| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 27.02.08 19:01l 736 Lines 25407 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 46972-CX2SA
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V3 105 (1/3)
Path: IZ3LSV<IW2OHX<I0TVL<HG8LXL<CX2SA
Sent: 080227/1253Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:46972 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:46972-CX2SA
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: A0-51 "easy sat" (Tony Langdon)
2. Re: AO-51 Ops (Clint Bradford)
3. Re: Radio amateur calling protocol (Tony Langdon)
4. AO7 last pass (w7lrd(AT)comcast.net)
5. Re: AO-51 Ops (Luc Leblanc)
6. Re: Radio amateur calling protocol (Alan Cresswell)
7. Re: Radio amateur calling protocol (Michael A. Tondee)
8. Re: Radio amateur calling protocol (easy Sats) (Joe Krepps)
9. Re: Radio amateur calling protocol (Tony Langdon)
10. Re: Radio amateur calling protocol (Stefan Wagener)
11. Re: Radio amateur calling protocol (Michael A. Tondee)
12. power restriction in New Mexico on 435 MHz (Robert L Lasso)
13. SuitSat-1 is still in the press ... (JoAnne Maenpaa)
14. Re: power restriction in New Mexico on 435 MHz (Lee McLamb)
15. Re: power restriction in New Mexico on 435 MHz (Les Alverson)
16. Re: power restriction in New Mexico on 435 MHz (Rick Mann)
17. Re: power restriction in New Mexico on 435 MHz (G8IFF/KC8NHF)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:10:13 +1100
From: Tony Langdon <vk3jed(AT)gmail.com>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: A0-51 "easy sat"
To: Ben Jackson <bbj(AT)innismir.net>, G8IFF/KC8NHF <nigel(AT)ngunn.net>
Cc: amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org
Message-ID: <200802262010.m1QKAIVI021667(AT)vk3rtl.vkradio.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 10:13 PM 2/26/2008, Ben Jackson wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>G8IFF/KC8NHF wrote:
>| I agree with Cliff. Tha same is true with terrestial repeaters.
>| If you expect a reply then the accepted term is "CQ" not "listening".
>
>I have yet to hear a "CQ" on a repeater here in the US. The normal
>practice here is to announce you're "listening", "monitoring", or just
>give out your call sign.
Actually, I have seen calling CQ on repeaters suggested in guides on
"How to be a LID" :D. Over here, it is also customary to announce
that you're listening. I personally don't like the callsign only
approach (fortunately, it's rare here - only time I can recall
hearing it is US stations via IRLP or Echolink), it's too abrupt and
vague, callsign and status (listening, testing, etc) is the preferred
approach here. That allows for tests as well. :)
As the FM birds are essentially repeaters in the sky, most satellite
operators here use the same convention as for terrestrial
repeaters. Most of the long CQs on FM sats I've heard have been from
newcomers who haven't yet sorted out their receive setups (so they
invariably trash any QSO in progress :( ).
>I've also heard plenty of people reply to this. :)
All the time, that's how repeater QSOs start, unless someone calls
someone specifically. :)
73 de VK3JED
http://vkradio.com
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: 26 Feb 2008 12:21:00 -0800
From: "Clint Bradford" <clintbrad4d(AT)earthlink.net>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-51 Ops
To: <amsat-bb-request(AT)amsat.org>
Cc: <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
Message-ID: <3286873265.11326305(AT)smtpauth.earthlink.net>
.. the accepted term is "CQ" not "listening"...
Accepted by whom?
I have never heard that using a Morse Code code on a voice system was accepted
by anyone of importance.
I haven't seen any reason here yet to change the presentation I've been
giving for years now...described on the amateur radio pages at...
http://www.k6lcs.com
Clint Bradford
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:22:11 +1100
From: Tony Langdon <vk3jed(AT)gmail.com>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Radio amateur calling protocol
To: bruninga(AT)usna.edu, <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
Message-ID: <200802262022.m1QKMFj1022419(AT)vk3rtl.vkradio.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 02:23 AM 2/27/2008, Robert Bruninga wrote:
> > ...quit building FM voice 2 user satellites...
> > [on] AO7 none of those problems existed...
>
>Yes, and hardly anyone uses it...
>
> > Why was [AO51] built??
>
>Because lots of people like to use it from their mobiles, and
>their HT's and it is a great way to get into satellites with
>innexpensive radios that everyone has.
