[600MRG] 639m Access: Part 5 or Part 97?

[Warren K2ORS]

John,

      There are many experimental licenses that overlap the existing ham 
bands, so I don't think that we are talking about the FCC asking the 
experimental licensees to vacate if a ham band is created. What I 
believe the discussion was about was that the ARRL experimental license 
holder W1FR would ask the WD2XSH participants to vacate the new ham 
band. I believe also that ARRL would not seek to renew WD2XSH when/if a 
630m ham band is established.

     That said, I agree that the best strategy is for the experimental 
licensees who want to continue to operate once a ham band is established 
should do so outside of the ham band (but within their license grant of 
course!)

73 Warren



On 3/24/2015 10:29 AM, John Langridge wrote:
> As I recall, early discussions suggested that when the FCC was ready to make a move, those within the band would be told to vacate.  Of course any objections could be aired during the comment period but I can't see why any one of us would have an objection.  Most of us have asked for spectrum larger than the 472-479 band so in effect we would be notching out that piece of band.  Those that had asked only for 472-479 would not longer be able to operate under part 5 rules.
> Those are my recollections based on some conversations and discussions.  Juan, K4LCD / WG2XXF, had many conversations with the FCC while trying to get his tenuous grant pushed through and that was one of the items that came up.
>
> In short,  no, I don't expect it to be an impact but I realize that attitudes and agendas change.  Not to mention one persons comment in an FCC office may not reflect the opinions of the commission as a whole.
>
> 73!
> John XIQ
>        From: Michael Mussler <mmussler at wispertel.net>
>   To: Frank Lotito <k3dz at live.com>
> Cc: 600 / 630 Meter Group <600mrg at w7ekb.com>
>   Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 9:10 AM
>   Subject: [600MRG] 639m Access: Part 5 or Part 97?
>
> There’s another angle on the status of the 630m ham band that hasn’t been covered by the recent discussion. Has the flurry of Part 5 applications for access to this part of the spectrum had some bearing on the FCC consideration for the Part 97 (Amateur) allocation? As someone pointed out, Parts 5 and 97 are totally separate in the FCC regulations. Is it possible that the Part 5 license activity has delayed the Part 97 request as an attempt to consider possible conflicts between future uses of this spectrum?
>
> I’m not making any judgements one way or the other about the utility of the Part 5 licenses for 630m access. I honestly don’t know how the FCC views or manages these matters and pose this question with the hope that someone more familiar with the process can weigh in.
>
> 73
> Mike
> AI8Z
> WD2XSH/12
>
>
>
>

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com