[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: 70 cm QRM (was Re:2.4GHz QRM)



Hi All,
Isn't this discussion getting out of hand?

The reason we have this band 420 -450 MHz is that US Government is primary 
and even the Mobile Radio Lobby could not get the US Military to move off 
that band. They did get a sitinging rebuke when they petitioned the FCC for 
that spectrum.

No politician is going up against General Brassbottom over tire pressure 
monitors. We most likely will have this band for years until the military 
decides to move elsewhere.
BTW The 2401 to 2417 MHz is the only UHF band that we as Amateurs have a 
primary allocation. Everything is secondary to US Military! They are our 
greatest protection of microwave spectrum!

Art,
KC6UQH
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bruce Bostwick" <lihan161051@sbcglobal.net>
To: <amsat-bb@AMSAT.Org>
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] 70 cm QRM (was Re:2.4GHz QRM)


> Given the sorts of regulations that apply to operating radio  equipment of 
> any kind aboard commercial airliners, and the  presumption that anything 
> that transmits will pose a safety hazard  even if it's *almost* completely 
> obvious that there's no way it can  pose an actual hazard, I'd be worried 
> about this myself.  It might be  enough to show that even relatively 
> strong FM or SSB signals from  close by aren't enough to swamp the signals 
> from the tire telemetry  chips, by rigorous and empirical testing .. or it 
> might not.  (A  great deal depends on how rugged the manufacturers make 
> the telemetry  receivers and what the effects of the inevitable cost- and 
> corner- cutting in the design process will be.)
>
> I will say this, I've had about enough of lazy bureaucrats in a  variety 
> of different fields of government regulation, not just this  one, who have 
> no technical knowledge of what they're regulating and  tend to make really 
> stupid and far reaching generalizations about  what should be done about 
> issues like this.  I'm kind of dreading the  bureaucratic "think of the 
> children" response this will probably get  at the FCC, and painfully aware 
> that the pressure to squeeze us out  of virtually every bit of spectrum 
> with any kind of commercial value  will only increase ..
>
> -Bruce, N5VB
>
> On Aug 3, 2006, at 7:12 AM, Trevor wrote:
>
>> The problem is not so much the RF these radiate but the danger that 
>> legislators
>> would seek to protect such devices. The provision of tire pressure 
>> information
>> via these links could be considered a safety issue. If it were 
>> perceived, even
>> wrongly, that Amateur transmissions on 435 MHz could interfere with 
>> automobile
>> safety we could see attempts to curtail amateur operations.
> ----
> 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



AMSAT Top AMSAT Home