A further check with an expert gives me this response:
"No protection at all - at least in Europe. Short Range Devices must not cause interference and must suffer any interference they receive. Ofcom don't like that, but it's in the Short range Device Directive. Not that Ofcom pay any attention to it if they can avoid doing so. Even Part 95 MICS devcies in the US get no protection, and that applies every where else, too."
so perhaps we can relax?
cheers
Graham ----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Shirville" [email protected] To: "Keith N4ZQ" [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 8:38 AM Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] FCC 70cm Proposal
Hi All,
From another group I read that the maximum power radiated outside the body will be around -30 to -40dBm, so not much chance of these systems being a problem to us.
But of course if they expect "protection" from our signals....
73
Graham ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith N4ZQ" [email protected] To: [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 11:18 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] FCC 70cm Proposal
This is interesting.... N4ZQ
FCC Proposes to Allocate 20 MHz of Spectrum in 413-456 MHz Band For Implanted Neuromuscular Devices
The FCC has released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM - ET Docket 09-36) seeking comment on a proposal to allocate 20 MHz of spectrum in the 413-457 MHz band for use by wireless medical devices that could be implanted into the human body and used to restore sensation and mobility to paralyzed limbs and organs. The devices would act as a wireless medical micro-power network (MMN) within the patient. Among the conditions that could be treatable using MMNs include polio, ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), cerebral palsy, and spinal cord injuries.
The 400 MHz band is targeted because it is optimal for RF propagation through body tissue. The devices would require at least 5 MHz of bandwidth to function and would operate on a low power, secondary non- interference basis. Twenty MHz of spectrum in four band segments are proposed so that the device would have four options in case one band segment was already in use in a given area. The NPRM seeks comment on the feasibility of four different band segments:
413-419 MHz
426-432 MHz
438-444 MHz
451-457 MHz
Comment is also sought on:
Potential for interference between MMNs and incumbent users
Service rules (licensed or unlicensed, definitions, permissible
communications, eligibility, etc.)
- Technical rules (power limitations, bandwidth, frequency stability,
channelization, antenna locations, etc.)
The text of the News Release is available at: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289482A1.doc
Learning Centers - Click Here. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYXVv0gKYPqCr8IkCaCq5KAF...
Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
I don't believe relaxing is a good idea. Constant vigilance by all is the mantra to have. I am worried about getting sued for causing someone to have some reaction to my 70CM signal I send up to AO51 or other satellite or talking to the local repeater. Someone who I have no knowledge of. We should ask them to stay away from the 70 cm ham band. 400Mhz is OK as long as they can accept signals from 420 + without harm.
I would think something that has health consequences would receive a lot of careful safety analysis before being made operational.
On Apr 15, 2009, at 4:28 AM, Graham Shirville wrote:
A further check with an expert gives me this response:
"No protection at all - at least in Europe. Short Range Devices must not cause interference and must suffer any interference they receive. Ofcom don't like that, but it's in the Short range Device Directive. Not that Ofcom pay any attention to it if they can avoid doing so. Even Part 95 MICS devcies in the US get no protection, and that applies every where else, too."
so perhaps we can relax?
cheers
Graham ----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Shirville" [email protected] To: "Keith N4ZQ" [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 8:38 AM Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] FCC 70cm Proposal
Hi All,
From another group I read that the maximum power radiated outside the body will be around -30 to -40dBm, so not much chance of these systems being a problem to us.
But of course if they expect "protection" from our signals....
73
Graham ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith N4ZQ" [email protected] To: [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 11:18 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] FCC 70cm Proposal
This is interesting.... N4ZQ
FCC Proposes to Allocate 20 MHz of Spectrum in 413-456 MHz Band For Implanted Neuromuscular Devices
The FCC has released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM - ET Docket 09-36) seeking comment on a proposal to allocate 20 MHz of spectrum in the 413-457 MHz band for use by wireless medical devices that could be implanted into the human body and used to restore sensation and mobility to paralyzed limbs and organs. The devices would act as a wireless medical micro-power network (MMN) within the patient. Among the conditions that could be treatable using MMNs include polio, ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), cerebral palsy, and spinal cord injuries.
