[NLRS] 3400 vs 3456 MHz

Wed Apr 8 00:05:15 EDT 2015

It appears to be a byproduct of the ARRL comments to the FCC about 
WRC-15 which also considers 10 GHz. I didn't find any details though. 
Most likely to allow commercial use for cell phone or digital like is 
already at 2.6 and 5.6 GHz.

73, Jerry, K0CQ

On 4/7/2015 10:19 PM, John Allen wrote:
>
>
>> Three years ago the ARRL recommended that terrestrial users of
>> 3456 MHz move to 3400 MHz as time and resources permitted.
>
> Does anyone know why the ARRL made this recommendation?
>
> John K1AE
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NLRS [mailto:nlrs-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Arliss
> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 4:22 PM
> To: NLRS
> Subject: [NLRS] 3400 vs 3456 MHz
>
>
>
> Three years ago the ARRL recommended that terrestrial users of
> 3456 MHz move to 3400 MHz as time and resources permitted, and I
> know that most EME operation on that band is around 3400 MHz.
> However, I am wondering if there has been any move in this region
> to 3400 MHz. In other words, if I buy a transverter for 9 cm,
> should it be set up for 3400 or 3456 MHz?
>
> Thanks&  73,
>
> Arliss  W7XU
> ______________________________________________________________
> NLRS mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/nlrs
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:NLRS at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> NLRS mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/nlrs
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:NLRS at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>