FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:

Callsign	Required
Password

If you've forgotten and/or need to reset your password, please enter your Callsign and use the button below.

If you are not a member of the eHam community

Please consider registering to e-Ham.

Search

Manager

Manager - AB7RG
Manager Notes

View Articles Subscribe

FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:

Created by Eric Struble, N6PYF on 2007-06-06

FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Northern California Reduced to 5 Watts:

Below is a letter from the ARRL essentially telling 104 UHF repeater operators in Northern California to reduce the output power of their repeaters to 5 watts from the transmitter, which cannot be adjusted up for system losses. This action also affects a number of repeaters in Massachusetts.

This is only the first action, what's next?

Eric Struble, N6PYF

June 4, 2007

As I am sure you are aware, the Air Force and Department of Defense (DoD) have raised concerns about interference on the 420-450 MHz band to the Pave Paws Radar (PPR) installations, located at Beale AFB near Sacramento, CA and Otis AFB at Cape Cod in Massachusetts. Let me begin by saying thanks for your patience in this process. While rumors and stories have been circulated over the past several months, hopefully this letter will serve to give you a true understanding of the situation, bring you up to speed what the DoD is requesting in terms of mitigation, and lay out a plan of action that the DoD has agreed to try in resolving the issue.

At the request of the DoD, on March 21, 2007 representatives of the ARRL met with Air Force Spectrum Management officials to discuss their claims of an escalating problem of interference to the PPR sites. According to the DoD, the in-band interference from Amateur Radio fixed FM voice repeaters had increased to an unacceptable level. Pave Paws radars are used for national security functions, including early detection of water-launched missiles. They are critical to our national defense and are in use 24 hours per day, seven days per week.

It is important to note that the Amateur Radio Service is a secondary user in the 420-450 MHz band, both by the Table of Frequency Allocations and the FCC Part 97 regulations. As such, Amateur Radio licensees, jointly and individually, bear the responsibility of mitigating or eliminating any harmful interference to the primary user, which in this case is the Government Radiolocation Service that includes the DoD Pave Paws systems.

Our goal has been to develop and implement a plan that would mitigate the interference, and at the same time to permit the repeaters to continue operation and to operate on as liberal a basis as possible. To do so, we have offered to work closely with the two involved repeater coordinating groups as well as the individual repeater owners . Our plan is to share information and to deal with this issue on a coordinated basis with all stakeholders.

Since the meeting of March, 2007, ARRL staff members have been working with DoD officials to come up with a mutually acceptable plan to address the mitigation needs of the Air Force, which would also allow as many of the subject repeaters to remain operational as possible. While there are many unanswered questions due to the classified nature of the Pave Paws system, the ARRL has openly tried to share information.

In our communications with the DoD, we have asked for as much information as possible, especially the criteria by which particular repeaters were included on the list of interference contributors, and what level of signal strength would be acceptable to avoid interference to the radar. The DoD has not yet indicated what its agents relied on in identification of the repeaters nor the methodology used. It cannot (for security reasons) provide any of the technical parameters of the radars, except to tell us that it is not a matter of individual frequencies. Rather, they claim the noise levels in the entire band are an issue. In order to determine what actions to propose, the ARRL Laboratory has spent a significant amount of time trying to determine what technical parameters might be acceptable to the DoD for each individual repeater. This has included doing Longley-Rice calculations for each identified repeater (Longley-Rice calculations are based on electromagnetic theory and on statistical analyses of both terrain features and radio measurements. The studies predict the median attenuation of a radio signal as a function of distance and the variability of the signal in time and in space.) The two repeater coordinating groups (NESMC and NARCC) cooperated by sending information from their records on each coordinated repeater.

In mid-April the ARRL asked affected repeater owners to voluntarily reduce transmitter power output for each repeater to 5 Watts. Many repeater owners responded accordingly, though some did not or chose to reduce power but not to the 5 Watt transmitter output level. This reduction was a temporary recommendation pending the outcome of the Longley-Rice calculations and further mitigation strategies. We conveyed this proposal to the DoD on April 23, 2007. We received back their response on June 1, 2007. These exchanges lay out the mitigation plan detailed below.

The DoD requested that a single point of contact be identified through which all of the repeater owners would direct questions/inquiries. The ARRL has agreed to serve as that single point of contact and designated my office as that point of contact. Please direct all questions to me by email at n1nd@arrl.org or by telephone at 860-594-0236. Depending on the nature of your query, I will bring in other resources (such as lab expertise) as necessary.

We have also been in contact with representatives of the FCC, who have the ultimate responsibility for enforcing any mitigation plan, up to and including ordering specific repeaters to shut down operations. The FCC is aware of the complex nature of this problem and the mitigation strategy being proposed in this letter.

The DoD has indicated a willingness to try a mitigation proposal, but have also indicated their need is for these issues to be resolved sooner rather than later. With that expediency in mind, the proposed mitigation strategy is as follows:

1) All repeaters on the DoD list in the affected areas will immediately reduce power to 5 Watts transmitter power output. Each repeater licensee/trustee should contact my office to confirm this once this has been done for their system. We need confirmation of this being done from each repeater owner by June 15, 2007.

2) The ARRL will provide the Longley-Rice calculations for each repeater to the DoD by June 15, 2007. The DoD will provide engineering data to the ARRL and FCC by June 15, 2007. These studies will be reviewed by the DoD, the ARRL Lab and the FCC to determine the amount of mitigation necessary for each repeater. Based on this review by the DoD, additional mitigation proposals for individual repeaters (including further power reductions, lowering of antenna heights, use of more directive antennas and other possible mitigation techniques) will be provided by the ARRL as needed to individual repeater owners. If there is a disagreement on the conclusions, a conference call will be held to resolve any outstanding issues.

3) All interference must be resolved no later than August 1, 2007.

4) Beginning in August, 2007 (and continuing on a periodic basis), the DoD will have a follow-up engineers study at each PPR site to ensure corrective actions have been taken and the interference and to ensure that successful mitigation continues.

As secondary users on the band, we have few options; and all options involve cooperation with the DoD. Hopefully the Longley-Rice calculations from the ARRL and the DoD's engineering studies will provide enough data to allow as many of the repeaters in the affected areas as possible to remain on the air at reasonable power levels. It is entirely probable that even with extreme mitigation techniques, some repeaters in close proximity to the PPR sites may have to be shut down permanently. If that happens, official notice would come from the FCC. It is also possible that some repeaters might be required to operate permanently at a lower power level than the maximum 50 watts permitted by the FCC rules in the areas near these Air Force bases. In those cases, we will be in contact with the individual repeater owners with that information, and the FCC will be notified.

It is important to note that once an acceptable field strength for a given repeater is determined and implemented, the repeater owner will need to be diligent to make sure that the non-interfering RF level is not exceeded in the future by any combination of antenna gain, directivity and transmitter power. We understand that the mitigation strategies are going to mean some repeaters will have a smaller coverage area than they currently have. Unfortunately the option of reduced power or antenna gain or height may be the necessary alternative to shutting down permanently. The cooperation and good faith of the amateur community is important in this arena, as the long-term goal is to continue to allow amateur radio activity on these bands in the affected areas.

We ask that you, and all repeater owners affected by this issue, immediately implement the 5 Watts TPO for your repeater/s. We again ask that you please contact me by June 15 indicating if you have implemented the power reduction. This will allow us to have on hand levels of voluntary compliance that can be used to show the cooperation of the amateur community. It is to each repeater's long-term advantage to implement the power reduction as soon as possible. The DoD has indicated they will be collecting engineering data during June. This presents the opportunity to assess a repeater's actual impact at the lower power level and a more honest determination of its continued potential for harmful interference to the PPR sites. If any repeaters are running at higher power levels, then the determinations can only be based on assumptions rather than on actual data.

Thanks for your understanding in this complex matter and your cooperation in helping implement this plan of action immediately in order to meet the June 15 initial deadline requested by the DoD. If you have any questions you may contact me at 860-594-0236 or by email at n1nd@arrl.org Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or queries.

Sincerely,

Dan Henderson, N1ND
ARRL Regulatory Information Specialist

KJ6KO	2007-07-08
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
I must express my dissapointment with the handling of this interference issue by the ARRL. There are several questions that should have been asked and a few rumors that need to be verified. Here are a few questions I have... 1. PAVE/PAWS and the 440 repeater community have co-existed for fourty years. Why all of a sudden is there an interference issue? 2. What procedures were used to determine the interfering repeaters? Some of the repeaters on the list have not existed for some time and a couple, like the one listed in Sonora, are so far out of the rad pattern of the PAVE PAWS array at Beale that it couldn't possibly be an issue. Also, there are MANY closer repeaters that are NOT on the list, some on the same hilltop as ones on the list. Explain please. 3. Is the interference 24 X 7? If so, 99% of all the 440 repeaters are off the air in the early morning hours between 1am and 4am and couldn't possibly be the source of the interference. 4. PAVE/PAWS uses the entire 420-450 spectrum. The UHF repeater outputs in Northern CA only use the 440-445 range. Isn't the PAVE PAWS system smart enough to realize that it has another 25MHZ it can use? 5. Wouldn't it be easier to just have the repeater owners function off their repeaters at the same time for a set time and date to verify that they are actually the source? 6. What type of "interference" are they seeing? (see "RUMORS" #2 below) 7. Best of all, what are the qualifications of the CONTRACTORS that were used to locate the "interference"? The DOD did not do it, they hired contractors to do it, and since the PAVE/PAWS system is built by Raytheon, they were probably several sub-contractor levels below that! RUMORS......anyone verify or verify false? 1. The original PAVE/PAWS stsyem was a "smart" system that had the capability of detecting other "secondary" users within it's spectrum and "avoiding" that frequency. I heard that the "interference" began after an "upgrade" to the system. The area between 420-440 is largely unused except by low power, directional links and a few weak signal operators on 432.1. Isn't the system "smart" anymore? 2. I heard that the interference was "an increased noise floor". That opens so many doors other than Amateur Radio as the cause. 3. I know most of the high profile RF contractors in the Sacramento area and none of them were used. Judging by the callsigns on some of the listed repeaters, it looks like some sub-sub-sub-contractor turned on his spectrum analyzer, saw a bunch of spikes in the 440 band, opened up a 3yr old repeater directory and made a list, collected his money and split claiming victory! 4. Oh yea, don't forget the THOUSANDS of 433MHz wireless weather stations and thermometers that are very low power, but very broad! The PAVE/PAWS array has tremendous gain and looks over a very populated area! 5. If PAVE/PAWS can pinpoint an incoming missile direction and range, can't it pinpoint the interference down to the "knat's A##"? (I know you RADAR guys are going over a dozed different scenarios why not in your heads right now, and I know that too, being a former TACAN RADAR tech, but still, exact direction is very possible!) Come on...Sonora!!!??? (91mi SE of Beale AFB) Do you see where I am going with this? I don't believe that Amateur 440 repeaters are the cause. Since it started after an "upgrade", supposedly, maybe the "upgrade" authors failed to realize that the band had secondary users?? Maybe there is a "noisy" repeater that needs repair? Maybe it is one of the dozen or so megawatt HD/DIGITAL UHF TV transmitters that came up in the last two years directly within the RAD area of the system with a little "noisy" skirt? (several below 550MHZ) I think before we accepted blame for this problem, that magically appeared after 40 years, a little more investigation is in order as to just what kind of interference it actually is! KJ6KO Reply to a comment by : N5KBP on 2007-06-06 Re-read it. The 5 watt at the transmitter is strictly a temporary fix until they do the studies. As stated after the studies some might be able to come back up in power and some may have to shut down completely. Just depends upon how close and what kind of propagation they get to the affected bases. Marty N5KBP Reply to a comment by : N6ACA on 2007-06-06 I can understand reducing power requirements, but from what I read it specifies output power from the repeater transmitter, not EIRP. What is to stop a repeater owner from installing several directional antennas with high gain and a fairly narrow beam width (i.e. 90 or 120 degree sort of like what is used in a cell phone site tower) to deliver a higher effective radiated power to the repeater users? 73 N6ACA Aaron

W3LK	2007-06-09
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
Chip: <<And the truth may seem funny to some. >> Nope, it's YOU that is funny or rather the attitude you have towards everyone who doesn't agree with you and your attempts at threats and intimidation. 73, Lon - W3LK Baltimore, Maryland - soon to be Naugatuck, Connecticut Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-08 RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali Reply by W3LK on June 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend! You know, Chip, I don't know when I've laughed so hard at someone making themselves look foolish without help from anyone else as I have the last two days reading your posts. Thanks so much for the comic relief. 73, Lon - W3LK ----------------------------- Well Lon, If it AFFECTS you that much, then put your hands together, pray real hard, and maybe HE'll answer your prayer for a recall of W1YW. But just so you know--it hasn't worked to date. And the truth may seem funny to some. 73, Chip W1YW

W1YW	2007-06-09
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
Chip, I may be thought by some to be fanning the flames, but something you said above doesn't make sense to me. " When the repeaters go to Low Power... -Mobiles will be running MUCH higher power; " The emphasis on "much" is your own. This is not the only conclusion you have posited in the posting, but I'm not immediately interested in the others. ------------------------------------ It's a good question and I am happy to expand. I have noticed, especially in the last few years with the influx of new Techs on the repeaters, that there is a fallacy that makes many mobiles assume that if they don't HEAR the repeater at FULL QUIETING, then THEY NEED TO TRANSMIT AT THE HIGHEST POWERS POSSIBLE in order to be full quieting INTO the repeater. In other words, if the repeaters run on LP, the fact that it's not strong means that you have to be strong for it to hear you. But how many hams always think out the logic and understand when 'reciprocation' in propagation applies? And that transmit/receive antennas on repeaters need not be the same? Thus there are MANY repeater users that jack up their power far in excess of 25 watts on 2M and 440. Whether they need to or not. You haven't noticed this? Lowering the repeater powers is an invitation for them to fallaciously jack up the MOBILE powers so they are, in their minds, full quieting into 'flaky' links...when in fact they probably are full quieting INTO the repeater without that power added. I'm certainly NOT condoning it. But you better accept that it happens and will happen more. Lotsa lil' amplifiers behind the dash and the megarigs put out a fair amount of power on 440. 73, Chip W1YW