This is more of an issue in the lesser populated parts of the
world. The number of QSOs I've had on the linear birds that weren't
pre-arranged with another local is very small. The majority date
back to the days of RS-10 (now there's a bird I miss). Other than
that, I can recall a QSO on FO-29 during a demonstration at a
hamfest. FM, OTOH, gets a reasonable response, though I have had
SO-50 and UO-14 to myself on late night passes. Think I even managed
AO-51 to myself on one occasion. ;)
What's wrong with the linear birds?
Mode A - there's nothing regular there. Mode A also has the
disadvantage that the 2m uplink must be tuned, when operating under
manual control. Unfortunately, a lot of older 2m SSB radios will not
tune while transmitting, which makes the operating technique fiddly.
Mode B orJ - UHF SSB gear is still not that common. Those that can
afford to regularly update their gear, and those who are VHF/UHF weak
signal operators will have the necessary gear, but the rest of us
don't have it. For a LEO, it's not enough incentive to upgrade. For
a HEO, that's a different ball game.
FOr me, there are 2 kinds of satellites that are likely to be
worthwhile chasing - FM LEOs and linear HEOs. Where is data? Well,
I'm not much one for low speed data, it's not really my cup of tea at
this time, though obviously, data birds do serve a useful purpose too.
> > Disagree: I learn....
>
>There are lots of aspects to the ham radio hobby. Many people
>like different things. Those who like AO51 like it and it is a
>great assset for them. Those who like AO7 use it. There is no
>need to try to force all users to like only one aspect of
>Amateur Satellites. But one thing is certain, we need to reach
>out to more ham radio operators and get them to appreciate how
>easy it is to communicate via satelites. And every single one
>of them has an FM radio.
Agreed, most are blown away when they find out it IS easy :)
73 de VK3JED
http://vkradio.com
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:46:51 +0000
From: w7lrd(AT)comcast.net
Subject: [amsat-bb] AO7 last pass
To: AMSAT-BB(AT)amsat.org (AMSAT-BB)
Message-ID:
<022620082146.28362.47C488CB000E5BB800006ECA22165514060B9D04C999(AT)comc
ast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
This last pass I was trying to work a station that was a couple of db above
mental telepathy. If that was you drop me a note and we'll try it again.
Might have been in Europe (grin).
--
73 Bob W7LRD
AMSAT member 28498
Seattle
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:53:17 -0500
From: Luc Leblanc <lucleblanc6(AT)videotron.ca>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AO-51 Ops
To: amsat-bb(AT)AMSAT.Org
Message-ID: <47C443FD.30594.1FF40FB(AT)lucleblanc6.videotron.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
On 26 Feb 2008 at 12:21, Clint Bradford wrote:
> .. the accepted term is "CQ" not "listening"...
>
> Accepted by whom?
>
> I have never heard that using a Morse Code code on a voice system was
accepted by anyone of importance.
>
> I haven't seen any reason here yet to change the presentation I've been
giving for years now...described on the amateur radio pages at...
>
> http://www.k6lcs.com
>
> Clint Bradford
>
>
When you are alone on nightly pass you can use what you like but on crowded
pass when you hear folks calling CQQQQQ VERYYYY SLOWYYYYY or
blowing in their mike sending carrier to locate their downlink it is advisable
to use your head and logic when calling CQ. Just use
something short and phonetics are often useful but use the standard
international phonetic code. About 65% of the call are not decoded
right the first time as many use all kind of funny phonetics eg: XXXOTM is XXX
OLD TEXAS MAN instead of Oscar Tango Mike.
I don't know why this HF bad habit is still present on the satellites
Luc Leblanc VE2DWE
Skype VE2DWE
www.qsl.net/ve2dwe
WAC BASIC CW PHONE SATELLITE
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:57:14 -0000
From: "Alan Cresswell" <alancresswell(AT)xtra.co.nz>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Radio amateur calling protocol
To: <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
Message-ID: <000201c878ca$ee420490$0601010a(AT)Cresswell2>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Tony Langdon wrote:
>This is more of an issue in the lesser populated parts of the
>world. The number of QSOs I've had on the linear birds that weren't
>pre-arranged with another local is very small. The majority date
>back to the days of RS-10 (now there's a bird I miss). Other than
>that, I can recall a QSO on FO-29 during a demonstration at a
>hamfest. FM, OTOH, gets a reasonable response, though I have had
>SO-50 and UO-14 to myself on late night passes. Think I even managed
>AO-51 to myself on one occasion. ;)
Tony Langdon gives a false impression of current activity in this part of
the world (VK/ZL). There is daily activity on AO-51, VO-52 AO-07 (Both
modes) AO-16 and to a lesser extent SO-50. In the past six months I have
had almost 500 satellite QSOs almost equally spread across the above and
none were pre-arranged!
