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

[Marshall Cross]

We had a license for testing roll out surface wave antennas at Ft. Devens in the AM band last year. No problem, Marshall, W1HK

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 24, 2015, at 11:23 AM, Warren K2ORS <k2ors at verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> John et al.,
> 
>    Look up WE2XVM, DX Engineering has an Experimental license and can run 10kW carrier from 1.8-54MHz on a non-interference basis.
> 
>    Many commercial outfits especially military contractors and vehicle developers have experimental licenses for EMI testing that overlap HF/VHF/UHF/microwave ham bands.
> 
> 
> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 600MRG mailing list
>> 600MRG at w7ekb.com
>> http://w7ekb.com/mailman/listinfo/600mrg_w7ekb.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 600MRG mailing list
>> 600MRG at w7ekb.com
>> http://w7ekb.com/mailman/listinfo/600mrg_w7ekb.com
> 
> 
> ---
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
> http://www.avast.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 600MRG mailing list
> 600MRG at w7ekb.com
> http://w7ekb.com/mailman/listinfo/600mrg_w7ekb.com