[Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
i picked your reply to keep the topic going atv down here in florida in the space coast has been chased off up to 900 mhz there is a real good reason for this the destruct sequencer uses freqs below the amateur bands on uhf the mars probes and oher deep space projects also use uhf 431mhz? for communication you would think the FCC would have learned to just tell these idiots to use better freqs like 900 or above a gig they cant be bothered to allocate for anyone the fcc is in total chaos ...whats new? Revised restrictions on 70 cm bear repeating (Nov 8, 2005) -- In 2004, a revised Footnote US7 in Part 2.106 of the Code of Federal Regulations went info effect, further expanding the 50 W maximum output power restriction in place for the 420-450 MHz band in the US Southwest. (The applicable Part 97 Amateur Service rule is §97.303, which incorporates §2.106 by reference.) In talking to people at hamfests and other Amateur Radio meetings, I've found that very few people are aware of this rule, says Bill Kauffman, W5YEJ, of the New Mexico Frequency Coordinating Committee. While the previous version of §2.106(a), essentially covered the White Sands Missile Range area of New Mexico, language effective as of January 2004 expanded it to include all of New Mexico and Texas lying west of 104° W. The 70 cm band is a shared allocation in the US, and federal government users are primary. Amateur Radio, as a secondary occupant, may not cause interference to primary government stations and must tolerate any interference from government stations. Kauffman explains that the FCC acted at the request of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to protect sensitive receivers at various fixed and mobile locations on military bases. The 50 W restriction continues to apply to all of Arizona and Florida as well as parts of several other states, including California, Nevada, Massachusetts, Alaska, North Dakota, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina. Exceptions to the power limit must be expressly authorized by the FCC after mutual agreement, on a case-by-case basis, between the FCC District Director in the applicable district and the Military Area Frequency Coordinator at the applicable military base. Link to this item --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, DCFluX dcf...@... wrote: Until they start bringing up ATV repeaters, The common input frequencies are 439.25, 434.0, 433.25, 427.25 and 421.25. Now, see the channel assignments for the analog video? Since the video carrier is 1.25 MHz above the bottom of each channel, we can predict where most of the energy is going to fall: 437.25, 443.25 431.25, in descending order of occupancy. If your input isn't near one of those frequencies, you're probably never going to hear from one. Yahoo! Groups Links
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
And what happens if they deploy it in a municipality where there's a 4.9 GHz mesh network [like Phoenix, AZ]? Or a 4.9 GHz point-to-point microwave link? Or in the presence of a 4.9 GHz helicopter downlink? Frequency selection/coordination is a very big deal, and most of the IT/MBA types running these corporations [and the FCC] are clueless. I, too, am very concerned about this proposal, and not just for hams, but for the precedent that it creates. This is the equivalent of special legislation that benefits a single corporate entity. WalterH --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, David Jordan wa3...@... wrote: Joe, I'd put them in the Licensed Public Safety Broad Band Data allocation 4940-4980Mhz band.plenty of room there.very little usage. My guess is the manufacturer doesn't have the technology or funding needed to build the cheaply made, significantly over priced crawling camera to operate in the GHz ranges. Like BPL.this vendor will disappear once their venture capital has been all used up. The military may purchase some of these units but with tax revenues down nationally, for the next several years, I don't think your local fire or police dept will be spending many dollars on this low value technology. I'm not worried about this order. Best, dave _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MCH Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 2:42 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band The premise is common sense, but, as you say, this is the government. Where would *you* put TV transmitters if not in the TV bands? Joe M. David Jordan wrote: I don't think there is any premise or as you say, ...fact that it should be in the bands where TV is authorized... is relevant. Where the FCC decides to put it is where the fact.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
4.9 is licensed spectrum. If Public Safety has an incident they are engaged in I think they have the where with all to manage the spectrum.I guess some of you all just like to worry about stuff. Have at it. _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Walter H Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 4:34 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band And what happens if they deploy it in a municipality where there's a 4.9 GHz mesh network [like Phoenix, AZ]? Or a 4.9 GHz point-to-point microwave link? Or in the presence of a 4.9 GHz helicopter downlink? Frequency selection/coordination is a very big deal, and most of the IT/MBA types running these corporations [and the FCC] are clueless. I, too, am very concerned about this proposal, and not just for hams, but for the precedent that it creates. This is the equivalent of special legislation that benefits a single corporate entity. WalterH --- In Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com, David Jordan wa3...