The 400 MHz band is targeted because it is optimal for RF propagation through body tissue. The devices would require at least 5 MHz of bandwidth to function and would operate on a low power, secondary non- interference basis. Twenty MHz of spectrum in four band segments are proposed so that the device would have four options in case one band segment was already in use in a given area. The NPRM seeks comment on the feasibility of four different band segments:
413-419 MHz
426-432 MHz
438-444 MHz
451-457 MHz
Comment is also sought on:
Potential for interference between MMNs and incumbent users
Service rules (licensed or unlicensed, definitions, permissible
communications, eligibility, etc.)
- Technical rules (power limitations, bandwidth, frequency
stability, channelization, antenna locations, etc.)
The text of the News Release is available at: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289482A1.doc
Learning Centers - Click Here. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYXVv0gKYPqCr8IkCaCq5KAF...
Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Via the AMSAT-Florida mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-florida
Lou McFadin W5DID [email protected]
Hi Lou,
Yes I agree we should never relax!
Thanks for reminding me of the fact:)
73
Graham ----- Original Message ----- From: "Louis McFadin" [email protected] To: "Graham Shirville" [email protected] Cc: "Keith N4ZQ" [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 4:51 PM Subject: Re: [amsat-florida] Re: [amsat-bb] FCC 70cm Proposal
I don't believe relaxing is a good idea. Constant vigilance by all is the mantra to have. I am worried about getting sued for causing someone to have some reaction to my 70CM signal I send up to AO51 or other satellite or talking to the local repeater. Someone who I have no knowledge of. We should ask them to stay away from the 70 cm ham band. 400Mhz is OK as long as they can accept signals from 420 + without harm.
I would think something that has health consequences would receive a lot of careful safety analysis before being made operational.
On Apr 15, 2009, at 4:28 AM, Graham Shirville wrote:
A further check with an expert gives me this response:
"No protection at all - at least in Europe. Short Range Devices must not cause interference and must suffer any interference they receive. Ofcom don't like that, but it's in the Short range Device Directive. Not that Ofcom pay any attention to it if they can avoid doing so. Even Part 95 MICS devcies in the US get no protection, and that applies every where else, too."
so perhaps we can relax?
cheers
Graham ----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Shirville" [email protected] To: "Keith N4ZQ" [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 8:38 AM Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] FCC 70cm Proposal
Hi All,
From another group I read that the maximum power radiated outside the body will be around -30 to -40dBm, so not much chance of these systems being a problem to us.
But of course if they expect "protection" from our signals....
73
Graham ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith N4ZQ" [email protected] To: [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 11:18 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] FCC 70cm Proposal
This is interesting.... N4ZQ
FCC Proposes to Allocate 20 MHz of Spectrum in 413-456 MHz Band For Implanted Neuromuscular Devices
The FCC has released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM - ET Docket 09-36) seeking comment on a proposal to allocate 20 MHz of spectrum in the 413-457 MHz band for use by wireless medical devices that could be implanted into the human body and used to restore sensation and mobility to paralyzed limbs and organs. The devices would act as a wireless medical micro-power network (MMN) within the patient. Among the conditions that could be treatable using MMNs include polio, ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), cerebral palsy, and spinal cord injuries.
The 400 MHz band is targeted because it is optimal for RF propagation through body tissue. The devices would require at least 5 MHz of bandwidth to function and would operate on a low power, secondary non- interference basis. Twenty MHz of spectrum in four band segments are proposed so that the device would have four options in case one band segment was already in use in a given area. The NPRM seeks comment on the feasibility of four different band segments:
413-419 MHz
426-432 MHz
438-444 MHz
451-457 MHz
Comment is also sought on:
Potential for interference between MMNs and incumbent users
Service rules (licensed or unlicensed, definitions, permissible
communications, eligibility, etc.)
- Technical rules (power limitations, bandwidth, frequency stability,
channelization, antenna locations, etc.)
The text of the News Release is available at: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289482A1.doc
Learning Centers - Click Here. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYXVv0gKYPqCr8IkCaCq5KAF...
Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Via the AMSAT-Florida mailing list courtesy of AMSAT-NA [email protected] http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-florida
Lou McFadin W5DID [email protected]
-
Graham Shirville -
Louis McFadin