[600MRG] USA 630m Amateur Band Approval - Counter Viewpoint

[Scott Armstrong]

Has anyone seen anything published or heard rumors of how long the UTC has
to implement the ability to file notice  once all this is made official and
published in the Federal Register?

-Scott AA5AM

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Brian, WA1ZMS <wa1zms at att.net> wrote:

> FWIW.....My QTH is 750m away from a 138kV line. I doubt that such a line
> would use PLC, yet I cannot rule it out. Time will tell. So if there is any
> consolation for you Mike, that's two of us "that are in the same boat" as
> for locations.
>
> So when the window opens for notification to UTC, I will give my QTH,
> claim max EIRP for both bands and wait for 30 days. Let the UTC take it
> from there. If no reply in 30-days, then I'll be QRV.
>
> I've waited for a decade for the new bands, so I'll remain hopefull. But
> I'm also not willing to give in to the <1km
> limitations without a good extra fight if needed.
>
> I see the FCC's situation as a best political compromise between technical
> justification of co-existance on the bands and acknowledging the nation's
> critical (albeit rapidly aging) power grid system.  It may be bitter sweet
> for a few of us, but I wouldn't want it anyother way for the hobby.
>
> In the meantime, I'll be looking forward to you and I and others having CW
> QSOs under Part 97! :-)
>
>
> -Brian, WA1ZMS & XHS/31 & WG2XIQ
> iPhone
>
> > On Mar 31, 2017, at 12:27 PM, Michael Mussler <mmussler at wispertel.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > Marshall & others,
> > If I apply the horizontal distance rule (I’m on a fairly steep hillside)
> it looks like the center of my antenna lies about 600m from the center of
> the transmission line in question.
> >
> > Remarks I’ve seen on the 600m Reflector are optimistic that the distance
> rule would only prevent operation on 630m if a PLC system is in use on the
> transmission line in question. From my perspective:
> >
> > 1. The FCC has offloaded their communications regulatory
> responsibilities onto UTC, an entity of unknown background, resources or
> experience in these matters.
> > 2. What is the financial incentive for UTC to take on this
> responsibility? I expect there would be none from amateur radio interests.
> > 3. Assuming the answer to number 2 is little to none, then the expedient
> path of least resistance is for UTC to simply deny amateur operation inside
> the 1 km distance.
> >
> > It took five years following WARC 12 for the FCC to act on this measure
> when other first world countries authorized privileges almost immediately.
> There must have been significant objections to granting of amateur
> privileges on these frequencies in the US. This could be a means of denying
> the amateur radio privileges while officially not doing so. That smacks of
> politics, but I’d be really, really surprised if the outcome differs from
> this scenario in my situation.
> >
> > 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
>