Alan Cresswell
ZL2BX
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:44:58 -0500
From: "Michael A. Tondee" <mat_62(AT)netcommander.com>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Radio amateur calling protocol
To: <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
Message-ID: <00af01c878d1$994dcd50$6500a8c0(AT)w4hij>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
I remember a recent Journal article about a cardboard model of AO-51 and the
first thing thing that came to my mind was that it would be the perfect gift
for some of the folks who constantly grouse about FM sats. They could hang
it in their shack and throw darts at it. ;-) Seriously though, I want an HEO
bird up there as much as everyone else does and I never even had the
privledge of working AO-40. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy working FM sats.
We've got what we've got and until P3E we just have to live with it. I was
greatly saddened to see FO-29 take a turn for the worse. I mean , things
could be a lot worse, we could have nothing up there.
73,
Michael, W4HIJ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga(AT)usna.edu>
To: <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:23 AM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Radio amateur calling protocol
>> ...quit building FM voice 2 user satellites...
>> [on] AO7 none of those problems existed...
>
> Yes, and hardly anyone uses it...
>
>> Why was [AO51] built??
>
> Because lots of people like to use it from their mobiles, and
> their HT's and it is a great way to get into satellites with
> innexpensive radios that everyone has.
>
>> Disagree: I learn....
>
> There are lots of aspects to the ham radio hobby. Many people
> like different things. Those who like AO51 like it and it is a
> great assset for them. Those who like AO7 use it. There is no
> need to try to force all users to like only one aspect of
> Amateur Satellites. But one thing is certain, we need to reach
> out to more ham radio operators and get them to appreciate how
> easy it is to communicate via satelites. And every single one
> of them has an FM radio.
>
> Bob, WB4APR
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:48:44 -0500
From: Joe Krepps <occupant(AT)ytpress.com>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Radio amateur calling protocol (easy Sats)
To: amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org
Message-ID: <47C4A55C.7060709(AT)ytpress.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Wake me up when we're done bashing AO-51....AGAIN...for the friggin'
umpteenth time! I'm so tired of hearing it, I'm taking a nap!
Joe WB3CFN <-an actual AMSAT member, sometimes wonders 'Why?'
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:56:34 +1100
From: Tony Langdon <vk3jed(AT)gmail.com>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Radio amateur calling protocol
To: "Alan Cresswell" <alancresswell(AT)xtra.co.nz>, <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
Message-ID: <200802262356.m1QNuXN1029945(AT)vk3rtl.vkradio.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 09:57 AM 2/27/2008, Alan Cresswell wrote:
>Tony Langdon gives a false impression of current activity in this part of
>the world (VK/ZL). There is daily activity on AO-51, VO-52 AO-07 (Both
>modes) AO-16 and to a lesser extent SO-50. In the past six months I have
>had almost 500 satellite QSOs almost equally spread across the above and
>none were pre-arranged!
Must be a bit of a resurgence. I used to try RS-12/13 when it was
active, and never got a random QSO on the bird. I know I was getting
in, as I could hear my own downlink quite clearly.
The FM birds certainly have always been active (with the exception of
those occasional late night passes - I'm talking 11PM - 2AM local
time). ISS was "standing room only" when I tried it the other
week. AO-16 is a whole new ball game. Unfortunately, anything with
UHF SSB is not feasible for me at this point in time. :( VHF SSB I
can do (I have 2m all mode capability). AO-7 I haven't tried, mostly
haven't got round to it, plus having a 50/50 chance (assuming a
random distribution of modes) of it being workable for me (I can only
do Mode A on SSB currently).
Thanks for the update BTW.
73 de VK3JED
http://vkradio.com
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:09:08 -0600
From: "Stefan Wagener" <stefan_wagener(AT)hotmail.com>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Radio amateur calling protocol
To: "'Michael A. Tondee'" <mat_62(AT)netcommander.com>,
<amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
Message-ID: <BAY130-DAV13190B32EDAA80DF2064DFF61A0(AT)phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Thanks Michael.
The cardboard model is still being worked on. Will be available soon. I
actually have it hanging in my shack and folks love it! The cool thing is
that it is a "moving target" for the those throwing darts. Always bouncing
back. Energizer bunny stuff. HiHi
73, Stefan VE4NSA
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces(AT)amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces(AT)amsat.org] On
Behalf Of Michael A. Tondee
Sent: February-26-08 5:45 PM
To: amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Radio amateur calling protocol
I remember a recent Journal article about a cardboard model of AO-51 and the
first thing thing that came to my mind was that it would be the perfect gift
for some of the folks who constantly grouse about FM sats. They could hang
it in their shack and throw darts at it. ;-) Seriously though, I want an HEO
bird up there as much as everyone else does and I never even had the
privledge of working AO-40. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy working FM sats.
