|
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
|
Another threat to 440
Bill Horne wrote:
wrote: How could an amateur radio advocacy organization be more effective? Unlike the NRA, there's no radio-equivalent to the Second Amendment. IANALB, I was told that the Supreme Court decided a long time ago that the Second Amendment does _not_ give citizens a right to bear arms unless they are part of a well-regulated militia. I presume the militia is the National Guard, but I'd like to hear from the attorneys who read this group. 73, W1AC Bill; The only SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd amendment concerned the possession of a sawed off shotgun. It is currently considering the Washington DC law on possession of hand guns by non law enforcement individuals. Also the Constitution of the United States provides for the militia in the first part of the text. Look it up.... The term CITIZEN is mentioned four (4) times in the Bill of Rights. In three cases the liberal interpretations means you and me. The fourth mention is in the 2nd amendment. Here liberals want it to mean the government. What is your opinion? Dave WD9BDZ |
Another threat to 440
Paul W. Schleck " wrote:
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. That's rather naive. Think: 'good cop, bad cop.' To the general public, filing a lawsuit is a really big deal. To a government agency, as much government business is dictated by court decisions as by routine administrative work. There are a number of actions that a government agency can take to delay a court case and to run up the expenses of a plaintiff. It would be very telling if it turned out that the FCC attempted none of those maneuvers and allowed the case to go right to court. 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. [...] IRS minutia snipped 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. I know the 501(c)* series well, having been involved in numerous non-profit groups and having been the treasurer of several. A non-profit organization can easily become a "group" of non-profit organizations by filing some forms and opening some extra checking accounts. The marginal cost of adding another type of organization is vanishingly small. I've been there, I've done that and it's not an issue. 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? The NRA spends a great deal on advertising and communications. I would expect a group of hams to be able to keep in touch for much less, mainly via the Internet (I doubt that an expensive, glossy magazine would be necessary and the NRA has TWO of them). The NRA lobbies the Federal government, all fifty state governments and any municipalities that can or might pass gun-related ordinances. A ham radio lobby would only need to lobby the Federal government. Only one office would be needed. Elected officials cannot pick and choose who will lobby them. They must deal with whatever groups we the people choose to fund and send to Washington. "Credibility" comes from votes and money, not from sucking up to Beltway insiders. -- Klystron |
Another threat to 440
Klystron wrote:
The NRA spends a great deal on advertising and communications. I would expect a group of hams to be able to keep in touch for much less, mainly via the Internet (I doubt that an expensive, glossy magazine would be necessary and the NRA has TWO of them). The NRA lobbies the Federal government, all fifty state governments and any municipalities that can or might pass gun-related ordinances. A ham radio lobby would only need to lobby the Federal government. Only one office would be needed. Elected officials cannot pick and choose who will lobby them. They must deal with whatever groups we the people choose to fund and send to Washington. "Credibility" comes from votes and money, not from sucking up to Beltway insiders. Then there'll be only little credibility. Even if all of the roughly 700,000 radio amateurs in the U.S. belong to such an organization, that number--spread over our fifty states and territories--means very few votes and very little money. I don't see it your way. The ARRL has nowhere near 700,000 members but it is very effective in lobbying government. It does so with few votes and little money to spread about. It wasn't long ago that some folks outside amateur radio wrote about wishing they were as good at lobbying as radio amateurs. The point to all this is that it is quite easy to sit on the sidelines and snipe at the ARRL and to put forth unsubstantiated charges against it from behind the cloak of anonymity. It is quite another to put together an alternative to the ARRL. If you desire to do so, nothing is stopping you. Dave K8MN |
Another threat to 440
Phil Kane wrote in
: 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 There isn't anywhere that has an upper edge at 430, Phil. There are countries that only have the middle third of the ham band (430-440) or lesser portions of that part, but none that have only 420-430. However, there are many where hams are secondary users. 73 de Alun, N3KIP, G8VUK PS: Can't stand modded groups to save my life, but the old one has nothing left in it except obscene ramblings |
Another threat to 440
440 is a shared band already, and this device strikes me as an ideal candidate
for sharing. It would have at worst a sporadic impact on our use, at low power, and would be a direct contributor to public safety while reducing risk of life and limb to our firefighters and police. This is one ARRL should support. 73, de Hans, K0HB Just a boy and his radio |
Another threat to 440
In article ,
KØHB wrote: 440 is a shared band already, and this device strikes me as an ideal candidate for sharing. It would have at worst a sporadic impact on our use, at low power, and would be a direct contributor to public safety while reducing risk of life and limb to our firefighters and police. This is one ARRL should support. There is no technical reason that the frequencies should come from the middle of an already populated amateur band, and I disagree strongly with your assessment that it would have "at worst a sporadic impact". A few repeaters over a wide geographic area should have ZERO impact on a well-designed classified military radar system (designed and built AFTER the repeaters were on the air), but we all know that wasn't true. This manufacturer has been using non-certified equipment hoping that his squatting in the amateur bands will be forgiven by getting a large number of technically ignorant police departments to cry that they'll be saving lives -- but not cry why they ought to be using spectrum that is already used. Read the waiver. The claim that this will be strictly for emergency use is disproven by the statements from police departments who want to use this for warrant service and air-duct inspections. |
Another threat to 440
On Sun, 18 May 2008 23:06:34 EDT, "KØHB"
wrote: 440 is a shared band already, and this device strikes me as an ideal can didate for sharing. It would have at worst a sporadic impact on our use, at lo w power, and would be a direct contributor to public safety while reducing risk o f life and limb to our firefighters and police. This is one ARRL should suppor t. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com