KC0VCU	2007-06-09
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
Chip, I may be thought by some to be fanning the flames, but something you said above doesn't make sense to me. " When the repeaters go to Low Power... -Mobiles will be running MUCH higher power; " The emphasis on "much" is your own. This is not the only conclusion you have posited in the posting, but I'm not immediately interested in the others. What interests me in this conclusion is that there are two possible interpretations to your statement that I can see. Either you mean mobiles will be running much higher power relative to the repeaters they are using than they were before, or you mean that mobiles will be running much higher power than they are already. The first is a given, whether the mobile was running 35 watts, 10 watts, 5 watts, or a 1/4 watt. I am presuming that the repeaters were running 35 watts, and are now running 5, though the assessment is still true if the repeaters were running 50, or 150 watts. The problem with this is that when asked what devices were of concern, the repeaters were identified, and the mobile devices were not. I am not suggesting that mobile devices can not be a concern, just that they were not identified at that time. If they become a concern, then we will likely see a different recommendation in the future. The second is the more likely, yet more questionable interpretation in my mind. Basically it suggests that hams will boost their transmit power in an effort to hear a repeater that is coming in poorly. While I am certain that there are operators who will do this, my own experience, as little as it is, tends to suggest that boosting my power does not tend to make it easier for me to hear a repeater that is out of range, or which is coming in poorly. It may improve signal reports from other operators indicating that I am now full quieting, but so far as I have seen, it does not change the transmitting power of the repeater, or change how sensitive the receiver in my radio is. Similarly since the recommendation does not request that the repeater owners attenuate the signals they receive, then if you were bringing the repeater to full quieting before, boosting your transmit power is not going to improve your signal as it passes through the repeater. If you are suggesting that my observations are invalid, I'll allow that I may be in error. My suspicion on what will happen is that people who have enjoyed using their mobile rigs at some distance from the repeater, yet closer to the radar installation, will tend to find the repeater to be less usable, and will either look for other repeaters in the 440 band to use, or will switch to 2 meter repeaters with better coverage. The former option would either not change their impact to the situation or if there were no other 440 band repeaters to use would have the same effect as the latter. The latter would, as they would no longer be operating in the affected band. I am interested in learning your view on this. My own view is based upon the perspective that most operators want to be heard, and know that they are heard, which means that they have to clearly hear the other users of the repeaters the are communicating over. (Or at least as clearly as necessary to understand the other party.) Otherwise they are going to be as frustrated and as likely to continue trying, as a 10 meter user in the US trying to communicate with Australia at the low point in the sunspot cycle. I'm sure that there are some that try, but I tend to suspect that they are far fewer. I'll acknowledge that there are hams who will try to shout louder, thinking that they will hear better as well. I understand it is somewhat effective in SSB, until distortion and spattering become an issue. -Rusty - kc0vcu Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-07 How in your mind does this translate to ARR" demanding extant interference in mobile Part 97 operations? The question was asked and answered by the military, and it is work enough to address specifically what they have identified as a problem. I don't think that ARRL's choosing to work on what they asked us to can translate to the demand that your flight of fancy envisions, Chip. > Ed, I am not aware of any problems I have. And I > don't give a poop about your sarcasm. I'm sure you don't, Chip, on either count. And the top of a very nice day to you. Ed Hare, W1RFI --------------------------- Ed, if you choose, IMO, to make an idiot of yourself, tha's your option. IMO, only an idiot would take the stance that repeaters pose the problem and mobiles don't-- because someone didn't say it yet. When the repeaters go to Low Power... -Mobiles will be running MUCH higher power; --Mobiles will have MUCH higher ERP's; --Mobiles can be closer to the PAVEPAWS radars than virtually all the effected repeaters; --the threat of hamful interference from Part 97 mobiles will reach or exceed that previously acheived from fixed stations. It certainly is untenable to not take the side of prudence and recommend that mobiles also cut their powers. As I said, I would be happy to alert them (AFSMO and the FCC) of this real potential for harmful interference--indeed, I would be pleased to assist them if they require calibration measurements from a licensed radio amateur with 420-450 MHz mobile ability. And as you know Ed, that is a non-commercial activity. I don't see YOU making that offer there Ed... 73, Chip W1YW

W1YW	2007-06-09
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
OM, You can discuss anything you want. What you can't do, with impunity, is defame others and expect such actions to have no consequences. I have no issues with you expressing OPINIONS as long as they are not something else that is NOT opinion: FALSE 'facts' with the intent of injury. As for RFID, I don't care about this 433 MHz issue; there are those who are more than capable of handling it; and it has nothing to do with ham radio. I take no objection to you expressing your interest in it. It just isn't interesting to ME--as a ham or otherwise. I do indeed have a substantial knowledge base on RFID, and I certainly keep in mind issues that might potentially impact ham radio. IMO, you should be grateful that hams in this and other industries DO have such interests that keep ham radio in mind. Have a pleasant weekend and hope to work you on FD. 73, Chip W1YW

WA1RNE	2007-06-09
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
Chip, Normally I am not as prone to voice my opinion as I have about someone's posts on this forum. In retrospect, I don't feel we are setting a good example for others, especially newer hams. I would prefer a technical exchange of ideas with more civility and respect, especially in voicing a disagreement or debating a point of view. In my profession we don't carry on this way and would expect yours is similar. BTW, restrictions on 440 doesn't bother me personally as I don't use the band, but for others sake, I was serious about the RFID's..... ....WA1RNE Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-08 Please stop your false statements. It is in your best interest to end this harassment and libel.

AE6RO	2007-06-09
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
Who is the HE that he should pray to for your recall?! The Old Man? Juliette Charlie? Der Toefel? When I wrote "no rights whatsoever" I meant exactly that. And try 60 meters if you really want restrictions. I only listen in but it seems activity has died off lately there too. 73, AE6RO Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-08 RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali Reply by W3LK on June 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend! You know, Chip, I don't know when I've laughed so hard at someone making themselves look foolish without help from anyone else as I have the last two days reading your posts. Thanks so much for the comic relief. 73, Lon - W3LK ----------------------------- Well Lon, If it AFFECTS you that much, then put your hands together, pray real hard, and maybe HE'll answer your prayer for a recall of W1YW. But just so you know--it hasn't worked to date. And the truth may seem funny to some. 73, Chip W1YW

AE6RO	2007-06-09
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
I don't have to deal with it. 1). I don't own a repeater 2). I don't live in Norcal 3). I don't work 440 at all. I lost my only handitalkie on an airport shuttle in 1999 and no, they didn't bring it back. I just think it's an interesting story since the military hasn't asked hams to QRT since World War II. Not even for Korea or Vietnam. 73, AE6RO Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-08 That means the 440 repeater owners and/or mobiles have no rights whatsoever -------------------------- Of course not. It is a privilege, and more restrictive than other bands. Deal with it.

STRAIGHTKEY	2007-06-08
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
"maybe HE'll answer your prayer for a recall of W1YW" Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-08 RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali Reply by W3LK on June 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend! You know, Chip, I don't know when I've laughed so hard at someone making themselves look foolish without help from anyone else as I have the last two days reading your posts. Thanks so much for the comic relief. 73, Lon - W3LK ----------------------------- Well Lon, If it AFFECTS you that much, then put your hands together, pray real hard, and maybe HE'll answer your prayer for a recall of W1YW. But just so you know--it hasn't worked to date. And the truth may seem funny to some. 73, Chip W1YW

W1YW	2007-06-08
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
That means the 440 repeater owners and/or mobiles have no rights whatsoever -------------------------- Of course not. It is a privilege, and more restrictive than other bands. Deal with it.

W1YW	2007-06-08
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali Reply by W3LK on June 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend! You know, Chip, I don't know when I've laughed so hard at someone making themselves look foolish without help from anyone else as I have the last two days reading your posts. Thanks so much for the comic relief. 73, Lon - W3LK ----------------------------- Well Lon, If it AFFECTS you that much, then put your hands together, pray real hard, and maybe HE'll answer your prayer for a recall of W1YW. But just so you know--it hasn't worked to date. And the truth may seem funny to some. 73, Chip W1YW

AE6RO	2007-06-08
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
I never liked 440 much anyway. To repeat: the Key Words are "National Security" and "National Security Issue." That means the 440 repeater owners and/or mobiles have no rights whatsoever. Maybe you thought I was joking about black helicopters dropping the repeaters with their owners in the drink. Call it "poetic exaggeration" to make a point. Has it crossed anyone's mind that in wartime the ability to independently communicate with other countries doesn't make us hams popular with other God-fearing Americans? Huh?! Maybe it's no coincidence that the ARRL has been sending out old QST copies magazines featuring the World War II shutdown order. Keep an eye on this issue as it's bound to get more "interesting" as time goes by. 73, AE6RO Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-08 Please stop your false statements. It is in your best interest to end this harassment and libel.

W3LK	2007-06-08
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
You know, Chip, I don't know when I've laughed so hard at someone making themselves look foolish without help from anyone else as I have the last two days reading your posts. Thanks so much for the comic relief. 73, Lon - W3LK Baltimore, Maryland - soon to be Naugatuck, Connecticut Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-08 Please stop your false statements. It is in your best interest to end this harassment and libel.

W1YW	2007-06-08
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
Please stop your false statements. It is in your best interest to end this harassment and libel.

WA1RNE	2007-06-08
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
Don't get flip, Chip. You are indeed arrogant, you know it, and you're proud of it. You let that cat out of the bag about 1000 insults ago. Maybe it's your computer personality and you're actually a tad more eloquent and polite in person. On the other hand....... ....WA1RNE ------------------------------------ DISCLAIMER: This archived comment, globally promulgated,is a false statement with the intent of injury to my reputation. Since it is not posed as opinion but as fact, it's public presentation constitutes defamation. Nathan 'Chip' Cohen publicly requires a retraction of this defamatory statement. Notice posted 6/8/07. Chip, You know very well that the above statement was written as my personal opinion regarding your less-than friendly comments toward me and others on this web site. I don't have multiple call signs- the other opinions about your posts are available for review. ...WA1RNE Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-08 Don't get flip, Chip. You are indeed arrogant, you know it, and you're proud of it. You let that cat out of the bag about 1000 insults ago. Maybe it's your computer personality and you're actually a tad more eloquent and polite in person. On the other hand....... ....WA1RNE ------------------------------------ DISCLAIMER: This archived comment, globally promulgated,is a false statement with the intent of injury to my reputation. Since it is not posed as opinion but as fact, it's public presentation constitutes defamation. Nathan 'Chip' Cohen publicly requires a retraction of this defamatory statement. Notice posted 6/8/07.

W1YW	2007-06-08
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
Don't get flip, Chip. You are indeed arrogant, you know it, and you're proud of it. You let that cat out of the bag about 1000 insults ago. Maybe it's your computer personality and you're actually a tad more eloquent and polite in person. On the other hand....... ....WA1RNE ------------------------------------ DISCLAIMER: This archived comment, globally promulgated,is a false statement with the intent of injury to my reputation. Since it is not posed as opinion but as fact, it's public presentation constitutes defamation. Nathan 'Chip' Cohen publicly requires a retraction of this defamatory statement. Notice posted 6/8/07.

W1YW	2007-06-08
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
...and the IC7000 will be running 1/2 watt on 440....no more.

W1YW	2007-06-08
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
Ed, W1RFI has responded to my query in a reasonble way, and although I disagree with the approach and timing, it does not discount the effect of mobiles. THAT is the key point. He said, in part:" We may ultimately develop a recommendation for mobile operation if the Air Force believes it necessary, but in the meantime, I am concentrating my technical efforts on what the Air Force has identified as a problem, not problems that may not yet be an issue." I do want to remind Ed that since I expect to be in Sagamore many days this summer, it affords the opportunity to make relevant mesurements of mobiles in comparison to LP fixed repeaters. I still invite his participation. 73, Chip W1YW

WA1RNE	2007-06-08
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
"That's a commercial app, and thus is beyond the scope of this forum. Nothing I have been involved with has produced such interference. So, it's not of interest to me. Keep focused on Part 97 here." >> Chip, READ the article: (hey that command should sound familiar, eh?) quote: "Gen. Robert Shea, the Joint Staff's director of command, control, communications and computer systems, told attendees the DOD's units need to coordinate radio frequency better when deploying systems in the field to avoid interference between them. Shea’s comments are believed to be based upon the findings of tests conducted earlier this year in which RFID readers were found to interfere with an adjacent radar system." >>> Since when is ANY application ruled out when it comes to interference with adjacent services? A Part 15 device can create havoc for us Part 97 users, yes? There are LOTS of "commercial app's" in use by the DoD, and this is one of them. Just because you haven't been involved and are not interested doesn't mean it isn't taking place. As you may -or may not know, RFID's are capable of communicating with the reader at distances of 300' or more. Considering that the RFID reader doesn't have the gain and directional capabilities of a phased array radar, it stands to reason they could cause interference to Pave Paws, especially if they are mobile which many are. As a commercial application heavily used by industry and the military, it demands consideration. Even the ARRL was concerned and wrote this article in 2004, opposing accomodation of RFID's on 433 Mhz. http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/04/15/103/?nc=1 by W1YW on June 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend! >> Ah, as expected, ever so tastefully and carefully phrased with that ever present ^^prickly-sourness^^, yet pungent aroma of superfluous arrogance. ----------------------------- You are using the wrong word. I am not arrogant. And I don't give a poop if you can't distinguish between BS'ing and the real thing. Try punching somewhere else OM; that one just bounced, and skinned your knuckles." >>> Since you demand grammatical correctness, the word you should have used was "hoot" not "poop". Don't get flip, Chip. You are indeed arrogant, you know it, and you're proud of it. You let that cat out of the bag about 1000 insults ago. Maybe it's your computer personality and you're actually a tad more eloquent and polite in person. On the other hand....... ....WA1RNE Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-07 That's a commercial app, and thus is beyond the scope of this forum. Nothing I have been involved with has produced such interference. So, it's not of interest to me. Keep focused on Part 97 here.

