Message-ID: <002401c1fd03$6a3b87a0$1ee8fc3e@l8p8y6>
From: "hamilton mal" <g3kev.ham@virgin.net>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <cd.179dbdb6.2a152bc1@aol.com>
Subject: Re: LF: USA 136kHz proposals
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 18:39:40 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>


----- Original Message -----
From: <WarmSpgs@aol.com>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: LF: USA 136kHz proposals


> In a message dated 5/16/02 6:33:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> dsergeant@connectfree.co.uk writes:
>
> << I am puzzled why they are putting this
> stipulation on bandwidth, which I do not believe anybody else has done. >>
>
> You've heard of the philosophy some folks have over here?  The one about:
> "the business of government is business."
>
> One of the reasons cited in the FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is an
> objection filed by Texas Instruments, who make "smart card" readers that
work
> at 121 kHz.  They're afraid hams are going to operate with such huge power
> and with such dirty signals that we would interfere with their lucrative
(and
> totally unallocated) use of the LF spectrum.
>
> I don't know many hams who are going to try to operate LF from their
> high-rise apartments or right next to department stores, secret research
> facilities, or major office buildings, so I'm not sure who would be
affected
> by amateur operation 15 bloomin' kilohertz away at 1W EIRP!  But that's
their
> argument.
John, You would be surprised what some radio amateurs do, here in the UK
they do operate from high rise apartment blocks, terraced houses and semi
detached on the LF bands.
In other parts of EU they probably do the same and maybe the USA.

>
> 73,
> John  KD4IDY
>
>