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

Trevor . m5aka at yahoo.co.uk
Wed Apr 15 11:49:23 PDT 2009


Hi Graham, 

We should bear in mind that in the British Isles and Europe Automobile Key Fobs, which operate on 433.920 MHz as against the 315 MHz used elsewhere, are also "Unprotected Devices". 

In a number of cases in the UK where people have complained about being unable to open their Automobiles in the vicinity of licenced 70cm Amateur Radio Repeaters then the Regulator (Ofcom in UK) has forced the licensed Amateur repeater to shutdown. 

Nevermind the cause of the problem is the Automobile Key Fob receiver. These typically have wide open front ends that collapse in the presence of strong RF fields.

For those in North America, repeaters in the UK are individually licensed and now as a result of Key Fobs using 433.920 MHz anyone wishing to set up a 70cm repeater has to prove to the regulator that the "Unprotected" Automobile Key Fobs will not suffer "interference" (overload) from the repeater. 

Embedded (implanted) radio devices for medical applications is set to become a boom industry in the coming years. While the current FCC proposal relate to one particular application it is inevitable that once granted the frequencies will in coming years be used for a wide variety of other medical devices. 

Irrespective of what may be said now the health care needs of citizens (voters) will take precedance over Ham Radio operations. 

If these devices end up in Ham Radio allocations then we will in time be forced out. 

73 Trevor M5AKA

--- On Wed, 15/4/09, Graham Shirville <g.shirville at btinternet.com> wrote:

> From: Graham Shirville <g.shirville at btinternet.com>
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: [amsat-florida] Re:   FCC 70cm Proposal
> To: "Louis McFadin" <w5did at mac.com>
> Cc: amsat-florida at amsat.org, amsat-bb at amsat.org
> Date: Wednesday, 15 April, 2009, 5:27 PM
> 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
> >
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 


      



More information about the AMSAT-Florida mailing list