@... wrote: Joe, I'd put them in the Licensed Public Safety Broad Band Data allocation 4940-4980Mhz band.plenty of room there.very little usage. My guess is the manufacturer doesn't have the technology or funding needed to build the cheaply made, significantly over priced crawling camera to operate in the GHz ranges. Like BPL.this vendor will disappear once their venture capital has been all used up. The military may purchase some of these units but with tax revenues down nationally, for the next several years, I don't think your local fire or police dept will be spending many dollars on this low value technology. I'm not worried about this order. Best, dave _ From: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MCH Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 2:42 PM To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band The premise is common sense, but, as you say, this is the government. Where would *you* put TV transmitters if not in the TV bands? Joe M. David Jordan wrote: I don't think there is any premise or as you say, ...fact that it should be in the bands where TV is authorized... is relevant. Where the FCC decides to put it is where the fact.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
That IS the item... ReconRobotics' website has the disclaimer that the device has not received FCC authorization may not be sold. It has been reported to eBay as not FCC-authorized and should be pulled quickly. George, KA3HSW / WQGJ413 From: wa1nh wa...@arrl.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, March 3, 2010 10:40:10 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band 180455347338 Just sent some pointed questions to the seller. Hope this is NOT the device. --- In Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com, DCFluX dcf...@... wrote: Got the auction number? On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:30 PM, wa1nh wa...@... wrote: UMM. . Was just perusing eBay. Guess what I found... . Search on Recon Scout in cameras an photos! Is this the same device? So much for part 90 licensing. Jason, WA1NH
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
I just read the FCC order.I don't see a significant threat to amateur radio UHF communications from this device. - the price is very high for what you get - few will be purchased - the technology implementation is lam - the incidents where the device would be used are few and far between - the device erp is .25watt to max 1 watt into a hand-held rubber duck antenna at the operator position and the device crawls on the ground with internal ant - the statement in the order makes the device operations secondary to amateur radio - there are many caveats in the order with regard to when the device may be used What am I missing? 73, Dave Wa3gin _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of George Henry Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 1:44 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band That IS the item... ReconRobotics' website has the disclaimer that the device has not received FCC authorization may not be sold.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
What are you missing? The fact that it should be in bands where TV is authorized, and not in a band where it will be subject to random instances of interference from a service that has transmitters at any place at any time. I wonder how well a waiver would be received that would permit hams to use any frequency in the 406-512 MHz band at 1 watt maximum ERP with a non-interference basis to licensed users of that band segment. Would those licensed users sit still for that? Joe M. David Jordan wrote: I just read the FCC order…I don’t see a significant threat to amateur radio UHF communications from this device. - the price is very high for what you get – few will be purchased – the technology implementation is lam - the incidents where the device would be used are few and far between - the device erp is .25watt to max 1 watt into a hand-held rubber duck antenna at the operator position and the device crawls on the ground with internal ant - the statement in the order makes the device operations secondary to amateur radio - there are many caveats in the order with regard to when the device may be used What am I missing? 73, Dave Wa3gin *From:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *George Henry *Sent:* Thursday, March 04, 2010 1:44 PM *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band That IS the item... ReconRobotics' website has the disclaimer that the device has not received FCC authorization may not be sold. Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: repeater-builder-dig...@yahoogroups.com repeater-builder-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: repeater-builder-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
Joe, The last time I checked our licenses were not purchased like wireless spectrum...I believe we fall under the category of granted privileges to utilize frequency spectrum owned by the government and administrated through licenses granted by the FCC. I don't think there is any premise or as you say, ...fact that it should be in the bands where TV is authorized... is relevant. Where the FCC decides to put it is where the fact. When this waiver was posted did this group craft a response and send it to the FCC? I haven't read the ham responses but the order seems to indicate that most of the filings in opposition had to do with satellite and weak signal operations, not repeater users. Best, Dave Wa3gin -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MCH Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 2:07 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band What are you missing? The fact that it should be in bands where TV is authorized, and not in