KD2KU	2007-06-08
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
Apr 17, 2007 The US Air Force has asked the FCC to order dozens of repeater systems to either mitigate interference to the "PAVE PAWS" radars or shut down. The Commission has not yet responded. mitigate: to make less severe; to become milder; lessen in severity The ARRL Letter April 20, 2007 The ARRL has been working with the US Department of Defense to develop a plan to mitigate alleged interference from 70 cm ham radio repeaters to military radar systems on both coasts. As a "first step" to mitigate the interference, the ARRL is recommending that all affected repeater owners reduce power -- possibly to as little as 5W effective radiated power (ERP). "We understand the difficulty this may cause to owners and users," Henderson said, "but the alternative to operating with a smaller coverage area may be not operating at all." ------------------------------------------------ There are too many unknowns for anyone to even comment at this stage. So- rather than rant and rave like lunatics- wait and see what happens. Reply to a comment by : KF7CG on 2007-06-08 An artifact is not really and artifact if the data processing and display can reasonably remove it without undue damage to the other data. Also, if the array overlooks ground objects or near ground objects when illuminating targets doesn't this reduce the effectiveness of near ground radiators. They will be in the side lobes of the receiving antenna and therefore be received with significantly less gain than tall radiators in the main pattern. In other words when determining the effect of a mobile on the system, its altitude and hence the location in the vertical pattern of the receive antenna must be considered in conjunction with the relative horizontal distances and powers. Without having a three dimensional model of the area, the repeaters, and the RADAR receive pattern the question of whether mobiles present a significant interference potential at normal vehicle antenna heights and gains is a matter of conjecture. With this in mind it is more efficient to solve the known problem before attempting to correct problems that may or not exist. Too much information is lacking to generate relatively accurate assements of mobile interference profiles. Further given the unkowns involved, the RADAR units may not even be seeing the output of the interfering repeaters directly. They may well be seeing reflections of the repeater signals from the myriad of local airborne targets. Another factor that I am sure has increased markedly, at least in the California area. Given the uncertainties that are inevitable in the black box, "bring me a rock," type of interference mitigation that is having to be performed out of necessity given the classified nature of some of the needed data; one is best served by working with one possible source at a time and getting feedack on the results. KF7CG Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-08 The beams do not directly irradiate nearfield, ground based objects, such as cars, birds on fences, and so on. Your assumption is wrong. The issue is artifact and clutter,not 'reasonableness'. Beyond that I see no reason to discuss other general aspects of radar on this forum. 73, Chip W1YW

KF7CG	2007-06-08
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
An artifact is not really and artifact if the data processing and display can reasonably remove it without undue damage to the other data. Also, if the array overlooks ground objects or near ground objects when illuminating targets doesn't this reduce the effectiveness of near ground radiators. They will be in the side lobes of the receiving antenna and therefore be received with significantly less gain than tall radiators in the main pattern. In other words when determining the effect of a mobile on the system, its altitude and hence the location in the vertical pattern of the receive antenna must be considered in conjunction with the relative horizontal distances and powers. Without having a three dimensional model of the area, the repeaters, and the RADAR receive pattern the question of whether mobiles present a significant interference potential at normal vehicle antenna heights and gains is a matter of conjecture. With this in mind it is more efficient to solve the known problem before attempting to correct problems that may or not exist. Too much information is lacking to generate relatively accurate assements of mobile interference profiles. Further given the unkowns involved, the RADAR units may not even be seeing the output of the interfering repeaters directly. They may well be seeing reflections of the repeater signals from the myriad of local airborne targets. Another factor that I am sure has increased markedly, at least in the California area. Given the uncertainties that are inevitable in the black box, "bring me a rock," type of interference mitigation that is having to be performed out of necessity given the classified nature of some of the needed data; one is best served by working with one possible source at a time and getting feedack on the results. KF7CG Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-08 The beams do not directly irradiate nearfield, ground based objects, such as cars, birds on fences, and so on. Your assumption is wrong. The issue is artifact and clutter,not 'reasonableness'. Beyond that I see no reason to discuss other general aspects of radar on this forum. 73, Chip W1YW

KD6NIG	2007-06-08
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
Sounds pretty simple to me. Everyone better pipe down below 5w and hope it works when you're within whatever circle has been drawn around this thing. If not, I see someone at the FCC grabbing a large smelly sharpie, measuring out from this facility about 250 miles, drawing a large circle, and calling it another quiet area, with Amateur Radio operators forbidden from using the entire band for any reason except emergencies while within said circle. So we can debate, scream at each other, and debate this, or we can all drop down to 5w as requested and maybe be able to still use the band, though not as well, within so many miles. Or, we can continue with the attitude that we have this inherant right to do what we want as a secondary user, and let the FCC use the mighty magic marker to prove us wrong. Its your choice, really. Keep poking the stick at the dog called the FCC, and see what happens when it comes back broken. Sure, we can see the double standard when we're the primary, but the bottom line is, the FCC will look out for its own brothers in government first :) I wouldn't suggest playing with this one. We're going to get burned if we try to.

W1YW	2007-06-08
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
The beams do not directly irradiate nearfield, ground based objects, such as cars, birds on fences, and so on. Your assumption is wrong. The issue is artifact and clutter,not 'reasonableness'. Beyond that I see no reason to discuss other general aspects of radar on this forum. 73, Chip W1YW

KF7CG	2007-06-08
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
Just to muddy all the waters, Have any of you considered that this may not be a "classic" interference case and may be involved with the RADAR target identification algorithm. It it is, mobile units may be orders of magnitude more tolerable than fixed stations by the fact that they are moving within the field of view at what would be tremendous angular velocities for targets in a long range RADAR system. I have no direct knowledge of the targeting software and if I did I would most likely not be in a position to comment. So take this as enlightened speculation. My feeling is that looking at the geometry overlaid with the physics, it is quite possible that fixed stations (repeaters) are capable of causing more interference to the threat detection software than mobiles. The radio physics is well known, but the target recognition physics and algorithms are another and I have seen no data on this though it is quite possible that the proximity to the RADAR will cause interference from nearby mobiles to fail reasonableness checks. KF7CG Software Engineer with experience in broad fields from business to nuclear power. Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-08 People like you spouting off from your ignorance just makes it harder for other hams to peacefully exist with the military on 440 mhz. ----------------------------------- Boy Howdee! I hope so! We can't operate legally down there!

W1YW	2007-06-08
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
The ARRL--which is the POC (point of contact) for this HI issue-- NOW HAS A FORMAL REQUEST on a power recommendation LIMIT for a bona fide example of mobile operations close to the environs of the Otis PAVEPAWS site. I am an ARRL member, licensed Part 97 operator, who REQUIRES these recommended power level limits TO PREVENT HARMFUL INTERFERENCE to the PRIMARY holder. Given the role the ARRL has taken, it is incumbent for them to PROVIDE this recommendation for MOBILE OPERATIONS. I am happy to provide them a 1/2 dozen locations of typical mobile locations in the SAGAMORE area, if requested. 73, Chip W1YW

K1CJS	2007-06-08
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
I'll ignore the potstirrers and see if I can get my point across. Now, what causes more problems and distractions, an intermittant noise that happens once in while or a more frequent noise that is there constantly? It stands to reason that the more frequent noise does. That noise is the supposed interference of a 440 repeater. Likewise, the intermittant noise could be compared to the mobile. The repeater is a permanently positioned source of the supposed interference that is used by many mobile and portable transceivers and therefore heard more frequently. On the other hand, not many mobiles will be in close vicinity of one of the Pave Paws sites for any extended length of time, nor will they be transmitting as often as a repeater may be. Common sense tells you this. The mobile may have greater signal strength than the repeater, but the repeater is supposedly a more constant thorn in the side of the radar installation. Is it any wonder the FCC has recommended the power reduction for the repeaters first? I don't think so. Likewise, it is not to our advantage when someone starts yelling out loud that mobile 440 mhz transceivers cause just as much or more problems to Pave Paws than repeaters do. One last thought--if your house was on fire would you throw gasoline on it? If your name is Chip, you probably would. After all, gasoline is wet, isn't it?

W1YW	2007-06-08
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
COPY OF E-MAIL SENT TO ARRL staff member: ------------------------ ED HARE W1RFI-- As a Part 97 Licensee, ARRL member, and Summer visitor (often with extended stays) in the Massachusetts town of SAGAMORE, I am requesting that you * PROVIDE A VOLUNTARY RECOMMENDATION* for what **** maximum MOBILE power******** to use when working with 440 Meg repeaters, commonly associated with their location names. These include: --Plymouth --Falmouth --Yarmouth --Dartmouth --N. Attelboro --Bridgewater This RECOMMENDATION is necessary so that the PRIMARY USER not suffer from HARMFUL INTERFERENCE from MY MOBILE STATION when IN SAGAMORE. Please advise on the maximum power --as a value-- that the ARRL recommends at this time, and as of 1 August, 2007. Sincerely, Nathan Cohen, Ph.D. ARS W1YW

W1YW	2007-06-08
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
People like you spouting off from your ignorance just makes it harder for other hams to peacefully exist with the military on 440 mhz. ----------------------------------- Boy Howdee! I hope so! We can't operate legally down there!

W1YW	2007-06-08
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
Chip, As usual you're jumping the gun and letting your imagination run away--then you're embarrassing yourself by opening your mouth while your brain is in neutral. How many times has it been said the military is taking this one step at a time? They don't want to shut us down unless its absolutely necessary. People like you spouting off from your ignorance just makes it harder for other hams to peacefully exist with the military on 440 mhz. You yelling 'fire' just gives the FCC and the DoD more reason to shut us down. ----- It's nice to see a dose of common sense once in a while. 73 de Charles - KC8VWM ----------------------------- And I am glad I provided it for you. There is a COMPLAINT to the FCC BY the DOD to the FCC regarding PART 97 transmissions. IT IS NOT SPECIFIC to an INDIVIDIUAL to to the PART 97 SERVICE. By August 1, 2007, either the HARMFUL INTERFERENCE from PART 97 CEASES or more drastic measures are adopted, and that likely INCLUDES invocation of a QUIET ZONE around these two sites. IF we do NOT DEAL WITH and FIX this problem by 1 August, 2007, then it will be DEALT WITH AND FIXED WITHOUT PART 97 FEEDBACK NOR PARTICIPATION. As of today, to indicate and symbolize both the realization that MOBILES POSE THE POTENTIAL for substantial harmful interference in this regard, and to be PART OF THE SOLUTION, I will start the ball rolling and voluntarily CUT MY POWER to 1/2 watt or less on the 440 MHz band when mobiling within 10 km of the SAGAMORE BRIDGE at the entrance to Cape Cod. If I ever mobile under similar circumstances near the CA location, I will do the same. HOW ABOUT YOU?? ARE YOU PART OF THE PROBLEM--OR PART OF THE SOLUTION?? 73, Chip W1YW

