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

RE: SSTV in violation



As someone who has spent a little bit of time in
researching international frequency coordination issues
I have to second Will & Brendan's comments - it ain't as
easy as some folks would like to believe.  

Many people have worked, and continue to work, anonymously
on these sensitive coordination issues and some of the 
characterizations recently posted are extremely unfair. 

It's nice to see the enthusiasm for the SSTV on Mir. Lets
try to keep the frequency coordination discussions on the
same positive level.  

Tim

Tim J. Bosma  W6ISS   
AMSAT Area Coordinator - Northern California
SAREX Technical Mentor
Santa Rosa Jr. College
1501 Mendocino Avenue
Santa Rosa, California 95401


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-SAREX@AMSAT.Org [mailto:owner-SAREX@AMSAT.Org]On Behalf Of
> Will Marchant
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 3:45 AM
> To: B Keyport
> Cc: Sarex@amsat.org
> Subject: Re: [sarex] SSTV in violation
> 
> 
> I'd like to second Brendan's comments about the importance of frequency
> coordination.  The point that needs to be made is that because 
> low Earth orbit
> satellites circle the globe every hour and a half (typically) 
> coordination issues
> involve the entire world.  Believe it or not, there are a lot of 
> hams that don't
> think that human space flight should use OSCAR bands (because it 
> isn't weak
> signal.)  In different parts of the world there are radically 
> different band
> plans for 2m activities.  Some of the USA 2m frequencies aren't 
> even amateur
> frequencies in some parts of the world!  A lot of volunteer 
> effort of the hams
> putting amateur radio on shuttle, Mir, and ISS is spent working 
> on frequency
> issues.  You can't just look at your local band plans and decide 
> that it is OK to
> use a frequency when you are doing satellite work.  I'll dig up 
> the URL for the
> paper that Frank Bauer, KA3HDO, did for the APRS QSY if anyone is 
> interested.
> That was a classic example of different ham user groups with 
> different interests
> having a VERY serious conflict, which was worked out amicably.  
> Who would have
> thought that the use of APRS and Mir packet would have caused 
> such a furor?  We
> spent hundreds of volunteer hours and thousands of dollars 
> working that issue.
> That was money and effort that was sapped at a critical time for 
> the work for
> amateur radio on the ISS.  Frequency coordination is very 
> serious.  Thanks for
> reading this far.  (And if you can't tell, I'm a fanatic 
> supporter of amateur
> radio in human spaceflight! 8)
> 
> B Keyport wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 14 Dec 1998 21:24:47 -0600, John R. Moore wrote:
> >
> > >At the possibility of being flamed, I find the SSTV very 
> interesting and
> > >apparently from the amount of
> > >email traffic generated here so do a lot of others.  Please 
> lets just let
> > >them get the bugs out of their
> > >procedures.  Besides what is the Violation exactly, I haven't 
> researched the
> > >international rules but I dont believe
> > >it is in violation of any rule in the U. S.
> >
> > The "violation" is frequency coordination..... One thing that was
> > hammered into me, was that although frequency coordination is a
> > voluntary effort, people will get all bent if it is not followed.
> > Gentleman's rules and all that...
> >
> > As far as I'm concerned, as long as the previous users of that
> > frequency don't mind (was it MIR?) -- I don't care a short, but
> > beneficial use of the band.
> >
> > According to the FCC rule book I have, the entire band is ruled mixed
> > mode (CW, RTTY, DATA, MCW, _TEST_ , phone and image), except for a
> > small section of CW only... That's the only "rule". 145.80-146.00 is
> > OSCAR (satellite) -- per 'typical operation' (ARRL band plans)
> >
> > Given these facts, I can only conclude that I see no "violation" of any
> > rules. Bending of the voluntary band plan for a bit of testing that's
> > satellite related. There is NO violation of any rules, at least at FCC
> > level.
> >
> > Per: The FCC Rule Book, 10th edition.
> >
> > --- May Peace and love be yours,
> > Poohbear/Brendan Keyport
> > poohbear@poohbear.net (Admin)
> >
> > ----
> > Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
> > To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe sarex" to Majordomo@amsat.org
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Will Marchant
> kc6rol@amsat.org http://www.citizen.infi.net/~wmarchan/
> 
> 
> 
> ----
> Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
> To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe sarex" to Majordomo@amsat.org
> 
----
Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe sarex" to Majordomo@amsat.org



AMSAT Top AMSAT Home