my opinion the UTC comments provide a strong case for 2 or 3
> amateur LW bands, and the conversion of existing PLC systems to a more
> secure and reliable system.
>
> If the new band does not go through I'd appreciate some tips on how to
> file for a part 5 license.  I'd also be interested in what bands in
> addition to 137, 185 and 490khz I should file to use.  70khz?  Closer
> to 300khz?
>
> Craig - N6IO
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 4:51 PM, JD <listread at lwca.org> wrote:
> > With only three business days to go for filing of reply comments in the
> 136
> > kHz proceeding, I wanted to remind everyone interested that time is
> running
> > out.  It may not be feasible to review and comment upon everything the
> power
> > companies have filed, but IMO, some of their objections do need further
> > answering.  The Utilities Telecom Council summarized a lot of the key
> > objections, so their comments are a good place to start.  I have more
> > thoughts to offer on their remarks this evening, but for now here's some
> > "light" reading you should be aware of:
> >
> > http://lwca.org/miscdocs/UTC_comments.pdf
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > Lowfer mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:Lowfer at mailman.qth.net
> > Post must be less than 50KB total for message plus attachment!
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> ______________________________________________________________
> Lowfer mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Lowfer at mailman.qth.net
> Post must be less than 50KB total for message plus attachment!
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>