Return-Path: Received: (qmail 71020 invoked from network); 30 Dec 2004 08:42:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ptb-spamcore01.plus.net) (192.168.71.1) by ptb-mailstore02.plus.net with SMTP; 30 Dec 2004 08:42:23 -0000 Received: from mailnull by ptb-spamcore01.plus.net with spamcore-l-b (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1CjwGF-000MMM-5J for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:06:24 +0000 Received: from [192.168.67.1] (helo=ptb-mxcore01.plus.net) by ptb-spamcore01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1CjwGF-000MMJ-2a for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:06:23 +0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by ptb-mxcore01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1Cjvt0-000Chx-5e for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:42:22 +0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Cjvrq-0000zC-5i for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:41:10 +0000 Received: from [193.82.116.30] (helo=relay.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Cjvrp-0000z3-NE for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:41:09 +0000 Received: from mailhost.ntl.com ([212.250.162.8] helo=mta13-winn.mailhost.ntl.com) by relay.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1Cjvro-0001UY-4g for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:41:09 +0000 Received: from aamta07-winn.mailhost.ntl.com ([212.250.162.8]) by mta13-winn.mailhost.ntl.com with ESMTP id <20041230084056.DWKN10495.mta13-winn.mailhost.ntl.com@aamta07-winn.mailhost.ntl.com> for ; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:40:56 +0000 Received: from captbrian ([80.1.84.5]) by aamta07-winn.mailhost.ntl.com with SMTP id <20041230084055.TZXE8064.aamta07-winn.mailhost.ntl.com@captbrian> for ; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:40:55 +0000 Message-ID: <001701c4ee4b$901e9de0$05540150@captbrian> From: "captbrian" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <1d8.3390f377.2f04f91b@aol.com> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:42:56 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-SPF-Result: relay.thorcom.net: 212.250.162.8 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of ukonline.co.uk X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=no,HTML_20_30=0.474,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: Re: LF: Needless restrictions re : Trans Atlantic Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet SpamCORE (v3.00) Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Thanks. I found that quite illuminating. How can the Power companies claim to be permitted to operate under part 15  rules [ antennas and feeder  etc not to exceed 15 metres ] when their antenna systems are hundreds of miles long ?
 
I only ask !
 
Bryan
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 6:24 AM
Subject: Re: LF: Needless restrictions re : Trans Atlantic

In a message dated 12/29/2004 3:32:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, captbrian@ukonline.co.uk writes:
From what you say (which I did not previously know) a LF amateur band has been specifically denied in USA . I would be interested to know what reasons were given.....just tell me if there is a website
We reported quite a bit at lwca.org on the attempt to gain US  2200m privileges.  The ARRL had additionally proposed 160-190kHz in their petition, but in 2002, the FCC turned down the latter request.  It was claimed this 30kHz segment would be too unwieldy from a spectrum management standpoint and might place the power grid in too much jeopardy.
 
Still, all indications in 2002 were that the relatively tiny 2.1kHz slice at 2200m would fly through.  After another year dragged by, the power industry persuaded the Commission that a huge guard band around 137kHz would be necessary because of the extremely lax tolerances in the industry's PLC gear (thus, my reference to our Fourth World power grid) and that it would cost them tens of millions to upgrade their stuff.
 
ARRL may have some of their stories archived.  We have the FCC Report and Order from 2003, with a summary of all their considerations on the matter at that time.  It's at:
 
I hope that helps.
 
John