RE: [amsat-bb] 2.4GHz QRM

[Emily Clarke <emily@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Tony,

But how much is it a problem in (say) 435-437?  434 is not an amateur 
satellite allocation - it may be for terrestrial use, but it 
shouldn't cause us to roll over and play dead in the satellite 
allocation unless there is a real threat.

My other concern is that if we publicly acknowledge that the band is 
a wasteland that it most certainly will be, because the message is we 
don't care about it.

73,

Emily



At 09:42 PM 8/1/2006, Tony Langdon (ATC) wrote:
> > I'm a little concerned about the message here - are you saying that
> > RFICs in 434 MHz will encroach on our allocation in 435-437?  These
> > are minuscule power devices (since, for example, sitting on the
> > freeway I don't want to get warnings about the tire pressure of
> > another Volvo 1/2 mile away.) So before I get all bent out of shape
> > by this can you provide some credible data or (ugh) statistics that
> > it will have any real impact in the next 20 years?
>
>I suspect these will cause you guys few issues.  Over here, 434 MHz devices
>are a real problem, but it's not the door bells, garage door openers or the
>vehicle remotes that are causing the problems, but it's the hiher powered
>high duty cycle devices (they're allowed up to 25 mW EIRP) that cause all of
>the problems, cordless headphones and industrial crane controllers being the
>worst offenders.  All made worse by the fact that this part of the spectrum
>overlaps most of our repeater inputs. :-(
>----
>Sent via amsat-bb@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
>Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
>To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org
----
Sent via amsat-bb@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org