KC8VWM	2007-06-07
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
Chip, As usual you're jumping the gun and letting your imagination run away--then you're embarrassing yourself by opening your mouth while your brain is in neutral. How many times has it been said the military is taking this one step at a time? They don't want to shut us down unless its absolutely necessary. People like you spouting off from your ignorance just makes it harder for other hams to peacefully exist with the military on 440 mhz. You yelling 'fire' just gives the FCC and the DoD more reason to shut us down. ----- It's nice to see a dose of common sense once in a while. 73 de Charles - KC8VWM Reply to a comment by : K1CJS on 2007-06-07 "......Ed, if you choose, IMO, to make an idiot of yourself, tha's your option. IMO, only an idiot would take the stance that repeaters pose the problem and mobiles don't-- because someone didn't say it yet. When the repeaters go to Low Power... -Mobiles will be running MUCH higher power; --Mobiles will have MUCH higher ERP's; --Mobiles can be closer to the PAVEPAWS radars than virtually all the effected repeaters; --the threat of hamful interference from Part 97 mobiles will reach or exceed that previously acheived from fixed stations. It certainly is untenable to not take the side of prudence and recommend that mobiles also cut their powers. As I said, I would be happy to alert them (AFSMO and the FCC) of this real potential for harmful interference--indeed, I would be pleased to assist them if they require calibration measurements from a licensed radio amateur with 420-450 MHz mobile ability. And as you know Ed, that is a non-commercial activity." __________ Chip, As usual you're jumping the gun and letting your imagination run away--then you're embarrassing yourself by opening your mouth while your brain is in neutral. How many times has it been said the military is taking this one step at a time? They don't want to shut us down unless its absolutely necessary. People like you spouting off from your ignorance just makes it harder for other hams to peacefully exist with the military on 440 mhz. You yelling 'fire' just gives the FCC and the DoD more reason to shut us down. The first consideration was and remains the larger repeaters with their greater range and the 'gain' antennas most of them use. If the interference is still unacceptable, sooner or later they may well address mobile useage around the Pave Paws sites. Most mobile UHF rigs are a maximum 35 watts into an antenna that doesn't have the gain the repeater antennas have. Those mobiles are like a flea on a dogs backside--the repeaters are like the dog scratching at that flea. I can sit in a rest area on the mainland side of the canal--on a line of sight to the Pave Paws installation--monitoring and transmitting on the 440 band frequencies hams use and not be bothered by the big billboard on the other side of the canal--and not bother it. The repeater that is 10 miles away in Falmouth or 20 miles away in New Bedford is going to have a larger impact on that installation than my mobile which is a mile and a half away. You are cordially invited to smarten up, Chip. I'm surprised you haven't floated away already--all the hot air coming from you can't be more than a small part of what's trapped inside. No wonder Ed hasn't responded--I applaud him for ignoring you. Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-07 How in your mind does this translate to ARR" demanding extant interference in mobile Part 97 operations? The question was asked and answered by the military, and it is work enough to address specifically what they have identified as a problem. I don't think that ARRL's choosing to work on what they asked us to can translate to the demand that your flight of fancy envisions, Chip. > Ed, I am not aware of any problems I have. And I > don't give a poop about your sarcasm. I'm sure you don't, Chip, on either count. And the top of a very nice day to you. Ed Hare, W1RFI --------------------------- Ed, if you choose, IMO, to make an idiot of yourself, tha's your option. IMO, only an idiot would take the stance that repeaters pose the problem and mobiles don't-- because someone didn't say it yet. When the repeaters go to Low Power... -Mobiles will be running MUCH higher power; --Mobiles will have MUCH higher ERP's; --Mobiles can be closer to the PAVEPAWS radars than virtually all the effected repeaters; --the threat of hamful interference from Part 97 mobiles will reach or exceed that previously acheived from fixed stations. It certainly is untenable to not take the side of prudence and recommend that mobiles also cut their powers. As I said, I would be happy to alert them (AFSMO and the FCC) of this real potential for harmful interference--indeed, I would be pleased to assist them if they require calibration measurements from a licensed radio amateur with 420-450 MHz mobile ability. And as you know Ed, that is a non-commercial activity. I don't see YOU making that offer there Ed... 73, Chip W1YW

K4JF	2007-06-07
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
"Did we just announce to our enemies that they can interfere with our coastal defense radars by broadcasting noise in the 420 - 450MHz band?" Definitely "Or, have their techies already figured that out just by sitting offshore and monitoring those radars?" Probably Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-07 From on high..... ".....I will never agree with you if you are wrong and it jeopardizes our credibility as Part 97 licencees." It seems that you're doing a better job of that than any of us.--K1CJS ----------------------------------- Yes, we ALL know you FEEL this way. And just don't care. Your feelings are not cogent to the problem at hand.

W1YW	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
It is simple math, simple enough to be on the General Class license exam. See the questions about free-space far-field power density, such as G0C04 and G0C05. ------------------------------------------ Thanks for pointing this out, Bob. See, we are BY LICENSE a savvy bunch! 73, Chip W1YW

W1YW	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
"All interference must be resolved no later than August 1, 2007" --------------------------- Understand this: it means ALL INTERFERENCE FROM THE PART 97 SECONDARY USERS OF THE SPECTRUM must be resolved no later than August 1, 2007. It says nothing about repeaters ONLY. Are you LISTENING, ED Hare??

W1YW	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
Leaving such delicate matters to the latter will only make the regulatory "hole" we've already dug ourselves into on this issue that much deeper. ------------------------------------- Excuse me---how has my exposition of REALITY caused this? Are we supposed to HIDE a problem that could harmfully (or 'hamfully') interfere with the mission of the PRIMARY ALLOCATION USER?

W1YW	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
From on high..... ".....I will never agree with you if you are wrong and it jeopardizes our credibility as Part 97 licencees." It seems that you're doing a better job of that than any of us.--K1CJS ----------------------------------- Yes, we ALL know you FEEL this way. And just don't care. Your feelings are not cogent to the problem at hand.

KC9JUB	2007-06-07
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
W1YW is correct in his assessment of power ratios. The mobile station in this hypothetical case would be offering much more power to the receiving antenna than would the repeater. It is simple math, simple enough to be on the General Class license exam. See the questions about free-space far-field power density, such as G0C04 and G0C05. Compare 5W ERP at 1 km to 1,500W ERP at 18km. 73, Bob - KC9JUB K1CJS: <<So, I'll stop here and let you expound with a fools book learned knowledge. No amount of explanation...>> Reply to a comment by : K1CJS on 2007-06-07 The more learned you proclaim yourself to be, the more evident you just don't have the common sense God gave a grasshoppers backside. If it has to be explained to you down to the crossed t's and dotted i's, it isn't worth the time or effort to do it. So, I'll stop here and let you expound with a fools book learned knowledge. No amount of explanation will make you realize the simple truth--fixed stations with more power and greater gain will always be targeted first. Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-07 Most mobile UHF rigs are a maximum 35 watts into an antenna that doesn't have the gain the repeater antennas have. Those mobiles are like a flea on a dogs backside--the repeaters are like the dog scratching at that flea. ------------------------------------------- I know of no physics that supports this generalization.

KB1SF	2007-06-07
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
Eric (N6PYF) wrote: "I think some of the major points regarding this issue are being lost in the endless flag waving. If you look at the PAVE PAWS system, it's been on the air for quite some time. So, why after all of these years is there a problem? Apparently the system is being upgraded and possibly the sub-contractor can't make the new system meet their guaranteed specification and is looking for a scape-goat" ---------------------------------- Questioning the military's motives, their sub-contractor's veraciy, or the need for their continued, interference-free use of the 70cm band around these radars does absolutely nothing but confuse a political issue with a regulatory one. Frankly, from a regulatory standpoint, it's none of our damn business WHAT the military is using this band for, or that they may have started using it again after a long hiatus, or that they have changed how they are using it from how they used to use it, or even that they are (or are not) using it at all. Those are all political issues that have absolutely NO bearing whatsoever on the regulatory issues our Service now faces in the matter. The bottom line remains that WE are now causing interference to THEIR activities, not the other way around. Internationally, WE are secondary users (to the Radiolocation Service) on this band. Specifically, in the United States, WE are secondary users to the US Military's Radiolocation Service. That fact is clearly spelled out in both the international and FCC Table of Frequency Allocations as well as in our own Part 97. And the fact that WE (as secondary users of the band) are now causing interference to THEIR primary user activities means that, by default, its the military that is now "driving the train" on this issue…not us. So, unless and until regulatory precedents that have been in place both internationally and nationally for decades are changed, clearly, it is now incumbent upon OUR Service to mitigate that interference in whatever way that works. If that requires 5W output repeaters, drastically changing antenna patterns and/or (at the extreme) shutting down ALL amateur 70cm activity around these radars to do so, then so be it. However, in an effort to avoid such drastic measures, I'd still rather have one "semi-rational" voice (the ARRL) speaking for our interests in these negotiations than some of the self-anointed local "Prima Donnas" who seem to be well represented on this and other related treads. Leaving such delicate matters to the latter will only make the regulatory "hole" we've already dug ourselves into on this issue that much deeper. 73, Keith KB1SF / VA3KSF Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-07 I think some of the major points regarding this issue are being lost in the endless flag waving. If you look at the PAVE PAWS system, it's been on the air for quite some time. So, why after all of these years is there a problem? Apparently the system is being upgraded and possibly the sub-contractor can't make the new system meet their guaranteed specification and is looking for a scape-goat. -------------------------- Cowpoop. The problem exists NOW because: --The number of repeaters and (Part 97)users at 70 cm has gone up dramatically in the last decade; --the sensitivity of the radar has likely increased, meaning that the noise floor of the system was lowered. That 'sub-contractor' only did what they were asked in the nation's defense. And I am sure they have lotsa hams that work there. Now it's your turn to DO YOUR JOB in the nation's defense--PIPE DOWN on 70cm near the two sites. Fixed AND mobile. And stop whining. 73, Chip W1YW

K1CJS	2007-06-07
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
From on high..... ".....I will never agree with you if you are wrong and it jeopardizes our credibility as Part 97 licencees." It seems that you're doing a better job of that than any of us. If you're so upset about amateur radio operators why not turn in your license and leave our ranks? You'd be happier and SO WOULD WE! Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-07 I am still waiting for someone to show the error(s) in the example that K1CJS presented, and I analyzed. Keep in mind that additional secondary factors will change the number down slightly from 28 dB, but it is indisputable that the mobile in the example is far stronger than the 5 watt repeater. It shows, in a compelling fashion, that MOBILES pose a MAJOR potential for HARMFUL INTERFERENCE from Part 97 licensees using typical and legal powers at present--when in the vicinity of PAVE PAWS. The HI is to the primary user, as Part 97 licensees have a secondary allocation. It is also important that hams, in general, work the Friis equation, and do the ratios, to figure out how SMALL the mobile power actually can be to produce equivalent signal strength to say, a 200 watt ERP repeater (a very high ERP BTW) at the example distance. You will see that mobile powers of order a watt or less pose an equivalent potential for harmful interference compared to the repeater example so presented. If you want to maintain the 5 watt REPEATER limit, well, then the mobiles must truly be QRPP! It is time that we, as radio amateurs, accept the fact that we are secondary users to this spectrum, ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY to UNDERSTAND and USE the (at least) modest knowledge needed to make these simple calculations, AND ACCEPT THE ADVICE of those in the service with experience in such matters. As opposed to name calling; silliness; false accusations to disrepect the individual(s) and actively try to discredit them; ad nauseum.. The spirit of Part 97 maintains that as one 'advanced in the radio art', that you may choose to dispute-- but show something is false or misguided BY TECHNICAL example, not personal emotion. I will never agree with you if you are wrong and it jeopardizes our credibility as Part 97 licencees. 73, Chip W1YW

W1YW	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
>> Ah, as expected, ever so tastefully and carefully phrased with that ever present ^^prickly-sourness^^, yet pungent aroma of superfluous arrogance. ----------------------------- You are using the wrong word. I am not arrogant. And I don't give a poop if you can't distinguish between BS'ing and the real thing. Try punching somewhere else OM; that one just bounced, and skinned your knuckles.

W1YW	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
That's a commercial app, and thus is beyond the scope of this forum. Nothing I have been involved with has produced such interference. So, it's not of interest to me. Keep focused on Part 97 here.

WA1RNE	2007-06-07
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
I would say your 'amateur' status remains intact.... IMO. >> Ah, as expected, ever so tastefully and carefully phrased with that ever present ^^prickly-sourness^^, yet pungent aroma of superfluous arrogance. -- So Chip, on a less comical note, how do you think the DoD's other interference dilemma weighs in on this discussion? In addition to amateur radio operators, the Army's PM J-AIT, a.k.a. Product Management Office for Joint-Automatic Identification Technology is also catching fire for interfering with * 5 * U.S. radar sites including Beale and Otis AFB's. http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/1847/1/1/ So maybe the noise floor is being inadvertently raised by hundreds of passing active and semi-active 433 mhz RFID's - probably like a swarm of freaking bee's to a radar operator- and ironically coming from one of the DoD's own agencies. Considering this new development, (September 2005?) we may need a second opinion on the high noise floor. Still want to jump in the Caddy with that Anritsu SA? Talk about a "Foxhunt"....Hey, if you figure this one out you could do a little write-up on Fractal Radiophysics on eHam. ....^^WA1RNE^^ Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-07 K1CJS--- Considering your almost *30 dB error* I would say your 'amateur' status remains intact.... IMO. 73, Chip W1YW

W1YW	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
I am still waiting for someone to show the error(s) in the example that K1CJS presented, and I analyzed. Keep in mind that additional secondary factors will change the number down slightly from 28 dB, but it is indisputable that the mobile in the example is far stronger than the 5 watt repeater. It shows, in a compelling fashion, that MOBILES pose a MAJOR potential for HARMFUL INTERFERENCE from Part 97 licensees using typical and legal powers at present--when in the vicinity of PAVE PAWS. The HI is to the primary user, as Part 97 licensees have a secondary allocation. It is also important that hams, in general, work the Friis equation, and do the ratios, to figure out how SMALL the mobile power actually can be to produce equivalent signal strength to say, a 200 watt ERP repeater (a very high ERP BTW) at the example distance. You will see that mobile powers of order a watt or less pose an equivalent potential for harmful interference compared to the repeater example so presented. If you want to maintain the 5 watt REPEATER limit, well, then the mobiles must truly be QRPP! It is time that we, as radio amateurs, accept the fact that we are secondary users to this spectrum, ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY to UNDERSTAND and USE the (at least) modest knowledge needed to make these simple calculations, AND ACCEPT THE ADVICE of those in the service with experience in such matters. As opposed to name calling; silliness; false accusations to disrepect the individual(s) and actively try to discredit them; ad nauseum.. The spirit of Part 97 maintains that as one 'advanced in the radio art', that you may choose to dispute-- but show something is false or misguided BY TECHNICAL example, not personal emotion. I will never agree with you if you are wrong and it jeopardizes our credibility as Part 97 licencees. 73, Chip W1YW