a band where it will be subject to random instances of interference from a service that has transmitters at any place at any time. I wonder how well a waiver would be received that would permit hams to use any frequency in the 406-512 MHz band at 1 watt maximum ERP with a non-interference basis to licensed users of that band segment. Would those licensed users sit still for that? Joe M. David Jordan wrote: I just read the FCC order.I don't see a significant threat to amateur radio UHF communications from this device. - the price is very high for what you get - few will be purchased - the technology implementation is lam - the incidents where the device would be used are few and far between - the device erp is .25watt to max 1 watt into a hand-held rubber duck antenna at the operator position and the device crawls on the ground with internal ant - the statement in the order makes the device operations secondary to amateur radio - there are many caveats in the order with regard to when the device may be used What am I missing? 73, Dave Wa3gin *From:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *George Henry *Sent:* Thursday, March 04, 2010 1:44 PM *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band That IS the item... ReconRobotics' website has the disclaimer that the device has not received FCC authorization may not be sold. Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
In my view this opens the door to other encroachments on our frequency allocations. Richard www.n7tgb.net http://www.n7tgb.net/ Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. -- Ronald Reagan _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Jordan Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 10:55 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band I just read the FCC order.I don't see a significant threat to amateur radio UHF communications from this device. - the price is very high for what you get - few will be purchased - the technology implementation is lam - the incidents where the device would be used are few and far between - the device erp is .25watt to max 1 watt into a hand-held rubber duck antenna at the operator position and the device crawls on the ground with internal ant - the statement in the order makes the device operations secondary to amateur radio - there are many caveats in the order with regard to when the device may be used What am I missing? 73, Dave Wa3gin _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of George Henry Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 1:44 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band That IS the item... ReconRobotics' website has the disclaimer that the device has not received FCC authorization may not be sold.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
Richard, The FCC has always had that option to re-assign spectrum.you use the term our frequency which implies you think we have some implied rights to utilize the spectrum. We have no rights, just privileges. The FCC can change those privileges any time they want, as they have just done in the subject case. The doors to encroachments as you say, have always been open, in fact there are no doors. We enjoy our hobby at the whim of the FCC and congress - no rights IMHO! Best, Dave Wa3gin _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 2:15 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band In my view this opens the door to other encroachments on our frequency allocations.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
The premise is common sense, but, as you say, this is the government. Where would *you* put TV transmitters if not in the TV bands? Joe M. David Jordan wrote: I don't think there is any premise or as you say, ...fact that it should be in the bands where TV is authorized... is relevant. Where the FCC decides to put it is where the fact.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
Dave, You speak exactly what I would have said here. I recall the same angst and irritation when the lower end of 220 was lost to United Parcel Service and other entities if there were any. That turned out to be much about nothing as I recall. I won't say NO ONE was using that band at the time, but NO ONE really uses it NOW. I would expect that a little investigating by someone or something that wants spectrum space, has deep pockets or a friend in Washington, could have much of that band if they wanted it. Save for a few repeaters ( like mine ) the occasional weak signal contest which has fewer and fewer users, and some uncoordinated repeater linking devices there ain't much going on up there. -Mike From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Jordan Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 2:56 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band Richard, The FCC has always had that option to re-assign spectrum.you use the term our frequency which implies you think we have some implied rights to utilize the spectrum. We have no rights, just privileges. The FCC can change those privileges any time they want, as they have just done in the subject case. The doors to encroachments as you say, have always been open, in fact there are no doors. We enjoy our hobby at the whim of the FCC and congress - no rights IMHO! Best, Dave Wa3gin _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 2:15 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band In my view this opens the door to other encroachments on our frequency allocations. __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4916 (20100304) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4916 (20100304) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
