Another threat to 440
 

Public notice posted yesterday - proposal to use 430-448 MHz for
remotely-controlled surveillance robot:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...-08-1077A1.pdf

Sigh...

Another threat to 440
 

On Wed, 7 May 2008 18:37:43 EDT, Bill Powell wrote:

Public notice posted yesterday - proposal to use 430-448 MHz for
remotely-controlled surveillance robot:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...-08-1077A1.pdf

Sigh...

Pikers! Why didn't they apply for 20 kW and REALLY cause
interference?? g It almost sounds like they are using something
"off the shelf" that is being used elsewhere where the ham band ends
at 430 MHz. I've seen this stuff before.

My gut feeling is that with the present "leadership" at the FCC
(despite the fact that several good friends are in the Homeland
Security and Public Safety Bureau and wouldn't support it but for
pressure from above) it will be granted on a secondary priority behind
all the other secondary priority users. I hope that I am wrong and it
is denied.

Another reason to support the ARRL Spectrum Defense Fund.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

Another threat to 440
 

"Bill Powell" wrote ...
Public notice posted yesterday - proposal to use 430-448 MHz for
remotely-controlled surveillance robot:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...-08-1077A1.pdf

Won't they have a bunch of bandwidth next february
when all the analog TV broadcasting goes dark? Then
they could choose a band that is even better at "building
penetration", etc.

Another threat to 440
 

Phil Kane wrote:
[...]
Another reason to support the ARRL Spectrum Defense Fund.


Actually, it's another reason to wish that we had a REAL advocacy
organization, like the National Rifle Association, rather than the weak
and ineffectual ARRL, which is little better than the FCC's compliant
and obsequious lapdog.

--
Klystron

Another threat to 440
 

Phil Kane wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 2008 18:37:43 EDT, Bill Powell wrote:

Public notice posted yesterday - proposal to use 430-448 MHz for
remotely-controlled surveillance robot:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...-08-1077A1.pdf

Sigh...

Pikers! Why didn't they apply for 20 kW and REALLY cause
interference?? g It almost sounds like they are using something
"off the shelf" that is being used elsewhere where the ham band ends
at 430 MHz. I've seen this stuff before.

Good point: that explains a lot, doesn't it? It all comes down to money,
and given a choice between something ready-made and tested that can be
marked up 10,000%, or a one-of assembly that costs more than you'd ever
dare to charge, the choice seems obvious.

Hmmm, you know, that also explains why 146-148 MHz isn't available to
hams in large portions of the world. Lot's of rigs from the U.S. market,
easy to buy and use, can be plugged-and-played anywhere the governments
choose. Must have been a similar process for 220.

I guess we hams _have_ been experimenters after all: we provided the
funding to design and debug reliable gear that will now make life easy
for some entrepreneurs. It wasn't the kind of experiment I would have
chosen to start myself, but C'est la Vie.

My gut feeling is that with the present "leadership" at the FCC
(despite the fact that several good friends are in the Homeland
Security and Public Safety Bureau and wouldn't support it but for
pressure from above) it will be granted on a secondary priority behind
all the other secondary priority users. I hope that I am wrong and it
is denied.

Another reason to support the ARRL Spectrum Defense Fund.

What ever happened to all that TV spectrum that's supposed to be made
available for "homeland security" next year? Does a bomb-sniffing robot
not qualify, or has the thought of participating in a spectrum auction
frightened the manufacturer into an attempted "land grab" instead?

The answer is obvious. You know, I'd like to see Michael Powell's
investment portfolio: I bet that there are a lot of good stock tips to
be gleaned from it.

W1AC

(Remove QRM from my address for direct replies.)

Another threat to 440
 

On May 8, 7:33 am, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
"Bill Powell" wrote ...

Public notice posted yesterday - proposal to use 430-448 MHz for
remotely-controlled surveillance robot:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...-08-1077A1.pdf

Won't they have a bunch of bandwidth next february
when all the analog TV broadcasting goes dark? Then
they could choose a band that is even better at "building
penetration", etc.

I thought that they where going to auction all that new found spectrum
to the likes of Google and Sprint to be used for nationwide data/voice
services. I don't recall if they where going to slice out any for
other service types but here's hoping they do. Seems like a small
slice dedicated to this kind of thing might be useful.

I can imagine that with all the hoopla between the primary spectrum
user on 440 and the ham repeaters in the east and west that this might
not fly with the FCC. Can you imagine the possible interference this
might cause with the Air Force?