AE6RO	2007-06-07
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
Yeah, I reread the letter. You're right. And the deadline is August 1, 2007. That really is very kind and nice to give the repeater owners that long to clean up their act. As far as evidence goes, no I don't have any. 73, AE6RO Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-07 The important words are "critical to national security" and "national security functions." What does this mean? It means the DOD is being very kind and nice by politely asking to turn the repeater power down to five watts. As opposed to, say, picking up the offending repeater with a helicopter and dropping it into San Francisco Bay, with the owner if need be... or blasting a 440 mobile with a Stinger on his way to work. There. My two sense worth. 73, AE6RO ---------------------------------- The DOD did not ask for the powers to be at 5 watts. They REQUIRE that the harmful interference go away. It's amateurs that have suggested this power. There is no evidence that DOD has accepted this plan. If so--SHOW US. 73, Chip W1YW

KD2KU	2007-06-07
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
W1YW: Would you like me to take take formal action to request that the AFSMO and FCC consider and request a review of considerations regarding additional restrictions of mobile opeations by Part 97 licensees for the secondary allocation of 420-450 MHz in the vicinity of these PAVEPAWS facilities? --------------------------- Get at it Prof.. make some waves.. show us your stuff. Wave some fractals at em... Here come the Chip.. here come the Chip.. hilarious Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-07 So, you ask what my agenda is, the answer is nothing; other than to bring to light that the DoD has requested the FCC point fingers at repeater owners and make them comply with technical requirements that make no sense. ---------------------------------- Sure it does: 1) ham radio is a privilege not a right; 2) we are secondary users on this allocation, and can be silenced or removed at any time for any reason. It doesn't have to be a reason that you LIKE BTW. READ Part 97. 73, Chip W1YW

W1YW	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
So, you ask what my agenda is, the answer is nothing; other than to bring to light that the DoD has requested the FCC point fingers at repeater owners and make them comply with technical requirements that make no sense. ---------------------------------- Sure it does: 1) ham radio is a privilege not a right; 2) we are secondary users on this allocation, and can be silenced or removed at any time for any reason. It doesn't have to be a reason that you LIKE BTW. READ Part 97. 73, Chip W1YW

W1YW	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
Sure Part 97 gives amateurs secondary user status on those frequencies, my concern is how far will the DoD go? -------------------------------- I am sure that DOD requested that the secondary users cease transmissions. And that a Quiet Zone be created. But the ARRL refuses to discuss this publicly, and has come up with this--now demonstrably and demonstrated --hair-brained scheme that fails to mitigate the real AND POSSIBLE harmful interference from the secondary users-- that includes fixed AND mobile. BTW I spend some of my time each Summer in Sagamore and know those repeaters well. I personally will vouch for the INCREASE IN REPEATERS AND USERS over the last 10 years. My repeater directory also shows an increase in 440 repeaters in the relevant CA regions, which ultimately tracks increased users, so my statement proves accurate. I am sorry to disappoint you. Next time, use my direct quote. And then see if your silly comment still applies. 73, Chip W1YW

W1YW	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
The important words are "critical to national security" and "national security functions." What does this mean? It means the DOD is being very kind and nice by politely asking to turn the repeater power down to five watts. As opposed to, say, picking up the offending repeater with a helicopter and dropping it into San Francisco Bay, with the owner if need be... or blasting a 440 mobile with a Stinger on his way to work. There. My two sense worth. 73, AE6RO ---------------------------------- The DOD did not ask for the powers to be at 5 watts. They REQUIRE that the harmful interference go away. It's amateurs that have suggested this power. There is no evidence that DOD has accepted this plan. If so--SHOW US. 73, Chip W1YW

W7CSD	2007-06-07
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
Chip, Since you are asserting yourself as the self proclaimed expert in over the horizon RADAR, why don't you explain to all of us idiots why the DoD is suddenly issuing a shutdown order? Your reasoning that the "Number of 440 Repeaters has dramatically increased in the last decade" is BULL. There has been a small increase on the West Coast but almost every pair has been occupied for longer than 10 years. Actually the amount of users on UHF has probably decreased on UHF like it has on all of the other bands. So, I would venture to say that the noise floor produced by 440 amateurs has decreased rather than increased. If there has been any increase it would be more likely due to other devices. Also, the communities, Marysville and Yuba City, directly in front of the receiving antenna have grown dramatically in the last decade. You questioned my ability to deduce there were almost 500 repeaters that were in the 150 mile exclusion zone. The answer is rather simple; get a map and draw a 150 mile circle around Beale AFB and see what communities are within that circle. For starters, I did list the major population areas in my previous posts that you could use as a starting point for the calculations. You would then go to the NARCC web site (www.narcc.org) and look at the number of repeaters in those areas and using simple math, add them up. Keep in mind that the NARCC information doesn't include link frequencies, 420 hub repeaters or does it include repeaters in Reno. You asked if I work for a sub-contractor; I am sorry to say that I don't. I am forced to find more honest work than screwing the taxpayers. So, you ask what my agenda is, the answer is nothing; other than to bring to light that the DoD has requested the FCC point fingers at repeater owners and make them comply with technical requirements that make no sense. There list references repeaters that are no longer on the air or they point to a backup repeater which is never used and in a location that doesn't look at Beale. If the DoD wanted to clean up the band they would have done some reasonable coverage studies and identified repeaters that were truly causing or had the potential to cause interference. not come up with a half-baked list that doesn't make any sense. Sure Part 97 gives amateurs secondary user status on those frequencies, my concern is how far will the DoD go? Do we need to shut down 440 repeaters in Kansas to protect these sites? Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-07 Like I said earlier, I don't think this is over yet and you may see quite a few more repeaters shut down if the DoD sub-contractor can't make their system work as promised. (I wonder what they do when a Marysville school accidentally releases mylar balloons?) ------------------ Say, N6PYF-- Given the vitriol and lack of fact associated with your statements here, I'd like to ask: do you work for a competitor of the sub-contractor? Have you previously worked for the sub-contractor? How do you get 'over 500' repeaters when 104 have been identified? What's your AGENDA OM? Hmmm?

AE6RO	2007-06-07
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
The important words are "critical to national security" and "national security functions." What does this mean? It means the DOD is being very kind and nice by politely asking to turn the repeater power down to five watts. As opposed to, say, picking up the offending repeater with a helicopter and dropping it into San Francisco Bay, with the owner if need be... or blasting a 440 mobile with a Stinger on his way to work. There. My two sense worth. 73, AE6RO Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-07 Most mobile UHF rigs are a maximum 35 watts into an antenna that doesn't have the gain the repeater antennas have. Those mobiles are like a flea on a dogs backside--the repeaters are like the dog scratching at that flea. ------------------------------------------- I know of no physics that supports this generalization.

W1YW	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
K1CJS--- Considering your almost *30 dB error* I would say your 'amateur' status remains intact.... IMO. 73, Chip W1YW

K1CJS	2007-06-07
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
The more learned you proclaim yourself to be, the more evident you just don't have the common sense God gave a grasshoppers backside. If it has to be explained to you down to the crossed t's and dotted i's, it isn't worth the time or effort to do it. So, I'll stop here and let you expound with a fools book learned knowledge. No amount of explanation will make you realize the simple truth--fixed stations with more power and greater gain will always be targeted first. Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-07 Most mobile UHF rigs are a maximum 35 watts into an antenna that doesn't have the gain the repeater antennas have. Those mobiles are like a flea on a dogs backside--the repeaters are like the dog scratching at that flea. ------------------------------------------- I know of no physics that supports this generalization.

W1YW	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
Most mobile UHF rigs are a maximum 35 watts into an antenna that doesn't have the gain the repeater antennas have. Those mobiles are like a flea on a dogs backside--the repeaters are like the dog scratching at that flea. ------------------------------------------- I know of no physics that supports this generalization.

W1YW	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
Chip, As usual you're jumping the gun and letting your imagination run away--then you're embarrassing yourself by opening your mouth while your brain is in neutral. How many times has it been said the military is taking this one step at a time? --------------------------------- I always feel cool about 'embarassing myself' under these circumstances, for the simple reason that a few hams are not acting in the best interest of their Part 97 allocation. I am not one of them. DOD is only interested in resolution. By a specific date. I can't imagine they have interest in stupid back and forth meetings demanding they provide info. Or some multi-step process. 73, Your educated pal, W1YW

W1YW	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
People like you spouting off from your ignorance just makes it harder for other hams to peacefully exist with the military on 440 mhz.--K1CJS --------------------------------- I am not aware of any hams, or DOD on 440 mHz. And, if I am ignorant, then show me how I am wrong. Use as much math, at whatever level,as you need. Use as much prop theory as you need. Use as much physics as you need. I am eager to learn new physics! 73, Chip W1YW

W1YW	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
can sit in a rest area on the mainland side of the canal--on a line of sight to the Pave Paws installation--monitoring and transmitting on the 440 band frequencies hams use and not be bothered by the big billboard on the other side of the canal--and not bother it. The repeater that is 10 miles away in Falmouth or 20 miles away in New Bedford is going to have a larger impact on that installation than my mobile which is a mile and a half away (sic: closer 1o 1.5 km)--K1CJS ------------------------------------ Let's do some simple math. You can input into the Friis Equation, then play ratios, and tell me what you get. Note that when you do ratios, common factors cncel and you get a great BOTEC estimate: REPEATER ERP: 5 watts; 3dB insertion loss; 5dB gain over iso = APPROXIMATELY 7-8 watts CHIP's MOBILE ERP: 35 watts, 1 dB insertion loss (my installation anyway); 3 dB gain over iso = APPROXIMATELY 50 watts RATIO OF DISTANCES, assuming same azimuth position to PAVEPAWS: 17 km/1.5 km = APPROXIMATELY 11 RATIO OF EXPECTED SIGNALS: (50/8) x (11)^2 = APPROXIMATELY 750, or ROUGHLY 28 dB ****ROUGHLY 28dB STRONGER for mobile Get it? *************28 dB STRONGER FOR MOBILE*********** Now, since this was YOUR example, I invite you to show that the repeater is actually stronger than the mobile. It's fun to be smart! 73, Chip W1YW

K1CJS	2007-06-07
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
"......Ed, if you choose, IMO, to make an idiot of yourself, tha's your option. IMO, only an idiot would take the stance that repeaters pose the problem and mobiles don't-- because someone didn't say it yet. When the repeaters go to Low Power... -Mobiles will be running MUCH higher power; --Mobiles will have MUCH higher ERP's; --Mobiles can be closer to the PAVEPAWS radars than virtually all the effected repeaters; --the threat of hamful interference from Part 97 mobiles will reach or exceed that previously acheived from fixed stations. It certainly is untenable to not take the side of prudence and recommend that mobiles also cut their powers. As I said, I would be happy to alert them (AFSMO and the FCC) of this real potential for harmful interference--indeed, I would be pleased to assist them if they require calibration measurements from a licensed radio amateur with 420-450 MHz mobile ability. And as you know Ed, that is a non-commercial activity." __________ Chip, As usual you're jumping the gun and letting your imagination run away--then you're embarrassing yourself by opening your mouth while your brain is in neutral. How many times has it been said the military is taking this one step at a time? They don't want to shut us down unless its absolutely necessary. People like you spouting off from your ignorance just makes it harder for other hams to peacefully exist with the military on 440 mhz. You yelling 'fire' just gives the FCC and the DoD more reason to shut us down. The first consideration was and remains the larger repeaters with their greater range and the 'gain' antennas most of them use. If the interference is still unacceptable, sooner or later they may well address mobile useage around the Pave Paws sites. Most mobile UHF rigs are a maximum 35 watts into an antenna that doesn't have the gain the repeater antennas have. Those mobiles are like a flea on a dogs backside--the repeaters are like the dog scratching at that flea. I can sit in a rest area on the mainland side of the canal--on a line of sight to the Pave Paws installation--monitoring and transmitting on the 440 band frequencies hams use and not be bothered by the big billboard on the other side of the canal--and not bother it. The repeater that is 10 miles away in Falmouth or 20 miles away in New Bedford is going to have a larger impact on that installation than my mobile which is a mile and a half away. You are cordially invited to smarten up, Chip. I'm surprised you haven't floated away already--all the hot air coming from you can't be more than a small part of what's trapped inside. No wonder Ed hasn't responded--I applaud him for ignoring you. Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-07 How in your mind does this translate to ARR" demanding extant interference in mobile Part 97 operations? The question was asked and answered by the military, and it is work enough to address specifically what they have identified as a problem. I don't think that ARRL's choosing to work on what they asked us to can translate to the demand that your flight of fancy envisions, Chip. > Ed, I am not aware of any problems I have. And I > don't give a poop about your sarcasm. I'm sure you don't, Chip, on either count. And the top of a very nice day to you. Ed Hare, W1RFI --------------------------- Ed, if you choose, IMO, to make an idiot of yourself, tha's your option. IMO, only an idiot would take the stance that repeaters pose the problem and mobiles don't-- because someone didn't say it yet. When the repeaters go to Low Power... -Mobiles will be running MUCH higher power; --Mobiles will have MUCH higher ERP's; --Mobiles can be closer to the PAVEPAWS radars than virtually all the effected repeaters; --the threat of hamful interference from Part 97 mobiles will reach or exceed that previously acheived from fixed stations. It certainly is untenable to not take the side of prudence and recommend that mobiles also cut their powers. As I said, I would be happy to alert them (AFSMO and the FCC) of this real potential for harmful interference--indeed, I would be pleased to assist them if they require calibration measurements from a licensed radio amateur with 420-450 MHz mobile ability. And as you know Ed, that is a non-commercial activity. I don't see YOU making that offer there Ed... 73, Chip W1YW