On 3/4/2010 1:54 PM, David Jordan wrote: I just read the FCC order.I don't see a significant threat to amateur radio UHF communications from this device. It's operating on a ham band at more than flea power-maybe as much as several watts. How can it NOT interfere? Trust me, it WILL! It defies the laws of physics to generate RF on a frequency without interfering with others on the same frequency within the area.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
Joe, I'd put them in the Licensed Public Safety Broad Band Data allocation 4940-4980Mhz band.plenty of room there.very little usage. My guess is the manufacturer doesn't have the technology or funding needed to build the cheaply made, significantly over priced crawling camera to operate in the GHz ranges. Like BPL.this vendor will disappear once their venture capital has been all used up. The military may purchase some of these units but with tax revenues down nationally, for the next several years, I don't think your local fire or police dept will be spending many dollars on this low value technology. I'm not worried about this order. Best, dave _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of MCH Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 2:42 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band The premise is common sense, but, as you say, this is the government. Where would *you* put TV transmitters if not in the TV bands? Joe M. David Jordan wrote: I don't think there is any premise or as you say, ...fact that it should be in the bands where TV is authorized... is relevant. Where the FCC decides to put it is where the fact.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
I'm an HFer.Interference doesn't bother me ;-) _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of wd8chl Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 2:53 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band On 3/4/2010 1:54 PM, David Jordan wrote: I just read the FCC order.I don't see a significant threat to amateur radio UHF communications from this device. It's operating on a ham band at more than flea power-maybe as much as several watts. How can it NOT interfere? Trust me, it WILL! It defies the laws of physics to generate RF on a frequency without interfering with others on the same frequency within the area.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
Mike, I beg to differ with you.. at least here in the NE 220 is heavily used for packet network linking between NY, NJ, CT, and MA. Dave WB2FTX - Original Message - From: Michael Ryan To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 3:15 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band Dave, You speak exactly what I would have said here. I recall the same angst and irritation when the lower end of 220 was lost to United Parcel Service and other entities if there were any. That turned out to be much about nothing as I recall. I won't say NO ONE was using that band at the time, but NO ONE really uses it NOW. I would expect that a little investigating by someone or something that wants spectrum space, has deep pockets or a friend in Washington, could have much of that band if they wanted it. Save for a few repeaters ( like mine ) the occasional weak signal contest which has fewer and fewer users, and some uncoordinated repeater linking devices there ain't much going on up there. -Mike From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Jordan Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 2:56 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band Richard, The FCC has always had that option to re-assign spectrum.you use the term our frequency which implies you think we have some implied rights to utilize the spectrum. We have no rights, just privileges. The FCC can change those privileges any time they want, as they have just done in the subject case. The doors to encroachments as you say, have always been open, in fact there are no doors. We enjoy our hobby at the whim of the FCC and congress - no rights IMHO! Best, Dave Wa3gin -- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 2:15 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band In my view this opens the door to other encroachments on our frequency allocations. __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4916 (20100304) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4916 (20100304) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4916 (20100304) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2721 - Release Date: 03/03/10 14:34:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
2.4 GHz, there are numorous TV transmitters already designed that operate here, 2 of the 4 channels common channels fall on the ham band and are often converted for ATV use. On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:42 PM, MCH m...@nb.net wrote: The premise is common sense, but, as you say, this is the government. Where would *you* put TV transmitters if not in the TV bands? Joe M. David Jordan wrote: I don't think there is any premise or as you say, ...fact that it should be in the bands where TV is authorized... is relevant. Where the FCC decides to put it is where the fact. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
It suffices to say there are lots of good answers, and none of them are the 440 band. And, there is obviously existing spectrum for these devices, so their waiver should have never been granted. As far as the eBay auction, there ARE legal users of these devices - US! (hams) I can see it now - Live from Dayton... the Hamvention Robot. Joe M. DCFluX wrote: 2.4 GHz, there are numorous TV transmitters already designed that operate here, 2 of the 4 channels common channels fall on the ham band and are often converted for ATV use. On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:42 PM, MCH m...@nb.net wrote: The premise is common sense, but, as you say, this is the government. Where would *you* put TV transmitters if not in the TV bands? Joe M. David Jordan wrote: I don't think there is any premise or as you say, ...fact that it should be in the bands where TV is authorized... is relevant. Where the FCC decides to put it is where the fact. Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2721 - Release Date: 03/03/10 14:34:00
