As I said previous to this note, our analysis and all of this hoopla is released too early. We have not fully prepared for the onslaught and we have only done a <<technical analysis>> that resulted from the assumption that Galileo was going to cause loss of L band. It is not in our political interests frankly for this understanding to be widespread but now that it is, we might as well go ahead and do all of our "worst case scenario" analysis in public.
It is my understanding that Argentina and the Netherlands have LOST 2400-2450 for use by terrestrial radio amateurs because of interference from amateur radio operators (primarily BLOODY ATV) to 802.11 services. Amateurs have been told to stop transmitting in those bands. I need much more information.
DO NOT SEND YOUR ANECDOTE HERE.
Please send to me DIRECTLY your personal, first hand knowledge of loss of 2400-2450 IN YOUR COUNTRY or any other country FOR WHICH YOU CAN PROVIDE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. I have no interest whatsoever in rumor. I need facts. If this phenomenon is widespread, then the use of S band as an uplink is a useless argument to be having and the whining can stop. ALL that was done in San Diego was a technical analysis. No legal or political analysis has been done at all. We are not prepared to say "This is what we are doing". We are prepared to say "This is what the technical folks came up with given the assumption of the loss of L band and the assumption that 9 cm would be politically unacceptable". NOTHING ELSE should be assumed now.
But let me repeat (ad infinitum?), I am personally interested in managing the design and building of an instrument that accomplishes the AMSAT vision statement. If I find that we have essentially lost all microwave bands we have in the amateur satellite service that can be used effectively to support the vision statement (given engineering computation and "circuit practicalities"), I will lose interest in managing this whether it be an AMSAT political decision or an international frequency disaster which we have allowed to go unanswered in any substantive way. AMSAT-DL is the perfect vehicle to produce P3 spacecraft with our help where needed. We do not need to duplicate their efforts.
DO NOT send your anecdote to this list. Send your FACTS to me, with supporting evidence, so I can summarize what I believe the impact of this to be for the AMSAT BOD.
Bob N4HY
Aren't licensed spectrum users the ones protected under ITU regulations? Or is the FCC the only regulatory body that does so?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert McGwier" [email protected] To: "amsat bb" [email protected] Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 9:31 AM Subject: [amsat-bb] S band: Too early, as I said
<snip>.
It is my understanding that Argentina and the Netherlands have LOST 2400-2450 for use by terrestrial radio amateurs because of interference from amateur radio operators (primarily BLOODY ATV) to 802.11 services. Amateurs have been told to stop transmitting in those bands. I need much more information.
<snip>
There is the law, then there is politics, and finally there is a huge dollar industry with lots of paid lobbyists versus a few million hobbyists who are not a huge billion dollar industry and poorly paid lobbyists if any. We have myriad examples in recent history where laws, treaty's, conventions, constitutions, etc. are mere inconveniences to be twisted to suit ones own agenda.
In each of the cases I know about so far, the radio amateur(s) was set upon by the local governing body. The local governing body found they were operating in accordance with the law. They found the part 15 devices were operating correctly. The net result has been the local governing body told the amateur to cease and desist or change the rules completely and removed the spectrum from amateur radio.
We will lose fighting 802.11. We need a wedge of a few MHz up and down. It would be nice for it to be universally available. I am afraid that no such possibility exists. In the case of choosing 2400, we chose it so region 1 could operate. If several countries in region 1 are going to lose 2400 by having emitters there, or have already lost it, then it might be preferrable to go to the safest place for AMSAT-NA and hope we can get the rules changed elsewhere. I am not sanguine there is a universal solution left to us.
Bob
George Henry wrote:
Aren't licensed spectrum users the ones protected under ITU regulations? Or is the FCC the only regulatory body that does so?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert McGwier" [email protected] To: "amsat bb" [email protected] Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 9:31 AM Subject: [amsat-bb] S band: Too early, as I said
<snip>.
It is my understanding that Argentina and the Netherlands have LOST 2400-2450 for use by terrestrial radio amateurs because of interference from amateur radio operators (primarily BLOODY ATV) to 802.11 services. Amateurs have been told to stop transmitting in those bands. I need much more information.
<snip>
Nope, at least not here (ZL),
Amateurs are secondary users and use is on a non-interference basis. Nor can we complain when we experience interference from other users.
That's what it says on my licence.
Sil
George Henry wrote:
Aren't licensed spectrum users the ones protected under ITU regulations? Or is the FCC the only regulatory body that does so?
participants (3)
-
George Henry -
Robert McGwier -
Sil - ZL2CIA