WI7B	2007-06-07
Geographically limited, NOT national in scope
"From the sounds of things, "leaving the band" will not be limited to CA and MA areas, it will be nation wide." - KC0VCU No, probably not. It probably WILL be limted to CA and MA. It is being treated like other all other geographical and power restrictions that apply to all bands with frequencies above 420 MHz. Everyone should re-read CFR 47 97.303 and 97.313 as pertaining to amateur use of 70cm, as well as, footnote US7 to CFR 47 2.106 (Part 2)..its take too much space to quote it all here. 73, ---* Ken Reply to a comment by : W7CSD on 2007-06-07 I think some of the major points regarding this issue are being lost in the endless flag waving. If you look at the PAVE PAWS system, it's been on the air for quite some time. So, why after all of these years is there a problem? Apparently the system is being upgraded and possibly the sub-contractor can't make the new system meet their guaranteed specification and is looking for a scape-goat. There is a list of 104 repeaters that have come out as "offending" to the USAF Beale site and the action is to reduce the Transmitter Power to 5 Watts. No ERP measurements, no hardware loss calculations, no antenna gain; 5 Watts PERIOD! Also, if you look at the list (www.narcc.org) under "What's New", you will see a very inconsistent list of repeaters. Some that are well below the mountains and pose no threat to the system and others that are a bore sight away from the system that aren't on the list. Some of the repeaters listed have been off the air for some time. So, the FCC/ DoD are using old information to make this hit list. If we were to take the official rule for 440 Repeaters within 150 miles of Beale, all the repeaters in Sacramento, Stockton, Redding, San Francisco, San Jose, Reno, etc. would have to reduce their power to 5 watts. That is a large area and quite a few more than 104 repeaters would be affected, probably close to 500 repeaters, not including links and 420 repeaters. Like I said earlier, I don't think this is over yet and you may see quite a few more repeaters shut down if the DoD sub-contractor can't make their system work as promised. (I wonder what they do when a Marysville school accidentally releases mylar balloons?) Reply to a comment by : W8JAS on 2007-06-07 "arrl has no meaningful influence here. arrl has personally insulted FCC commissioners, so we can expect no empathy from FCC. That, in light of ham radio's secondary status, means that DoD can, and will, dictate terms." I knew it was just a matter of time before he would start the ARRL bashing. It's not about influence, it is about the priority of the military. Do you have to distort everything in your process of bashing the ARRL? Your credibility is gone. Reply to a comment by : W9WHE-II on 2007-06-07 arrl has no meaningful influence here. arrl has personally insulted FCC commissioners, so we can expect no empathy from FCC. That, in light of ham radio's secondary status, means that DoD can, and will, dictate terms. Its ironic, but similar rules that arrl has UNsuccessfuly tried to use to squash BPL, will now successfully be used against ham radio. The shoe is now on the other foot. The only difference is that DoD has both REAL influence and a SOLID legal footing, whereas arrl does not. Some might say that arrl's bad carma has come back to haunt ham radio. On the other hand, why not have arrl send FCC a letter "demanding" that Dod shut down the PPR systems? Afterall, those repeaters are used by emcomm hams, damit! Doesn't DoD realize that a single emcomm ham can save the civilized world from all manner of threats, including nuclear/chemical/biological ballistic missles? And if such "demands" fail....arrl can allways sue...right? (Dripping with sarcasim) Reply to a comment by : KG4RUL on 2007-06-07 "Secondary Allocation" If we wish the FCC, etal to ignore this to satisfy our needs, might it not happen to us when we have the "Primary Allocation"? Dennis KG4RUL Reply to a comment by : ONAIR on 2007-06-06 5 Watts? That's like putting us back on CB! Can't they just put the radar on to 220? Reply to a comment by : KC8VWM on 2007-06-06 All we can do is comply with the DOD/FCC request and hopefully it will serve to resolve the problem. The way I see things is that at least we still have an opportunity. Operating at 5 watts might just serve to satify thier requirements. If not, then what can you do? The security of the country obviously takes priority. I suppose we could all sit here and speculate all day long however, let's just keep our fingers crossed, wait and see what happens. 73 de Charles - KC8VWM Reply to a comment by : WW3QB on 2007-06-06 First, review the chart at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.html The good news is that amateur radio is primary for the 50, 144, and 222 MHz bands. The bad news is that amateur radio is secondary to government radiolocation (RADAR) on the 420, 900, and 1240 MHz bands. We do have most of the 2400 MHz band to ourselves. We probably only got those bands in the first place under the assumption we can co-exists with government RADAR. If that assumption is wrong, we will have nothing in UHF. It should be no surprise that amateur radio has the lowest priority for frequency allocations. Reply to a comment by : KC0VCU on 2007-06-06 Submitter's question was "What's Next?" I thought the reports earlier were pretty clear. We are a secondary user on the 440 UHF band. If our activity is causing interference we have to either co-operate to eliminate that interference, or we will have to leave the band. From the sounds of things, "leaving the band" will not be limited to CA and MA areas, it will be nation wide. It's not like there isn't any other UHF band out there that we could migrate to, though I suspect that we would see a lot of jockying for position to put repeaters in in either the 900mhz or 1.2 mhz bands. We would probably see a lot of new equipment on the market, and a lot of people selling 2m/70cm dual band equipment as 2-meter rigs. In VHF, we will probably see an expansion in 220 usage as well. We may even see more work happening at 50mhz also. I think the real down side will be that this may affect other bands where we are seconday users as well. I can see 50 meter being affected, though I don't know what the actual impact would be. Of course the DOD may be completely satisfied with the efforts put forward, and all of this is moot. We'll be seeing in the next few weeks to months I'm sure. 73 - Rusty - kc0vcu

W1YW	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
<<Chip - did you just threaten to try to have ham UHF mobile operations shut down if ARRL doesn't back off of its efforts to stop BPL interference to mobiles?>> No. Silly person. <<Why do you hate ham radio, Chip?>> Because it sent me to bed without my milk and cookies!

W1YW	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
Like I said earlier, I don't think this is over yet and you may see quite a few more repeaters shut down if the DoD sub-contractor can't make their system work as promised. (I wonder what they do when a Marysville school accidentally releases mylar balloons?) ------------------ Say, N6PYF-- Given the vitriol and lack of fact associated with your statements here, I'd like to ask: do you work for a competitor of the sub-contractor? Have you previously worked for the sub-contractor? How do you get 'over 500' repeaters when 104 have been identified? What's your AGENDA OM? Hmmm?

K0RGR	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
Chip - did you just threaten to try to have ham UHF mobile operations shut down if ARRL doesn't back off of its efforts to stop BPL interference to mobiles? Why do you hate ham radio, Chip?

W1YW	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
I think some of the major points regarding this issue are being lost in the endless flag waving. If you look at the PAVE PAWS system, it's been on the air for quite some time. So, why after all of these years is there a problem? Apparently the system is being upgraded and possibly the sub-contractor can't make the new system meet their guaranteed specification and is looking for a scape-goat. -------------------------- Cowpoop. The problem exists NOW because: --The number of repeaters and (Part 97)users at 70 cm has gone up dramatically in the last decade; --the sensitivity of the radar has likely increased, meaning that the noise floor of the system was lowered. That 'sub-contractor' only did what they were asked in the nation's defense. And I am sure they have lotsa hams that work there. Now it's your turn to DO YOUR JOB in the nation's defense--PIPE DOWN on 70cm near the two sites. Fixed AND mobile. And stop whining. 73, Chip W1YW

W7CSD	2007-06-07
RE: arrl's bad carma haunts ham radio
I think some of the major points regarding this issue are being lost in the endless flag waving. If you look at the PAVE PAWS system, it's been on the air for quite some time. So, why after all of these years is there a problem? Apparently the system is being upgraded and possibly the sub-contractor can't make the new system meet their guaranteed specification and is looking for a scape-goat. There is a list of 104 repeaters that have come out as "offending" to the USAF Beale site and the action is to reduce the Transmitter Power to 5 Watts. No ERP measurements, no hardware loss calculations, no antenna gain; 5 Watts PERIOD! Also, if you look at the list (www.narcc.org) under "What's New", you will see a very inconsistent list of repeaters. Some that are well below the mountains and pose no threat to the system and others that are a bore sight away from the system that aren't on the list. Some of the repeaters listed have been off the air for some time. So, the FCC/ DoD are using old information to make this hit list. If we were to take the official rule for 440 Repeaters within 150 miles of Beale, all the repeaters in Sacramento, Stockton, Redding, San Francisco, San Jose, Reno, etc. would have to reduce their power to 5 watts. That is a large area and quite a few more than 104 repeaters would be affected, probably close to 500 repeaters, not including links and 420 repeaters. Like I said earlier, I don't think this is over yet and you may see quite a few more repeaters shut down if the DoD sub-contractor can't make their system work as promised. (I wonder what they do when a Marysville school accidentally releases mylar balloons?) Reply to a comment by : W8JAS on 2007-06-07 "arrl has no meaningful influence here. arrl has personally insulted FCC commissioners, so we can expect no empathy from FCC. That, in light of ham radio's secondary status, means that DoD can, and will, dictate terms." I knew it was just a matter of time before he would start the ARRL bashing. It's not about influence, it is about the priority of the military. Do you have to distort everything in your process of bashing the ARRL? Your credibility is gone. Reply to a comment by : W9WHE-II on 2007-06-07 arrl has no meaningful influence here. arrl has personally insulted FCC commissioners, so we can expect no empathy from FCC. That, in light of ham radio's secondary status, means that DoD can, and will, dictate terms. Its ironic, but similar rules that arrl has UNsuccessfuly tried to use to squash BPL, will now successfully be used against ham radio. The shoe is now on the other foot. The only difference is that DoD has both REAL influence and a SOLID legal footing, whereas arrl does not. Some might say that arrl's bad carma has come back to haunt ham radio. On the other hand, why not have arrl send FCC a letter "demanding" that Dod shut down the PPR systems? Afterall, those repeaters are used by emcomm hams, damit! Doesn't DoD realize that a single emcomm ham can save the civilized world from all manner of threats, including nuclear/chemical/biological ballistic missles? And if such "demands" fail....arrl can allways sue...right? (Dripping with sarcasim) Reply to a comment by : KG4RUL on 2007-06-07 "Secondary Allocation" If we wish the FCC, etal to ignore this to satisfy our needs, might it not happen to us when we have the "Primary Allocation"? Dennis KG4RUL Reply to a comment by : ONAIR on 2007-06-06 5 Watts? That's like putting us back on CB! Can't they just put the radar on to 220? Reply to a comment by : KC8VWM on 2007-06-06 All we can do is comply with the DOD/FCC request and hopefully it will serve to resolve the problem. The way I see things is that at least we still have an opportunity. Operating at 5 watts might just serve to satify thier requirements. If not, then what can you do? The security of the country obviously takes priority. I suppose we could all sit here and speculate all day long however, let's just keep our fingers crossed, wait and see what happens. 73 de Charles - KC8VWM Reply to a comment by : WW3QB on 2007-06-06 First, review the chart at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.html The good news is that amateur radio is primary for the 50, 144, and 222 MHz bands. The bad news is that amateur radio is secondary to government radiolocation (RADAR) on the 420, 900, and 1240 MHz bands. We do have most of the 2400 MHz band to ourselves. We probably only got those bands in the first place under the assumption we can co-exists with government RADAR. If that assumption is wrong, we will have nothing in UHF. It should be no surprise that amateur radio has the lowest priority for frequency allocations. Reply to a comment by : KC0VCU on 2007-06-06 Submitter's question was "What's Next?" I thought the reports earlier were pretty clear. We are a secondary user on the 440 UHF band. If our activity is causing interference we have to either co-operate to eliminate that interference, or we will have to leave the band. From the sounds of things, "leaving the band" will not be limited to CA and MA areas, it will be nation wide. It's not like there isn't any other UHF band out there that we could migrate to, though I suspect that we would see a lot of jockying for position to put repeaters in in either the 900mhz or 1.2 mhz bands. We would probably see a lot of new equipment on the market, and a lot of people selling 2m/70cm dual band equipment as 2-meter rigs. In VHF, we will probably see an expansion in 220 usage as well. We may even see more work happening at 50mhz also. I think the real down side will be that this may affect other bands where we are seconday users as well. I can see 50 meter being affected, though I don't know what the actual impact would be. Of course the DOD may be completely satisfied with the efforts put forward, and all of this is moot. We'll be seeing in the next few weeks to months I'm sure. 73 - Rusty - kc0vcu

G3SEA	2007-06-07
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
There is a ' similar ' restriction over an area of London in the U.K. Amateur Radio Licence. National Security in any country overrides the hobby and we are after all ' secondary users '. Just be thankful for those defence networks. KH6/G3SEA Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-07 Ok, I'm just an almost-licensed newbie (passed the test a couple of weeks ago, waiting for my call to show up in the database now) and probably don't really understand the impact that this will have on hams. So I'm not going to even try and comment on that. The biggest question that this raises in my mind is this: Did we just announce to our enemies that they can interfere with our coastal defense radars by broadcasting noise in the 420 - 450MHz band? Or, have their techies already figured that out just by sitting offshore and monitoring those radars? ---------------------- No. Sleep well OM. Don't wory.