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, David Jordan wrote: My guess is the manufacturer doesn?t have the technology or funding needed to build the cheaply made, significantly over priced crawling camera to operate in the GHz ranges. My bet is that the manufacturer got a deal on some 433MHz camera modules from China. Like BPL?this vendor will disappear once their venture capital has been all used up. The military may purchase some of these units but with tax revenues down nationally, for the next several years, I don?t think your local fire or police dept will be spending many dollars on this low value technology? Doesn't matter; the legal world is ruled by precedents. This sets an unhealthy one. And NTIA/Military has spoken up on the matter -- did you see the section in the order where the device would not be operated within so many miles of several AFBs, which are known to house PAVE-PAWS installations? -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR Disinformation Analyst
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
Sorry, I don't recognize the language you are using to refer to the current topic. The FCC doesn't need a precedent to adjust it's regulatory perspective or inclination. If the FCC wants to cancel all amateur licenses and give the spectrum to GE for some energy saving RF transmission technology they will do so. The 300,000,000 people of the nation won't blink an eye. So, enjoy what you have, it is a priviledge and nothing more. I wouldn't waste a nanosecond worrying about precedent. Best, dave wa3gin - Original Message - From: Kris Kirby To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 4:45 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, David Jordan wrote: My guess is the manufacturer doesn?t have the technology or funding needed to build the cheaply made, significantly over priced crawling camera to operate in the GHz ranges. My bet is that the manufacturer got a deal on some 433MHz camera modules from China. Like BPL?this vendor will disappear once their venture capital has been all used up. The military may purchase some of these units but with tax revenues down nationally, for the next several years, I don?t think your local fire or police dept will be spending many dollars on this low value technology? Doesn't matter; the legal world is ruled by precedents. This sets an unhealthy one. And NTIA/Military has spoken up on the matter -- did you see the section in the order where the device would not be operated within so many miles of several AFBs, which are known to house PAVE-PAWS installations? -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR Disinformation Analyst
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
On 3/4/2010 11:54 AM, David Jordan wrote: What am I missing? That there are other bands specifically set aside for this business purpose, perhaps? :-) Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
On 3/4/2010 1:58 PM, David Jordan wrote: I'm an HFer...Interference doesn't bother me ;-) We'll notify your local power company that they can fire up BPL on your block, effective immediately. :-) (GRIN!) Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
At 3/4/2010 13:45, you wrote: It suffices to say there are lots of good answers, and none of them are the 440 band. And, there is obviously existing spectrum for these devices, so their waiver should have never been granted. As far as the eBay auction, there ARE legal users of these devices - US! (hams) I can see it now - Live from Dayton... the Hamvention Robot. For the price of a Recon Scout, I could've bought 2 10 kW AM broadcast transmitters at last year's Dayton. Or was it a 3 kW transmitter for $10k? Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
HA, They did install BPL near by in Manassas, VA I went there sniffing for RFI and I never heard anything -- drove all over the route -- they went belly up in about 2 yrs. - Original Message - From: Nate Duehr To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 6:18 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band On 3/4/2010 1:58 PM, David Jordan wrote: I'm an HFer.Interference doesn't bother me ;-) We'll notify your local power company that they can fire up BPL on your block, effective immediately. :-) (GRIN!) Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
Not to mention the local CB'ers running a killowatt near your home! LOL! Don, KD9PT - Original Message - From: Nate Duehr To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 5:18 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band On 3/4/2010 1:58 PM, David Jordan wrote: I'm an HFer.Interference doesn't bother me ;-) We'll notify your local power company that they can fire up BPL on your block, effective immediately. :-) (GRIN!) Nate WY0X
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
At 3/4/2010 13:45, you wrote: Doesn't matter; the legal world is ruled by precedents. This sets an unhealthy one. And NTIA/Military has spoken up on the matter -- did you see the section in the order where the device would not be operated within so many miles of several AFBs, which are known to house PAVE-PAWS installations? Finally, someone actually read the RO! Actually, I believe it said no training exercises within 30 km of the AFBs. In actual scene use it can be used anywhere. Now, see the channel assignments for the analog video? Since the video carrier is 1.25 MHz above the bottom of each channel, we can predict where most of the energy is going to fall: 437.25, 443.25 431.25, in descending order of occupancy. If your input isn't near one of those frequencies, you're probably never going to hear from one. The real problem will be us interfering with the Scout RX. Bob NO6B