We've got what we've got and until P3E we just have to live with it. I was
greatly saddened to see FO-29 take a turn for the worse. I mean , things
could be a lot worse, we could have nothing up there.
73,
Michael, W4HIJ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Bruninga" <bruninga(AT)usna.edu>
To: <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:23 AM
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Radio amateur calling protocol
>> ...quit building FM voice 2 user satellites...
>> [on] AO7 none of those problems existed...
>
> Yes, and hardly anyone uses it...
>
>> Why was [AO51] built??
>
> Because lots of people like to use it from their mobiles, and
> their HT's and it is a great way to get into satellites with
> innexpensive radios that everyone has.
>
>> Disagree: I learn....
>
> There are lots of aspects to the ham radio hobby. Many people
> like different things. Those who like AO51 like it and it is a
> great assset for them. Those who like AO7 use it. There is no
> need to try to force all users to like only one aspect of
> Amateur Satellites. But one thing is certain, we need to reach
> out to more ham radio operators and get them to appreciate how
> easy it is to communicate via satelites. And every single one
> of them has an FM radio.
>
> Bob, WB4APR
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB(AT)amsat.org. 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
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:50:57 -0500
From: "Michael A. Tondee" <mat_62(AT)netcommander.com>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Radio amateur calling protocol
To: "Stefan Wagener" <stefan_wagener(AT)hotmail.com>,
<amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
Message-ID: <000601c878e3$333b1b00$6500a8c0(AT)w4hij>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Hi Stefan,
Well I'm definitely interested in having one when it's ready and I for one
will not be throwing darts at it.
I have some time off from work coming up and I'm hoping to finally finish
setting my station back up so I can start throwing some "RF darts" at the
real AO-51 and AO-7 and VO-52 as well. I like em all!!!
73,
Michael, W4HIJ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Wagener" <stefan_wagener(AT)hotmail.com>
To: "'Michael A. Tondee'" <mat_62(AT)netcommander.com>; <amsat-
bb(AT)amsat.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 7:09 PM
Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Re: Radio amateur calling protocol
> Thanks Michael.
>
> The cardboard model is still being worked on. Will be available soon. I
> actually have it hanging in my shack and folks love it! The cool thing is
> that it is a "moving target" for the those throwing darts. Always bouncing
> back. Energizer bunny stuff. HiHi
>
> 73, Stefan VE4NSA
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: amsat-bb-bounces(AT)amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces(AT)amsat.org]
On
> Behalf Of Michael A. Tondee
> Sent: February-26-08 5:45 PM
> To: amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Radio amateur calling protocol
>
> I remember a recent Journal article about a cardboard model of AO-51 and
> the
>
> first thing thing that came to my mind was that it would be the perfect
> gift
>
> for some of the folks who constantly grouse about FM sats. They could
> hang
> it in their shack and throw darts at it. ;-) Seriously though, I want an
> HEO
>
> bird up there as much as everyone else does and I never even had the
> privledge of working AO-40. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy working FM
> sats.
>
> We've got what we've got and until P3E we just have to live with it. I was
> greatly saddened to see FO-29 take a turn for the worse. I mean , things
> could be a lot worse, we could have nothing up there.
> 73,
> Michael, W4HIJ
>>
>>> Why was [AO51] built??
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:04:55 -0700
From: Robert L Lasso <rlasso(AT)zianet.com>
Subject: [amsat-bb] power restriction in New Mexico on 435 MHz
To: amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org
Message-ID: <47C4C547.1010004(AT)zianet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I need clarification about the power restrictions in New Mexico on 435
MHz band for terrestrial and satellite communications. Can't seem to
find the definitive answer by searching on the internet. Any help is
appreciated. 73, Robert W6RQR
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:34:19 -0600
From: "JoAnne Maenpaa" <k9jkm(AT)comcast.net>
Subject: [amsat-bb] SuitSat-1 is still in the press ...
