Message-ID: <002501c31ad9$b9182aa0$3704210a@Hugh>
From: "Hugh M0WYE" <m0wye@thersgb.net>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030515120743.00aeeca8@gemini.herts.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 13:01:27 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: No US Ham Band
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

Hi Jim, et al,
Also sorry to hear about no LF band for US.

I think it is not radio interference, but political interference they are
referring to in the paragraph you quoted. Because earlier it says:

>an allocation to the amateur service could result in the need for PLCs to
modify or cease their >operations to avoid causing interference to
amateurs,"

73
Hugh M0WYE

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Moritz" <j.r.moritz@herts.ac.uk>
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>; <lowfer@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: LF: No US Ham Band


> Dear John, LF group, Lowfers
>
> Very sorry to hear about the FCC's absurd decision. The ARRL report
reads:-
>
>  >The FCC said a new amateur LF allocation is not justified "when balanced
> against the greater public interest of an interference-free power grid."
>
> Have they got this the right way round? Virtually all radio services on LF
> suffer a continual and steadily increasing amount of interference from the
> power grid, but I have yet to hear of an instance where radio signals
cause
> interference problems to the power grid. All seems a bit "Alice in
> Wonderland"...as if a secretary somewhere had made a typo, and no-one who
> knew anything about the subject had ever checked it.
>
> Cheers, Jim Moritz
> 73 de M0BMU
>
>
>