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/XBH3A4BB565J6YONQIZI7H4A2RGKKC3W/",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/",
    "message_id": "01a201c6ee0f$63f860a0$0b0a0a0a@RICK",
    "message_id_hash": "XBH3A4BB565J6YONQIZI7H4A2RGKKC3W",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/AHL4IB52FIAV3CR6256BRLPTZTOMH7FU/",
    "sender": {
        "address": "w2gps (a) cnssys.com",
        "mailman_id": "5948a5f4b4c343b5ae370965ac0fc1c2",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/5948a5f4b4c343b5ae370965ac0fc1c2/emails/"
    },
    "sender_name": "Rick Hambly (W2GPS)",
    "subject": "[eagle] Re: FCC Omnibus R&O",
    "date": "2006-10-12T15:02:09Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/A7P25RMPMGWYUZFFCDFCRNBA7ACD5JRM/",
    "children": [
        "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/XP43EDEIPJFROF2JOJDHPDO46LOCI2WH/"
    ],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "Bob,\n\nYou said \"This is tantamount to a license since they get right of refusal.\" \n\nI do not believe this is correct. I can find no evidence that this is more\nthan a one-way information dump so the FCC can pass the information on to\nITU, per ITU rules.\n\nYou said \"I suggest we find out very early indeed if there is going to be a\nproblem with 3.4 GHz. Rinaldo claimed to me at the symposium that the F.C.C.\nis going to tell us absolutely NO WAY.\"\n\nBecause we are planning on using the 3.4 GHz satellite band as an uplink\nonly I can see no possible objection to its use by the FCC or anyone else. I\nneed to have this conversation with Paul to see where he is coming from with\nthat comment. I have left him a message and will talk with him today.\n\nRick\nW2GPS\nAMSAT President\n \n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of\nRobert McGwier\nSent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 1:47 AM\nCc: AMSAT BoD; AMSAT Eagle; AMSAT Advisors; senior-officers\nSubject: [eagle] Re: FCC Omnibus R&O\n\nThis is, without a doubt, the silliest thing I have ever read on page \n38.   I can't believe they wrote these things into law.  What do you \ncompute the probability of hitting a meteor or space station to be in \nHEO?   But since we only do LEO,  we do not need to do anything. ;-)\n\nI have been told incorrect information in the last few days.  Rinaldo \nsays we need to license,  someone else told me we do not have to license \nand that we can just wait to see what their reaction is to (say) 3.4 GHz \non orbit.  But it is clear from the regulations  as amended in part E of \nthe document (page 20) we have to notify the F.C.C. of our intentions to \nradiate in advance of launch and we have to be specific and file this \nwith the international bureau.  This is tantamount to a license since \nthey get right of refusal.   I suggest we find out very early indeed if \nthere is going to be a problem with 3.4 GHz. Rinaldo claimed to me at \nthe symposium that the F.C.C. is going to tell us absolutely NO WAY.   \nAfter we coordinate with the IARU,  I suggest we make this filing.  If \nwe are going to be denied 3.4 GHz,  we might as well find out now before \nwe expend a lot of effort.  I suggest we say 3.4 GHz for regions 2,3 and \n1.2 GHz for region 1 in some loosely worded notification.\n\n\nBob\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTom Clark, K3IO wrote:\n> I'm still in CA and am on a distant sideroad on the information highway.\n>\n> I find out that the Commission on Oct.10 released a Report & Order \n> that makes lots of changes to the amateur regs.\n>\n> Of particular interest in section E on page 20, the FCC addresses \n> AMSAT's request for more latitude in filing pre-launch information by \n> reducing the old 17 month window to 3 months. A humorous error appears \n> in footnote 163 where they suggest all satellites are LEOs.\n>\n> Of much more interest is the detailed wording on pages 37/38 where the \n> Commission in part 97.207 finally defines their view of debris, \n> mitigation plans, etc.\n>\n> The documents can be found at\n>>\n>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-149A1.pdf\n>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-149A1.txt\n>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-149A1.doc\n>>  \n> and I have attached the PDF version FYI\n>\n> 73, Tom\n>\n> ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n>\n> _______________________________________________\n> Via the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA\n> [email protected]\n> http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle\n>   \n\n\n-- \nAMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL,\nTAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair\n\"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat.\nYou pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los\nAngeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly\nthe same way: you send signals here, they receive them there.\nThe only difference is that there is no cat.\" - Einstein\n\n_______________________________________________\nVia the Eagle mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA\[email protected]\nhttp://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/eagle\n\n",
    "attachments": []
}