[amsat-florida] Re: [amsat-bb] FCC 70cm Proposal

Graham Shirville g.shirville at btinternet.com
Wed Apr 15 09:27:42 PDT 2009


Hi Lou,

Yes I agree we should never relax!

Thanks for reminding me of the fact:)

73

Graham
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Louis McFadin" <w5did at mac.com>
To: "Graham Shirville" <g.shirville at btinternet.com>
Cc: "Keith N4ZQ" <n4zq at netzero.com>; <amsat-bb at amsat.org>; 
<amsat-florida at amsat.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: [amsat-florida] Re: [amsat-bb] FCC 70cm Proposal


>I don't believe relaxing is a good idea. Constant vigilance by all is  the 
>mantra to have. I am worried about getting sued for causing  someone to 
>have some reaction to my 70CM signal I send up to AO51 or  other satellite 
>or talking to the local repeater. Someone who I have  no knowledge of.
> We should ask them to stay away from the 70 cm ham band. 400Mhz is OK  as 
> long as they can accept signals from 420 + without harm.
>
> I would think something that has health consequences would receive a  lot 
> of careful safety analysis before being made operational.
>
> On Apr 15, 2009, at 4:28 AM, Graham Shirville wrote:
>
>> A further check with an expert gives me this response:
>>
>> "No protection at all - at least in Europe. Short Range Devices must  not
>> cause interference and must suffer any interference they receive.  Ofcom
>> don't like that, but it's in the Short range Device Directive. Not  that
>> Ofcom pay any attention to it if they can avoid doing so. Even Part  95 
>> MICS
>> devcies in the US get no protection, and that applies every where  else,
>> too."
>>
>> so perhaps we can relax?
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> Graham
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Graham Shirville" <g.shirville at btinternet.com>
>> To: "Keith N4ZQ" <n4zq at netzero.com>; <amsat-bb at amsat.org>;
>> <amsat-florida at amsat.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 8:38 AM
>> Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] FCC 70cm Proposal
>>
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> From another group I read that the maximum power radiated outside  the 
>>> body
>>> will be around -30 to -40dBm, so not much chance of these systems  being 
>>> a
>>> problem to us.
>>>
>>> But of course if they expect "protection" from our signals....
>>>
>>> 73
>>>
>>> Graham
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Keith N4ZQ" <n4zq at netzero.com>
>>> To: <amsat-bb at amsat.org>; <amsat-florida at amsat.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 11:18 PM
>>> Subject: [amsat-bb] FCC 70cm Proposal
>>>
>>>
>>>> This is interesting....  N4ZQ
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> FCC Proposes to Allocate 20 MHz of Spectrum in 413-456 MHz Band For
>>>> Implanted Neuromuscular Devices
>>>>
>>>> The FCC has released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM - ET  Docket
>>>> 09-36) seeking comment on a proposal to allocate 20 MHz of  spectrum in
>>>> the 413-457 MHz band for use by wireless medical devices that  could be
>>>> implanted into the human body and used to restore sensation and
>>>> mobility to paralyzed limbs and organs.  The devices would act as a
>>>> wireless medical micro-power network (MMN) within the patient.   Among
>>>> the conditions that could be treatable using MMNs include polio, ALS
>>>> (Lou Gehrig's disease), cerebral palsy, and spinal cord injuries.
>>>>
>>>> The 400 MHz band is targeted because it is optimal for RF  propagation
>>>> through body  tissue.  The devices would require at least 5 MHz of
>>>> bandwidth to function and would operate on a low power, secondary  non-
>>>> interference basis.  Twenty MHz of spectrum in four band segments  are
>>>> proposed so that the device would have four options in case one band
>>>> segment was already in use in a given area. The NPRM seeks comment  on
>>>> the feasibility of four different band segments:
>>>>
>>>> * 413-419 MHz
>>>>
>>>> * 426-432 MHz
>>>>
>>>> * 438-444 MHz
>>>>
>>>> * 451-457 MHz
>>>>
>>>> Comment is also sought on:
>>>>
>>>> * Potential for interference between MMNs and incumbent users
>>>>
>>>> * Service rules (licensed or unlicensed, definitions, permissible
>>>> communications, eligibility, etc.)
>>>>
>>>> * Technical rules (power limitations, bandwidth, frequency  stability,
>>>> channelization, antenna locations, etc.)
>>>>
>>>> The text of the News Release is available at:
>>>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289482A1.doc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> Learning Centers - Click Here.
>>>> http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYXVv0gKYPqCr8IkCaCq5KAFARA3MaWnAKwpstVyhQi63dVmuM3Jz6/
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the 
>>>> author.
>>>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
>>>> program!
>>>> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Via the AMSAT-Florida mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA
>> AMSAT-Florida at amsat.org
>> http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-florida
>
>
>
> Lou McFadin
> W5DID
> w5did at mac.com
>
> 



More information about the AMSAT-Florida mailing list