W8JAS	2007-06-07
RE: arrl's bad carma haunts ham radio
"arrl has no meaningful influence here. arrl has personally insulted FCC commissioners, so we can expect no empathy from FCC. That, in light of ham radio's secondary status, means that DoD can, and will, dictate terms." I knew it was just a matter of time before he would start the ARRL bashing. It's not about influence, it is about the priority of the military. Do you have to distort everything in your process of bashing the ARRL? Your credibility is gone. Reply to a comment by : W9WHE-II on 2007-06-07 arrl has no meaningful influence here. arrl has personally insulted FCC commissioners, so we can expect no empathy from FCC. That, in light of ham radio's secondary status, means that DoD can, and will, dictate terms. Its ironic, but similar rules that arrl has UNsuccessfuly tried to use to squash BPL, will now successfully be used against ham radio. The shoe is now on the other foot. The only difference is that DoD has both REAL influence and a SOLID legal footing, whereas arrl does not. Some might say that arrl's bad carma has come back to haunt ham radio. On the other hand, why not have arrl send FCC a letter "demanding" that Dod shut down the PPR systems? Afterall, those repeaters are used by emcomm hams, damit! Doesn't DoD realize that a single emcomm ham can save the civilized world from all manner of threats, including nuclear/chemical/biological ballistic missles? And if such "demands" fail....arrl can allways sue...right? (Dripping with sarcasim) Reply to a comment by : KG4RUL on 2007-06-07 "Secondary Allocation" If we wish the FCC, etal to ignore this to satisfy our needs, might it not happen to us when we have the "Primary Allocation"? Dennis KG4RUL Reply to a comment by : ONAIR on 2007-06-06 5 Watts? That's like putting us back on CB! Can't they just put the radar on to 220? Reply to a comment by : KC8VWM on 2007-06-06 All we can do is comply with the DOD/FCC request and hopefully it will serve to resolve the problem. The way I see things is that at least we still have an opportunity. Operating at 5 watts might just serve to satify thier requirements. If not, then what can you do? The security of the country obviously takes priority. I suppose we could all sit here and speculate all day long however, let's just keep our fingers crossed, wait and see what happens. 73 de Charles - KC8VWM Reply to a comment by : WW3QB on 2007-06-06 First, review the chart at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.html The good news is that amateur radio is primary for the 50, 144, and 222 MHz bands. The bad news is that amateur radio is secondary to government radiolocation (RADAR) on the 420, 900, and 1240 MHz bands. We do have most of the 2400 MHz band to ourselves. We probably only got those bands in the first place under the assumption we can co-exists with government RADAR. If that assumption is wrong, we will have nothing in UHF. It should be no surprise that amateur radio has the lowest priority for frequency allocations. Reply to a comment by : KC0VCU on 2007-06-06 Submitter's question was "What's Next?" I thought the reports earlier were pretty clear. We are a secondary user on the 440 UHF band. If our activity is causing interference we have to either co-operate to eliminate that interference, or we will have to leave the band. From the sounds of things, "leaving the band" will not be limited to CA and MA areas, it will be nation wide. It's not like there isn't any other UHF band out there that we could migrate to, though I suspect that we would see a lot of jockying for position to put repeaters in in either the 900mhz or 1.2 mhz bands. We would probably see a lot of new equipment on the market, and a lot of people selling 2m/70cm dual band equipment as 2-meter rigs. In VHF, we will probably see an expansion in 220 usage as well. We may even see more work happening at 50mhz also. I think the real down side will be that this may affect other bands where we are seconday users as well. I can see 50 meter being affected, though I don't know what the actual impact would be. Of course the DOD may be completely satisfied with the efforts put forward, and all of this is moot. We'll be seeing in the next few weeks to months I'm sure. 73 - Rusty - kc0vcu

W1YW	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
Ok, I'm just an almost-licensed newbie (passed the test a couple of weeks ago, waiting for my call to show up in the database now) and probably don't really understand the impact that this will have on hams. So I'm not going to even try and comment on that. The biggest question that this raises in my mind is this: Did we just announce to our enemies that they can interfere with our coastal defense radars by broadcasting noise in the 420 - 450MHz band? Or, have their techies already figured that out just by sitting offshore and monitoring those radars? ---------------------- No. Sleep well OM. Don't wory.

EXPERT308	2007-06-07
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
Ok, I'm just an almost-licensed newbie (passed the test a couple of weeks ago, waiting for my call to show up in the database now) and probably don't really understand the impact that this will have on hams. So I'm not going to even try and comment on that. The biggest question that this raises in my mind is this: Did we just announce to our enemies that they can interfere with our coastal defense radars by broadcasting noise in the 420 - 450MHz band? Or, have their techies already figured that out just by sitting offshore and monitoring those radars? Reply to a comment by : K8NWX on 2007-06-07 "Hopefully, the all-knowing, in their infinent wisdom, way up atop mount Newington, will not overlook the potental that hams are not the sole cause of the noise." If that's the case, then here's what will happen... They will do as they are now, asking everyone to drop to 5 watts, and they will see there is still interference. Then they will order the repeaters to completely shut down. If at that time, there is still interference, then they will know it's not us. If the interference dissappears, then it was us all along. But as they go through eliminating possibilities, they'll find out who is to blame, even if it takes them a while. Reply to a comment by : W9WHE-II on 2007-06-07 I wonder to what extent, if any, anyone has considered that 460 Mhz business/PS users might be contributing to the noise level with both base & mobile transmitters. Hopefully, the all-knowing, in their infinent wisdom, way up atop mount Newington, will not overlook the potental that hams are not the sole cause of the noise. Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-07 > The DOD is not the problem here. I agree. Each of us seems to see a different problem, and have a view of what it is. I have mine and you apparently have yours. Ed Hare, W1RFI ------------------------------ Ed, I am not aware of any problems I have. And I don't give a poop about your sarcasm. The fact is that there is AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE occurring based upon HARMFUL INTERFERENCE COMPLAINTS BY radio amateurs. Either help or don't. BTW, it is not MY problem because I would NEVER pump out 35 watts at 420-450 MHz driving over or near the Sagamore...and I haven't been served by such a letter of complaint, for the 41 years I have been a ham. Hope that helps. 73, Chip W1YW

W1YW	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
Ed, W1RFI..I REPEAT my request: "Would you like me to take take formal action to request that the AFSMO and FCC consider and request a review of considerations regarding additional restrictions of mobile opeations by Part 97 licensees for the secondary allocation of 420-450 MHz in the vicinity of these PAVEPAWS facilities? "

W1YW	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
I don't think that ARRL's choosing to work on what they asked us to can translate to the demand that your flight of fancy envisions, Chip. --------------------------------------- Physics is hardly a flight or fancy. Are you debating the case side that I do NOT know my stuff Ed? In which case, how do you explain my --and I know this word must sting you--success in this field? Why don't we grab an Anritsu SA and measure the signal strength from my IC-7000, whipped on the Caddy SRX-- and compare it to that of some of the closer repeaters at 5 watts at/near Otis? Can you tell me why you SHOULDN'T participate in this obvious and easy measurement? 73, Chip W1YW

W1YW	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
W1YW wrote: > I am not aware of any problems I have. Maybe we can start a list. Here or in a new thread (it might be lengthy). ------------------------------------------ More sarcasm--- in the face of reality...

W1YW	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
How in your mind does this translate to ARR" demanding extant interference in mobile Part 97 operations? The question was asked and answered by the military, and it is work enough to address specifically what they have identified as a problem. I don't think that ARRL's choosing to work on what they asked us to can translate to the demand that your flight of fancy envisions, Chip. > Ed, I am not aware of any problems I have. And I > don't give a poop about your sarcasm. I'm sure you don't, Chip, on either count. And the top of a very nice day to you. Ed Hare, W1RFI --------------------------- Ed, if you choose, IMO, to make an idiot of yourself, tha's your option. IMO, only an idiot would take the stance that repeaters pose the problem and mobiles don't-- because someone didn't say it yet. When the repeaters go to Low Power... -Mobiles will be running MUCH higher power; --Mobiles will have MUCH higher ERP's; --Mobiles can be closer to the PAVEPAWS radars than virtually all the effected repeaters; --the threat of hamful interference from Part 97 mobiles will reach or exceed that previously acheived from fixed stations. It certainly is untenable to not take the side of prudence and recommend that mobiles also cut their powers. As I said, I would be happy to alert them (AFSMO and the FCC) of this real potential for harmful interference--indeed, I would be pleased to assist them if they require calibration measurements from a licensed radio amateur with 420-450 MHz mobile ability. And as you know Ed, that is a non-commercial activity. I don't see YOU making that offer there Ed... 73, Chip W1YW

K8NWX	2007-06-07
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
"Hopefully, the all-knowing, in their infinent wisdom, way up atop mount Newington, will not overlook the potental that hams are not the sole cause of the noise." If that's the case, then here's what will happen... They will do as they are now, asking everyone to drop to 5 watts, and they will see there is still interference. Then they will order the repeaters to completely shut down. If at that time, there is still interference, then they will know it's not us. If the interference dissappears, then it was us all along. But as they go through eliminating possibilities, they'll find out who is to blame, even if it takes them a while. Reply to a comment by : W9WHE-II on 2007-06-07 I wonder to what extent, if any, anyone has considered that 460 Mhz business/PS users might be contributing to the noise level with both base & mobile transmitters. Hopefully, the all-knowing, in their infinent wisdom, way up atop mount Newington, will not overlook the potental that hams are not the sole cause of the noise. Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-07 > The DOD is not the problem here. I agree. Each of us seems to see a different problem, and have a view of what it is. I have mine and you apparently have yours. Ed Hare, W1RFI ------------------------------ Ed, I am not aware of any problems I have. And I don't give a poop about your sarcasm. The fact is that there is AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE occurring based upon HARMFUL INTERFERENCE COMPLAINTS BY radio amateurs. Either help or don't. BTW, it is not MY problem because I would NEVER pump out 35 watts at 420-450 MHz driving over or near the Sagamore...and I haven't been served by such a letter of complaint, for the 41 years I have been a ham. Hope that helps. 73, Chip W1YW

W0FM	2007-06-07
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
RADIOGUYR2 wrote: "Bet they wouldn't do this to the cell phone people". Have you not read about the millions of dollars that the government is forcing Nextel to spend to relocate Public Safety systems to new and separate areas of the 700-800 MHz spectrum due to the large amount of interference caused to Public Safety licensees by Nextel's cell sites? Nextel will be required to purchase entire replacement radio systems for many Public Safety entities and foot the bill to reprogram many more. And, while Nextel is forced to pick up the tab, the Public Safety community still face a major disruption and inconvenience to make the move. It's called "re-banding", and, in spite of the high cost to everyone involved, it is not, and will not, be an option. I'd say that the government, albeit it kicking and screaming, did the right thing here. 73, Terry, WØFM Reply to a comment by : WA1RNE on 2007-06-07 4) Beginning in August, 2007 (and continuing on a periodic basis), the DoD will have a follow-up engineers study at each PPR site to ensure corrective actions have been taken and the interference and to ensure that successful mitigation continues. >>> Chip, don't get too goofy on us, the ARRL is cooperating with the Air Force. It would appear the DoD is satisfied with the steps taken to date and will alert us/ARRL if more steps need to be taken to reduce interference - and naturally would be expanded to include any station capable of creating interference within a certain radius of the radars, like mobiles. In a couple hours the stock exchange closes and it will be martini time. Your rocking chair is waiting...... ....WA1RNE Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-07 The military was specifically asked about other Amateur operation, and their response was that the repeaters on the list they provided were the extent of the current problem. ARRL is addressing those first. Why would you consider that to be an embarrassment?--W1RFI --------------------------------------- Because the ARRL has taken an attitude towards claims of harmful interference TO PART 97-- WHICH IS PRE-EMPTIVE. Example: BPL installations in th 2004-2006 time period. Therefore, the ARRL EMBARRASSES THE Amateur Radio Service when it takes and encourages pre-emptive approaches in the case of Part 97 vis vis Part 15, but demands EXTANT interference in the case of mobile Part 97 operations in this case. Mobile operations by Part 97 licensees from 420-450 MHz pose considerable potential for harmful interference to PAVEPAWS, when in the vicinity of these radar sites. This arises because the line of site path is not well obscured by ground structures and environment in several locations in the vicinity of the PAVE PAWS installations, and present power limits of 35 watts, with the allowance of gain antennas while mobile, can and do produce higher signal strengths at these PAVE PAWS sites than many FIXED STATION repeaters --that are now (voluntarily)restricted to 5 watts. Obviously, cars can get very close to at least one of these sites, and in the case of Otis, said cars can actually contain 50 PLUS WATTS of ERP TOWARDS PAVEPAWS, within a mere FEW KILOMETERS or less. And, at least one location is SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET ABOVE SALT WATER. A perfect propagation path. Would you like me to take take formal action to request that the AFSMO and FCC consider and request a review of considerations regarding additional restrictions of mobile opeations by Part 97 licensees for the secondary allocation of 420-450 MHz in the vicinity of these PAVEPAWS facilities? Or does the ARRL wish to alert the amateur radio service that prudence dictates use of lower powers than presently allowed for mobiles, in order to PREVENT HI to these sites? I would be delighted to be involved in the resolution of this matter, to the satisfaction of the primary alloation holder. That is our obligation as Part 97 licensees. Also, I do hope that others understand that the situation is with respect to AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE BY THE FCC REGARDING HARMFUL INTERFERENCE BY SOME PART 97 LICENSEES. Either act for the benefit of Part 97, or someone else will do it for you. 73, Chip W1YW

W9WHE-II	2007-06-07
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
I wonder to what extent, if any, anyone has considered that 460 Mhz business/PS users might be contributing to the noise level with both base & mobile transmitters. Hopefully, the all-knowing, in their infinent wisdom, way up atop mount Newington, will not overlook the potental that hams are not the sole cause of the noise. Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-07 > The DOD is not the problem here. I agree. Each of us seems to see a different problem, and have a view of what it is. I have mine and you apparently have yours. Ed Hare, W1RFI ------------------------------ Ed, I am not aware of any problems I have. And I don't give a poop about your sarcasm. The fact is that there is AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE occurring based upon HARMFUL INTERFERENCE COMPLAINTS BY radio amateurs. Either help or don't. BTW, it is not MY problem because I would NEVER pump out 35 watts at 420-450 MHz driving over or near the Sagamore...and I haven't been served by such a letter of complaint, for the 41 years I have been a ham. Hope that helps. 73, Chip W1YW

KE4ZHN	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
This is a no brainer....national defense, or some idiot talking to his buddy about the traffic on a repeater. Duh! As secondary users we have to follow Uncle Sams rules, plain and simple.

