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/T3S2FHIRRONCBJA4JYXJCTOJ4VKPTCU6/",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "T3S2FHIRRONCBJA4JYXJCTOJ4VKPTCU6",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/T3S2FHIRRONCBJA4JYXJCTOJ4VKPTCU6/",
    "sender": {
        "address": "K3IO (a) verizon.net",
        "mailman_id": "79a9b3ddaa4b44baae47f92374974ac4",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/79a9b3ddaa4b44baae47f92374974ac4/emails/"
    },
    "sender_name": "Tom Clark, K3IO",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: 50 MHz (was S band and Eagle: an appeal for a higherleveldiscussion)",
    "date": "2006-09-12T19:49:51Z",
    "parent": null,
    "children": [
        "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/YFP4VOJMBYYDA3SJIBHJOIKLL2M7AVJ6/"
    ],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "Trevor, M5AKA asked\n\n> What are peoples views on trying to get an Amateur Satellite Service allocation\n> at 50-51 MHz ? \nOn time scales of 10 years (i.e. soon enough to be applicable to any of\nthe ongoing decisions), IMHO the chances are somewhere between\n\"microscopically slim\" and \"no way in hell\". Any change like this has to\nbe proposed to the ITU (usually by the IARU) by some national delegation\n(BTW -- the head of delegation has Ambassadorial status) at a WRC.\n\nIf the proposal isn't laughed out of the house instantly, it will be\nreferred to the ITU's Study Groups for presentation at a subsequent WRC.\nThen the topic might be placed in front of the ITU, where it it might be\nadopted.\n\nThe ITU's recommendations must then be ratified as a treaty by the\nnations involved. Here in the USA, it is offered up by the President (if\nhe/she cares) to be ratified by the Senate (a political process that\nhasn't been going too swiftly on this side of the pond -- witness Kyoto).\n\nTo squeeze out spectrum for Galileo (& the other proposed new GNSS\nsystems) -- which involves gigaEuro financial issues -- took at least 3\nWRC cycles (if I count right) -- i.e. 10++ years.\n\nBTW -- Since we'd have to have the first fight just in the IARU in order\nto have the chance of getting the ideas considered by the ITU/WRC cycle,\nthe initial fight would be 6M vs more world-wide 40M spectrum; and I\nnote that the IARU has a heavy pro-HF bias.\n\nPersonally, if we were going to fight a battle, I'd rather see us fight\nfor an S2 = 3400-3410 MHz allocation in R1.\n\n73, Tom\n\n\n",
    "attachments": []
}