-= bob =-
KC4UAI

Another threat to 440
 

On Thu, 8 May 2008 13:40:33 EDT, Bill Horne wrote:

What ever happened to all that TV spectrum that's supposed to be made
available for "homeland security" next year? Does a bomb-sniffing robot
not qualify, or has the thought of participating in a spectrum auction
frightened the manufacturer into an attempted "land grab" instead?

See my other post on this soapbox....
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

Another threat to 440
 

On May 8, 10:34�am, Klystron wrote:

Actually, it's another reason to wish that we had a REAL advocacy
organization, like the National Rifle Association, rather than the
weak
and ineffectual ARRL, which is little better than the FCC's
compliant and obsequious lapdog.

That's an interesting comment....

How could an amateur radio advocacy organization be more effective?
Unlike the NRA, there's no radio-equivalent to the Second Amendment.

As for the ARRL being "weak and ineffectual", note the recent court
decision on FCC's actions wrt BPL. That required taking the FCC to
court, which is a pretty bold and risky move. Or note how FCC ruled
against those motorsports' use of 440 - ARRL had a big role in that.

Sure, ARRL doesn't always win, but neither does the NRA.

Most of all, I don't see the ARRL as "FCC's compliant and obsequious
lapdog". Time after time, ARRL has opposed FCC on issues affecting
amateur radio.

What would you have an advocacy group do differently, given the
limited number of US hams?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Another threat to 440
 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In writes:

On May 8, 10:34�am, Klystron wrote:

Actually, it's another reason to wish that we had a REAL advocacy
organization, like the National Rifle Association, rather than the
weak
and ineffectual ARRL, which is little better than the FCC's
compliant and obsequious lapdog.

That's an interesting comment....

How could an amateur radio advocacy organization be more effective?
Unlike the NRA, there's no radio-equivalent to the Second Amendment.

As for the ARRL being "weak and ineffectual", note the recent court
decision on FCC's actions wrt BPL. That required taking the FCC to
court, which is a pretty bold and risky move. Or note how FCC ruled
against those motorsports' use of 440 - ARRL had a big role in that.

Sure, ARRL doesn't always win, but neither does the NRA.

Most of all, I don't see the ARRL as "FCC's compliant and obsequious
lapdog". Time after time, ARRL has opposed FCC on issues affecting
amateur radio.

What would you have an advocacy group do differently, given the
limited number of US hams?

73 de Jim, N2EY

The narrative does seem to fall flat when a so-called "compliant and
obsequious lapdog" sues its master in Federal Court and scores at least
a partial win.

Furthermore, there's other significant differences between the ARRL and
the NRA that need to be considered when making suggestions about how to
increase the League's effectiveness.

For one, the NRA is a 501(c)4 organization, whereas the ARRL is
501(c)3. Both are not-for-profit and exempt from federal tax (state
laws vary). However, there are subtle, but important differences
between each one, which are detailed at:

http://nonprofitmanagement.suite101....4_organization

Some of the high points a

- 501(c)3 organizations can receive Federal grants. 501(c)4
organizations cannot.

- Donations to 501(c)3 organizations are tax-exempt. Donations to
501(c)4 organizations are not.

- 501(c)4 organizations can devote an unlimited time to lobbying, and
can participate in political campaign activity, including supporting
or opposing anyone running for public office. 501(c)3 organizations
are strictly limited in their lobbying, and cannot support or oppose
anyone running for public office.

So, to be as effective as the NRA in your mind, the ARRL would probably
have to form a 501(c)4 organization, in addition to the existing 501(c)3
organization. The NRA does actually have both, with a 501(c)3 called
the "NRA Foundation" which does charitable work consistent with the
rules for that type of organization, and can benefit from tax-exempt
donations and Federal grants, in exchange for separating off the
lobbying and campaigning activities into the 501(c)4.

The NRA has over 4 million members. Even if the League was able to
enjoy 100% membership among hams in the U.S., that would only be about
650,000. So for similar dues amounts (about $35 annual, $1,000 life),
the NRA is able to raise far more money. Do you feel that the
trade-offs in forming a 501(c)4 organization for lobbying and
campaigning would be worthwhile despite the required increases in
expenses, from loss of tax exemption and access to Federal grants, that
would have to be spread out over a much smaller membership base? Could
there even be a risk to the effectiveness of the League in the eyes of
elected officials if they did form a 501(c)4 organization, and thus
become "yet another" lobbying/campaigning group?

- --
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)

iD8DBQFIJGHN6Pj0az779o4RAhVcAKCDofjETp9Xu3XvshFR0A 4XMvCD3gCfb0qc
YQpERWivEHQZmgdCuQdl3Gc=
=M9sm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Another threat to 440