Email Detail

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "url": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/3HBFPJ2LPCUQRBUGZJBJMIFWCMJWMV7V/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "3HBFPJ2LPCUQRBUGZJBJMIFWCMJWMV7V",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/3HBFPJ2LPCUQRBUGZJBJMIFWCMJWMV7V/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "vk3jed (a) gmail.com",
        "mailman_id": "e049fcabdd4648088cd7ce227ab7c655",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/e049fcabdd4648088cd7ce227ab7c655/emails/?format=api"
    },
    "sender_name": "Tony Langdon",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: FW: ARLB013 ARRL aiding effort to mitigate repeaterinterference to military radars",
    "date": "2007-04-24T23:31:17Z",
    "parent": null,
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "At 03:20 AM 4/25/2007, Nate Duehr wrote:\n\n>Proof positive that a reasonable solution can probably be found.\n>\n>The Amateur allocation in the UHF band is a Primary allocation of the\n>US Military in the US, with the specific wording in the NTIA\n>documentation stating the military is to \"treat Amateurs as Primary\".\n\nWell, the military over here as well have certainly been more of a \nfriend than a foe.  Our biggest dangers these days are not from the \nmilitary, but from unlicensed gadgets, which have been approved for \nuse in the 433 - 434 MHz band.  What made this a really nasty problem \nis that the authorities put few limits on the emission types, leading \nto cordless headphones, crane controllers (nasty potential for OHS \nimplications here) and other high duty cycle devices on the \nband.  Wlesr, this happens to be about 80-90% of the available \nrepeater inputs.  Because of the duty cycle, CTCSS is not a solution, \nall you end up is a bunch of \"deaf\" repeaters that takes a kW to \nopen.  Had the devices been limited to low duty cycle applications, \nCTCSS would have been enough to prevent the occasional \"blip\" from \nsomeone's wireless doorbell opening up the repeater.\n\nOh, and as for satellites, well some of the cheap junk could drift \ninto the 435 MHz region.  I already know of some cordless headphones \nthat drift as high as 434.900, which is outside the allocated band \nfor these devices.  These get into a repeater which was moved outside \nthe affected band to get away from the problem.  Oh, and interference \nfrom these devices \"does not exist\", as far as the legislation \ngoes.  It's actually written into the LCD (confirmed, I have read the \nclause myself).\n\nThe flip side of this madness is it is nigh on impossible to find a \nwireless doorbell or weather station that will work reliable in my \nenvironment.  They use SAW filters in their receivers, and these get \nseverely desensed by ANY 70cm transmissions, even the repeater \noutput, 5 MHz away.  The older 304 MHz stuff is much better for my uses. :)\n\nSome new inputs (with an odd 5.4 MHz split) have been opened up to \ntry and alleviate the problem with the repeaters, but it's a hack to \nwork around the mess the authorities have given us.\n\nGive me the military anytime to share the band with, they play ball \nmuch nicer than the rabble and the profiteers that feed them. :)\n\n73 de VK3JED\nhttp://vkradio.com\n\n",
    "attachments": []
}