Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

[Top] [All Lists]

Re: LF: Needless restrictions re : Trans Atlantic

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: LF: Needless restrictions re : Trans Atlantic
From: "captbrian" <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:42:56 -0000
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
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 !
----- 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, [email protected] 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 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.
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>