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
Laryn and others, Here is the link to the RO #08-63 . Please notice the dates on this-it was in 2008... I do not think that the FCC should grant this at all, but we need to let our representatives know both at the ARRL, FCC and senators/congresscritters know that we find this encroachment unacceptable. Maybe they should take over UPS's claim on the 220 band... Phil KK6PE http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1077A1.txt --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, larynl2 lar...@... wrote: Anyone have a real link to this? Those of us on the Web do not get attachments... Laryn K8TVZ
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
Until they start bringing up ATV repeaters, The common input frequencies are 439.25, 434.0, 433.25, 427.25 and 421.25. Now, see the channel assignments for the analog video? Since the video carrier is 1.25 MHz above the bottom of each channel, we can predict where most of the energy is going to fall: 437.25, 443.25 431.25, in descending order of occupancy. If your input isn't near one of those frequencies, you're probably never going to hear from one. The real problem will be us interfering with the Scout RX. Bob NO6B Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
Regarding the orginal RO, does anyone have access to the comments that were received by the FCC on this proposal? Did the ARRL comment on it? Dave WB2FTX - Original Message - From: kg6ziu To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 6:49 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band Laryn and others, Here is the link to the RO #08-63 . Please notice the dates on this-it was in 2008... I do not think that the FCC should grant this at all, but we need to let our representatives know both at the ARRL, FCC and senators/congresscritters know that we find this encroachment unacceptable. Maybe they should take over UPS's claim on the 220 band... Phil KK6PE http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1077A1.txt --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, larynl2 lar...@... wrote: Anyone have a real link to this? Those of us on the Web do not get attachments... Laryn K8TVZ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2722 - Release Date: 03/04/10 14:34:00
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
Dave, I was looking for it on the FCC website, and I saw nothing. Would be very interesting reading. I would also enjoy reading of the internal docs at ReconRobotics. Phil KK6PE --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, David Struebel wb2...@... wrote: Regarding the orginal RO, does anyone have access to the comments that were received by the FCC on this proposal? Did the ARRL comment on it? Dave WB2FTX
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
I believe the ARRL did. I posted the link to it in an earlier message. Richard www.n7tgb.net http://www.n7tgb.net/ Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. -- Ronald Reagan _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Struebel Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 7:31 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band Regarding the orginal RO, does anyone have access to the comments that were received by the FCC on this proposal? Did the ARRL comment on it? Dave WB2FTX - Original Message - From: kg6ziu mailto:ehr...@charter.net To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 6:49 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band Laryn and others, Here is the link to the RO #08-63 . Please notice the dates on this-it was in 2008... I do not think that the FCC should grant this at all, but we need to let our representatives know both at the ARRL, FCC and senators/congresscritters know that we find this encroachment unacceptable. Maybe they should take over UPS's claim on the 220 band... Phil KK6PE http://fjallfoss. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1077A1.txt fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1077A1.txt --- In Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com, larynl2 lar...@... wrote: Anyone have a real link to this? Those of us on the Web do not get attachments... Laryn K8TVZ _ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2722 - Release Date: 03/04/10 14:34:00
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
Anyone have a real link to this? Those of us on the Web do not get attachments... Laryn K8TVZ --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, George Henry ka3...@... wrote: Re: the waiver request by ReconRobotics for 420 - 450 MHz operation. Hams get the shaft again... George, KA3HSW / WQGJ413
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
Try this: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/02/25/11361/?nc=1 Richard www.n7tgb.net http://www.n7tgb.net/ Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. -- Ronald Reagan _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of larynl2 Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 1:48 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band Anyone have a real link to this? Those of us on the Web do not get attachments... Laryn K8TVZ --- In Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com, George Henry ka3...@... wrote: Re: the waiver request by ReconRobotics for 420 - 450 MHz operation. Hams get the shaft again... George, KA3HSW / WQGJ413
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