To: "'Amsat-Bb(AT)Amsat. Org'" <amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org>
Message-ID: <001801c878e9$41617c00$6701a8c0(AT)familyroom>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Folks still remember SuitSat-1:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/02/suitsat-one--th.html
--
73 de JoAnne K9JKM
k9jkm(AT)amsat.org
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:46:59 -0500
From: Lee McLamb <ku4os(AT)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: power restriction in New Mexico on 435 MHz
To: amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org
Message-ID: <200802262146.59242.ku4os(AT)cfl.rr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
97.313
(f) No station may transmit with a transmitter power exceeding 50 W
PEP on the UHF 70 cm band from an area specified in footnote US7 to
Sec. 2.106 of part 2, unless expressly authorized by the FCC after
mutual agreement, on a case-by-case basis, between the District Director
of the applicable field facility and the military area frequency
coordinator at the applicable military base. An Earth station or
telecommand station, however, may transmit on the 435-438 MHz segment
with a maximum of 611 W effective radiated power (1 kW equivalent
isotropically radiated power) without the authorization otherwise
required. The transmitting antenna elevation angle between the lower
half-power (-3 dB relative to the peak or antenna bore sight) point and
the horizon must always be greater than 10 degrees.
2.106 Footnote US7
(a) Those portions of Texas and New Mexico bounded on the south by latitude
31?45' North, on the east by 104?00' West, on the north by latitude 34?30'
North, and on the west by longitude 107?30' West;
The FCC has a nice map of the areas affected by the 50w limit at
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/us7/
73,
Lee-KU4OS
On Tuesday 26 February 2008 21:04:55 Robert L Lasso wrote:
> I need clarification about the power restrictions in New Mexico on 435
> MHz band for terrestrial and satellite communications. Can't seem to
> find the definitive answer by searching on the internet. Any help is
> appreciated. 73, Robert W6RQR
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB(AT)amsat.org. 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
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:00:29 -0500
From: Les Alverson <kd4sfd(AT)bellsouth.net>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: power restriction in New Mexico on 435 MHz
To: amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org
Message-ID: <47C4EE6D.8000002(AT)bellsouth.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Forgive my obtuseness, but why is the state of Arizona have the limitation.
The others made sense, and I know that it is not the a primary reason
for the government to be clear on the reason.
(Also being back in school has lowered my normal level of common sense.)
73's Les
KD4SFD
Lee McLamb wrote:
> 97.313
> (f) No station may transmit with a transmitter power exceeding 50 W
> PEP on the UHF 70 cm band from an area specified in footnote US7 to
> Sec. 2.106 of part 2, unless expressly authorized by the FCC after
> mutual agreement, on a case-by-case basis, between the District Director
> of the applicable field facility and the military area frequency
> coordinator at the applicable military base. An Earth station or
> telecommand station, however, may transmit on the 435-438 MHz segment
> with a maximum of 611 W effective radiated power (1 kW equivalent
> isotropically radiated power) without the authorization otherwise
> required. The transmitting antenna elevation angle between the lower
> half-power (-3 dB relative to the peak or antenna bore sight) point and
> the horizon must always be greater than 10 degrees.
>
> 2.106 Footnote US7
> (a) Those portions of Texas and New Mexico bounded on the south by latitude
> 31?45' North, on the east by 104?00' West, on the north by latitude 34?30'
> North, and on the west by longitude 107?30' West;
>
> The FCC has a nice map of the areas affected by the 50w limit at
> http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/us7/
>
>
> 73,
> Lee-KU4OS
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:23:53 -0800
From: Rick Mann <rmann(AT)latencyzero.com>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: power restriction in New Mexico on 435 MHz
To: Lee McLamb <ku4os(AT)cfl.rr.com>
Cc: amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org
Message-ID: <37B39D03-070F-4BDA-B080-4A967E38C907(AT)latencyzero.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
On Feb 26, 2008, at 6:46 PM, Lee McLamb wrote:
> 97.313
> (f) No station may transmit with a transmitter power exceeding 50 W
> PEP on the UHF 70 cm band from an area specified in footnote US7 to
> Sec. 2.106 of part 2, unless expressly authorized by the FCC after
Huh. I didn't know this. Why?
--
Rick
------------------------------
Message: 17
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:31:02 +0000
From: G8IFF/KC8NHF <nigel(AT)ngunn.net>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: power restriction in New Mexico on 435 MHz
To: Robert L Lasso <rlasso(AT)zianet.com>
Cc: amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org
Message-ID: <47C51FC6.6070304(AT)ngunn.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Surely the difinitive answer is in your license document.
Robert L Lasso wrote:
> I need clarification about the power restrictions in New Mexico on 435
> MHz band for terrestrial and satellite communications. Can't seem to
> find the definitive answer by searching on the internet. Any help is
> appreciated. 73, Robert W6RQR
>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Sent via amsat-bb(AT)amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
End of AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol 3, Issue 105
****************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
