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

Re: FW: ARLB013 ARRL aiding effort to mitigaterepeaterinterference to military radars



Hi Ed

Somehow I feel as thought I have been left out of something.
Pave Paws has been around a very very long time.
70cm use by Hams has like wise been there maybe longer.
Living in the center of the country and not having to concern 
myself with the 70cm restriction to Ham use within a given 
distance of certain Military installations I have no idea what changed.
Something changed.
Do you know what that might be? 
The attention appears to be toward 70cm repeaters
Was no one paying any attention to the 70cm restrictions when
validating the 70 cm repeater installations?
Are these repeater netted over the Internet?
There is more that just PAVE PAWS to consider if my memory serves.
Hams need the real truth about what caused the current problem.
I do not , am not able to get that from all I have seen on the BB.
Can you add anything Ed?

37 years in DOD testing makes me sensitive in many ways .

Thanks Ed

73's 

Joe K0VTY




On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 06:48:20 -0800 Edward Cole <kl7uw@acsalaska.net>
writes:
> Tony, Roger, etal:
> 
> A "slice" will not be a solution to PAVE PAWS  which is broadband 
> covering the whole spectrum (420-450 MHz).  There already exists 
> restricted use of 70cm within range of selected military 
> installations in FCC regs.  Those unlucky to live within the 
> affected 
> areas cited will have no recourse but to restrict operations 
> (however 
> that takes effect).  Voluntary negotiations may lead to some time 
> slots of permission.  Otherwise, we get "regulated" off the band.
> 
> Build satellites that require no more than 5w EIRP from the ground 
> station may be the only answer.  OR move to another uplink 
> band.  That's a possibility that may be the "hard news".
> 
> UN-Licensed users are more the long-term problem facing ham radio, 
> than the military user...in my opinion.  Ham radio has a long 
> history 
> of sharing allocations with the military.  The short history of 
> "part-15" and their "ilk" is not pretty.
> 
> So now its use it AND lose it...can't win!
> good luck to us?
> 
> 73 Ed - KL7UW
> 
> At 05:23 AM 4/24/2007, Roger Kolakowski wrote:
> >Tony wondered:
> >
> >"Should this ARRL msg. cause us to worry..."
> >
> >Yes... The key is that in the US we are secondary users in the 420 
> - 450 mHz
> >band and while there are only 2 PAVE PAWS sites active, another 
> interesting
> >"land grab" can be found by googling wind shear radar and 449.000 
> mHz.
> >
> >We are at the whim of the government with no primary allocation, 
> for example
> >there is this "grab" -- "Tire Pressure Monitoring System with 
> Frequency
> >Range of 433.92MHz."
> >
> >An effort for Amateur primary allocation of even a "slice" would be 
> prudent.
> >
> >Roger
> >WA1KAT
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <tjjapha@earthlink.net>
> >To: <amsat-bb@amsat.org>
> >Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 9:30 AM
> >Subject: [amsat-bb] FW: ARLB013 ARRL aiding effort to mitigate
> >repeaterinterference to military radars
> >
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > > Should this ARRL msg. cause us to worry about the future of mode 
> B
> > > operations?
> > > 73,
> > > Tony, N2UN
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > [Original Message]
> > > > From: ARRL Web site <memberlist@www.arrl.org>
> > > > To: <tjjapha@earthlink.net>
> > > > Cc: <Subscribed ARRL Members:>
> > > > Date: 4/24/2007 12:06:01 AM
> > > > Subject: ARLB013 ARRL aiding effort to mitigate repeater 
> interference to
> > > military radars
> > > >
> > > > SB QST @ ARL $ARLB013
> > > > ARLB013 ARRL aiding effort to mitigate repeater interference 
> to
> > > > military radars
> > > >
> > > > ZCZC AG13
> > > > QST de W1AW
> > > > ARRL Bulletin 13  ARLB013
> > > > From ARRL Headquarters
> > > > Newington CT  April 23, 2007
> > > > To all radio amateurs
> > > >
> > > > SB QST ARL ARLB013
> > > > ARLB013 ARRL aiding effort to mitigate repeater interference 
> to
> > > > military radars
> > > >
> > > > The ARRL has been working with the US Department of Defense 
> to
> > > > develop a plan to mitigate alleged interference from 70 cm ham 
> radio
> > > > repeaters to military radar systems on both coasts. Citing an
> > > > increasing number of interference complaints, the US Air Force 
> has
> > > > asked the FCC to order dozens of repeater systems to either 
> mitigate
> > > > interference to the ''PAVE PAWS'' radars in Massachusetts and
> > > > California or shut down. Amateur Radio is secondary to 
> government
> > > > users from 420 to 450 MHz and must not interfere with primary 
> users.
> > > > The Commission has not yet responded. ARRL Regulatory 
> Information
> > > > Specialist Dan Henderson, N1ND, stresses that the Defense 
> Department
> > > > acknowledges Amateur Radio's value in disasters and 
> emergencies and
> > > > is being extremely cooperative, and a wholesale shutdown of US 
> 70 cm
> > > > Amateur Radio activity is not in the offing.
> > > >
> > > > ''The ARRL Lab is working up calculations on each repeater 
> system the
> > > > Air Force has identified to determine where 
> interference-mitigation
> > > > techniques offer a reasonable chance of keeping the repeater 
> on the
> > > > air,'' Henderson says.
> > > >
> > > > The situation affects 15 repeaters in the vicinity of Otis Air 
> Force
> > > > Base on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and more than 100 repeaters 
> within
> > > > some 140 miles of Beale Air Force Base near Sacramento, 
> California.
> > > >
> > > > A US Air Force contractor identified the problematic repeater
> > > > systems last summer, but the situation didn't become critical 
> until
> > > > the Air Force contacted the FCC a month ago. ARRL officials 
> met with
> > > > Defense Department representatives in late March to discuss 
> alleged
> > > > interference to the PAVE PAWS radar sites. Henderson has 
> contacted
> > > > Amateur Radio frequency coordinators in both affected areas.
> > > >
> > > > PAVE PAWS is a missile and satellite detection and tracking 
> system,
> > > > and its facilities occupy essentially the entire 70 cm band -- 
> one
> > > > factor that makes mitigation difficult. As a ''first step,'' 
> however,
> > > > the ARRL is recommending that all affected repeater owners 
> reduce
> > > > power -- possibly to as little as 5 W effective radiated 
> power
> > > > (ERP).
> > > >
> > > > ''We understand the difficulty this may cause to owners and 
> users,''
> > > > Henderson said, ''but the alternative to operating with a 
> smaller
> > > > coverage area may be not operating at all.''
> > > >
> > > > Henderson says the League is still seeking further information 
> on
> > > > the problem. ''Until the Defense Department accepts a 
> mitigation
> > > > plan, repeater owners should exercise patience,'' he 
> cautioned.
> > > >
> > > > Contact Dan Henderson, N1ND, n1nd@arrl.org, or 860-594-0236, 
> with
> > > > specific questions or issues associated with this situation.
> > > > NNNN
> > > > /EX
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the 
> author.
> > > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur 
> satellite program!
> > > Subscription settings: 
> http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
> > >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the 
> author.
> >Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite 
> program!
> >Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
> 
> 73,
> Ed - KL7UW
> ======================================
>   BP40IQ   50-MHz - 10-GHz   www.kl7uw.com
> 144-EME: FT-847, mgf-1801, 4x-xpol-20, 185w
> DUBUS Magazine USA Rep dubususa@hotmail.com
> ====================================== 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the 
> author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite 
> program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb



AMSAT Top AMSAT Home