UMM.. Was just perusing eBay. Guess what I found Search on Recon Scout in cameras an photos! Is this the same device? So much for part 90 licensing. Jason, WA1NH --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH m...@... wrote: Except for the fact these users will be SECONDARY to US. Still, try telling your local PD they have to shut their robot down because they are causing interference... Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: Amateur Radio is NOT PRIMARY on 70cm in the U.S.. Never have been. Never will be. We are SECONDARY ...and NTIA let's us behave like we're primary... most of the time. That's why we lost with previous military systems (ask folk near Camp Pendleton about that one), we lost with PAVE PAWS, and we'll probably lose on this one too. Nate WY0X Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
Got the auction number? On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:30 PM, wa1nh wa...@arrl.net wrote: UMM.. Was just perusing eBay. Guess what I found Search on Recon Scout in cameras an photos! Is this the same device? So much for part 90 licensing. Jason, WA1NH --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH m...@... wrote: Except for the fact these users will be SECONDARY to US. Still, try telling your local PD they have to shut their robot down because they are causing interference... Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: Amateur Radio is NOT PRIMARY on 70cm in the U.S.. Never have been. Never will be. We are SECONDARY ...and NTIA let's us behave like we're primary... most of the time. That's why we lost with previous military systems (ask folk near Camp Pendleton about that one), we lost with PAVE PAWS, and we'll probably lose on this one too. Nate WY0X Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
180455347338 Just sent some pointed questions to the seller. Hope this is NOT the device. --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, DCFluX dcf...@... wrote: Got the auction number? On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:30 PM, wa1nh wa...@... wrote: UMM.. Was just perusing eBay. Guess what I found Search on Recon Scout in cameras an photos! Is this the same device? So much for part 90 licensing. Jason, WA1NH --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, MCH mch@ wrote: Except for the fact these users will be SECONDARY to US. Still, try telling your local PD they have to shut their robot down because they are causing interference... Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: Amateur Radio is NOT PRIMARY on 70cm in the U.S.. Never have been. Never will be. We are SECONDARY ...and NTIA let's us behave like we're primary... most of the time. That's why we lost with previous military systems (ask folk near Camp Pendleton about that one), we lost with PAVE PAWS, and we'll probably lose on this one too. Nate WY0X Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
Well if this is it I had guessed on the Price But close I will Get that little Sucker with My 440 HT http://tinyurl.com/yeyccyk Who will be the First do get the WARA Award Worked all Robot Award 73 De Don KA9QJG Got the auction number? On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:30 PM, wa1nh wa...@arrl.net mailto:wa1nh%40arrl.net wrote: UMM.. Was just perusing eBay. Guess what I found Search on Recon Scout in cameras an photos! Is this the same device? So much for part 90 licensing. Jason, WA1NH
[Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
Actually the DOD has been using these for some time and several bomb disposal robots used higher power than these in the 440 band. I know, I had and used several before retiring. I am not worried as much about the interference to US. Weak signals and short duration events. What I am more concerned about is the Public Safety Officials wanting to arrest a Ham that just happens to be at a scene using his/her 440 HT, and apparently causing interference to a bomb disposal or Haz-Mat team using one of these things. As you might guess, they are not the most robust RF link and Cops being Cops, they won't know that THEY have to suffer the interference. Likely the sales people won't make a point of that. Nor will anyone pull the RF equipment when these things go to surplus for auction. I am afraid these might be bigger problems. All in all it was such a bad decision to allow on 440.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Fw: FCC RO Involving the Amateur 70cm Band
On that note I should point out that most explosives devices don't like being exposed to RF. And AM NTSC video tends to get into a bunch of stuff with the sync pulses. I think this warning appears in most mobile radio manuals and is posted around blasting sites. On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 10:12 PM, iuzpetnrdx2000 petn...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Actually the DOD has been using these for some time and several bomb disposal robots used higher power than these in the 440 band. I know, I had and used several before retiring. I am not worried as much about the interference to US. Weak signals and short duration events. What I am more concerned about is the Public Safety Officials wanting to arrest a Ham that just happens to be at a scene using his/her 440 HT, and apparently causing interference to a bomb disposal or Haz-Mat team using one of these things. As you might guess, they are not the most robust RF link and Cops being Cops, they won't know that THEY have to suffer the interference. Likely the sales people won't make a point of that. Nor will anyone pull the RF equipment when these things go to surplus for auction. I am afraid these might be bigger problems. All in all it was such a bad decision to allow on 440. Yahoo! Groups Links