WA1RNE	2007-06-07
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
4) Beginning in August, 2007 (and continuing on a periodic basis), the DoD will have a follow-up engineers study at each PPR site to ensure corrective actions have been taken and the interference and to ensure that successful mitigation continues. >>> Chip, don't get too goofy on us, the ARRL is cooperating with the Air Force. It would appear the DoD is satisfied with the steps taken to date and will alert us/ARRL if more steps need to be taken to reduce interference - and naturally would be expanded to include any station capable of creating interference within a certain radius of the radars, like mobiles. In a couple hours the stock exchange closes and it will be martini time. Your rocking chair is waiting...... ....WA1RNE Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-07 The military was specifically asked about other Amateur operation, and their response was that the repeaters on the list they provided were the extent of the current problem. ARRL is addressing those first. Why would you consider that to be an embarrassment?--W1RFI --------------------------------------- Because the ARRL has taken an attitude towards claims of harmful interference TO PART 97-- WHICH IS PRE-EMPTIVE. Example: BPL installations in th 2004-2006 time period. Therefore, the ARRL EMBARRASSES THE Amateur Radio Service when it takes and encourages pre-emptive approaches in the case of Part 97 vis vis Part 15, but demands EXTANT interference in the case of mobile Part 97 operations in this case. Mobile operations by Part 97 licensees from 420-450 MHz pose considerable potential for harmful interference to PAVEPAWS, when in the vicinity of these radar sites. This arises because the line of site path is not well obscured by ground structures and environment in several locations in the vicinity of the PAVE PAWS installations, and present power limits of 35 watts, with the allowance of gain antennas while mobile, can and do produce higher signal strengths at these PAVE PAWS sites than many FIXED STATION repeaters --that are now (voluntarily)restricted to 5 watts. Obviously, cars can get very close to at least one of these sites, and in the case of Otis, said cars can actually contain 50 PLUS WATTS of ERP TOWARDS PAVEPAWS, within a mere FEW KILOMETERS or less. And, at least one location is SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET ABOVE SALT WATER. A perfect propagation path. Would you like me to take take formal action to request that the AFSMO and FCC consider and request a review of considerations regarding additional restrictions of mobile opeations by Part 97 licensees for the secondary allocation of 420-450 MHz in the vicinity of these PAVEPAWS facilities? Or does the ARRL wish to alert the amateur radio service that prudence dictates use of lower powers than presently allowed for mobiles, in order to PREVENT HI to these sites? I would be delighted to be involved in the resolution of this matter, to the satisfaction of the primary alloation holder. That is our obligation as Part 97 licensees. Also, I do hope that others understand that the situation is with respect to AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE BY THE FCC REGARDING HARMFUL INTERFERENCE BY SOME PART 97 LICENSEES. Either act for the benefit of Part 97, or someone else will do it for you. 73, Chip W1YW

K0RFD	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
W1YW wrote: > I am not aware of any problems I have. Maybe we can start a list. Here or in a new thread (it might be lengthy).

W1RFI	2007-06-07
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
> Therefore, the ARRL EMBARRASSES THE Amateur Radio > Service when it takes and encourages pre-emptive > approaches in the case of Part 97 vis vis Part 15, > but demands EXTANT interference in the case of > mobile Part 97 operations in this case. I guess there is some part of the following that you did not understand... > The military was specifically asked about other > Amateur operation, and their response was that the > repeaters on the list they provided were the extent > of the current problem. ARRL is addressing those first. <emphasis added> How in your mind does this translate to ARR" demanding extant interference in mobile Part 97 operations? The question was asked and answered by the military, and it is work enough to address specifically what they have identified as a problem. I don't think that ARRL's choosing to work on what they asked us to can translate to the demand that your flight of fancy envisions, Chip. > Ed, I am not aware of any problems I have. And I > don't give a poop about your sarcasm. I'm sure you don't, Chip, on either count. And the top of a very nice day to you. Ed Hare, W1RFI Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-07 The military was specifically asked about other Amateur operation, and their response was that the repeaters on the list they provided were the extent of the current problem. ARRL is addressing those first. Why would you consider that to be an embarrassment?--W1RFI --------------------------------------- Because the ARRL has taken an attitude towards claims of harmful interference TO PART 97-- WHICH IS PRE-EMPTIVE. Example: BPL installations in th 2004-2006 time period. Therefore, the ARRL EMBARRASSES THE Amateur Radio Service when it takes and encourages pre-emptive approaches in the case of Part 97 vis vis Part 15, but demands EXTANT interference in the case of mobile Part 97 operations in this case. Mobile operations by Part 97 licensees from 420-450 MHz pose considerable potential for harmful interference to PAVEPAWS, when in the vicinity of these radar sites. This arises because the line of site path is not well obscured by ground structures and environment in several locations in the vicinity of the PAVE PAWS installations, and present power limits of 35 watts, with the allowance of gain antennas while mobile, can and do produce higher signal strengths at these PAVE PAWS sites than many FIXED STATION repeaters --that are now (voluntarily)restricted to 5 watts. Obviously, cars can get very close to at least one of these sites, and in the case of Otis, said cars can actually contain 50 PLUS WATTS of ERP TOWARDS PAVEPAWS, within a mere FEW KILOMETERS or less. And, at least one location is SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET ABOVE SALT WATER. A perfect propagation path. Would you like me to take take formal action to request that the AFSMO and FCC consider and request a review of considerations regarding additional restrictions of mobile opeations by Part 97 licensees for the secondary allocation of 420-450 MHz in the vicinity of these PAVEPAWS facilities? Or does the ARRL wish to alert the amateur radio service that prudence dictates use of lower powers than presently allowed for mobiles, in order to PREVENT HI to these sites? I would be delighted to be involved in the resolution of this matter, to the satisfaction of the primary alloation holder. That is our obligation as Part 97 licensees. Also, I do hope that others understand that the situation is with respect to AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE BY THE FCC REGARDING HARMFUL INTERFERENCE BY SOME PART 97 LICENSEES. Either act for the benefit of Part 97, or someone else will do it for you. 73, Chip W1YW

WR8D	2007-06-07
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
You know, unless i over looked them i don't see any of those repeater owners from out there complaining about this. It's national defense people. Hopefully some raghead won't be able to smuggle a brief case size nuke into one of our major cities via our southern boarder or our northern one. Hopefully some freaked out nation won't take their billions in oil money and buy a soviet sub and sneak in to either coast and shoot a nuke at us, not caring at all that we will blow them out of the water. In their eyes they've done "their" God a favor by doing harm to us. Think about all this, the great big picture. The DOD is trying to keep a much needed advance warning system operational and at it's peak. What's more important some hams wife running down a freeway talking about getting her hair done and the grocery list....or protecting our sorry asses from those in this world that sooner or later are gonna get through to us. Give it a thought before you spew now. On a second thought, we are at war. Remember what happened during WWII ??? No amateur radio allowed "period". This same thing could very easily happen again today. Think about my eye opening comments before you start a spew fest. Watch the news and give the grey matter a chance before you engage the pie hole. 73 John WR8D Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-07 The military was specifically asked about other Amateur operation, and their response was that the repeaters on the list they provided were the extent of the current problem. ARRL is addressing those first. Why would you consider that to be an embarrassment?--W1RFI --------------------------------------- Because the ARRL has taken an attitude towards claims of harmful interference TO PART 97-- WHICH IS PRE-EMPTIVE. Example: BPL installations in th 2004-2006 time period. Therefore, the ARRL EMBARRASSES THE Amateur Radio Service when it takes and encourages pre-emptive approaches in the case of Part 97 vis vis Part 15, but demands EXTANT interference in the case of mobile Part 97 operations in this case. Mobile operations by Part 97 licensees from 420-450 MHz pose considerable potential for harmful interference to PAVEPAWS, when in the vicinity of these radar sites. This arises because the line of site path is not well obscured by ground structures and environment in several locations in the vicinity of the PAVE PAWS installations, and present power limits of 35 watts, with the allowance of gain antennas while mobile, can and do produce higher signal strengths at these PAVE PAWS sites than many FIXED STATION repeaters --that are now (voluntarily)restricted to 5 watts. Obviously, cars can get very close to at least one of these sites, and in the case of Otis, said cars can actually contain 50 PLUS WATTS of ERP TOWARDS PAVEPAWS, within a mere FEW KILOMETERS or less. And, at least one location is SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET ABOVE SALT WATER. A perfect propagation path. Would you like me to take take formal action to request that the AFSMO and FCC consider and request a review of considerations regarding additional restrictions of mobile opeations by Part 97 licensees for the secondary allocation of 420-450 MHz in the vicinity of these PAVEPAWS facilities? Or does the ARRL wish to alert the amateur radio service that prudence dictates use of lower powers than presently allowed for mobiles, in order to PREVENT HI to these sites? I would be delighted to be involved in the resolution of this matter, to the satisfaction of the primary alloation holder. That is our obligation as Part 97 licensees. Also, I do hope that others understand that the situation is with respect to AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE BY THE FCC REGARDING HARMFUL INTERFERENCE BY SOME PART 97 LICENSEES. Either act for the benefit of Part 97, or someone else will do it for you. 73, Chip W1YW

W1YW	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
> The DOD is not the problem here. I agree. Each of us seems to see a different problem, and have a view of what it is. I have mine and you apparently have yours. Ed Hare, W1RFI ------------------------------ Ed, I am not aware of any problems I have. And I don't give a poop about your sarcasm. The fact is that there is AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE occurring based upon HARMFUL INTERFERENCE COMPLAINTS BY radio amateurs. Either help or don't. BTW, it is not MY problem because I would NEVER pump out 35 watts at 420-450 MHz driving over or near the Sagamore...and I haven't been served by such a letter of complaint, for the 41 years I have been a ham. Hope that helps. 73, Chip W1YW

W1YW	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
The military was specifically asked about other Amateur operation, and their response was that the repeaters on the list they provided were the extent of the current problem. ARRL is addressing those first. Why would you consider that to be an embarrassment?--W1RFI --------------------------------------- Because the ARRL has taken an attitude towards claims of harmful interference TO PART 97-- WHICH IS PRE-EMPTIVE. Example: BPL installations in th 2004-2006 time period. Therefore, the ARRL EMBARRASSES THE Amateur Radio Service when it takes and encourages pre-emptive approaches in the case of Part 97 vis vis Part 15, but demands EXTANT interference in the case of mobile Part 97 operations in this case. Mobile operations by Part 97 licensees from 420-450 MHz pose considerable potential for harmful interference to PAVEPAWS, when in the vicinity of these radar sites. This arises because the line of site path is not well obscured by ground structures and environment in several locations in the vicinity of the PAVE PAWS installations, and present power limits of 35 watts, with the allowance of gain antennas while mobile, can and do produce higher signal strengths at these PAVE PAWS sites than many FIXED STATION repeaters --that are now (voluntarily)restricted to 5 watts. Obviously, cars can get very close to at least one of these sites, and in the case of Otis, said cars can actually contain 50 PLUS WATTS of ERP TOWARDS PAVEPAWS, within a mere FEW KILOMETERS or less. And, at least one location is SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET ABOVE SALT WATER. A perfect propagation path. Would you like me to take take formal action to request that the AFSMO and FCC consider and request a review of considerations regarding additional restrictions of mobile opeations by Part 97 licensees for the secondary allocation of 420-450 MHz in the vicinity of these PAVEPAWS facilities? Or does the ARRL wish to alert the amateur radio service that prudence dictates use of lower powers than presently allowed for mobiles, in order to PREVENT HI to these sites? I would be delighted to be involved in the resolution of this matter, to the satisfaction of the primary alloation holder. That is our obligation as Part 97 licensees. Also, I do hope that others understand that the situation is with respect to AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE BY THE FCC REGARDING HARMFUL INTERFERENCE BY SOME PART 97 LICENSEES. Either act for the benefit of Part 97, or someone else will do it for you. 73, Chip W1YW

W1RFI	2007-06-07
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
> The ARRL's failure to address the HI potential from > all Part 97 (420-450 MHz)users in the vicinity of > these two Radar sites is an embarrassment to the > amateur radio service. It provides for no solution > that removes the problem, and indeed, only > encourages future problems from mobile stations. The military was specifically asked about other Amateur operation, and their response was that the repeaters on the list they provided were the extent of the current problem. ARRL is addressing those first. Why would you consider that to be an embarrassment? It is clear to everyone without your need to explain to the masses that if additional use of Amateur Radio also causes problems, they, too, will have to be addressed. If it turns out that other users also cause harmful interference, ARRL will continue the process it has started and help determine the source and the correct solutions, in cooperation with the military, the coordinators and individual stations, who are the ones ultimately responsible for any interference. > The ARRL has expected certain efforts to stop > alleged harmful interference from BPL Part 15 > sources to be acted upon in a certain way. It cannot > maintain an hypocrisy which 'requires' that, while > failing to solve the HI CAUSED by extant Part 97 > transmissions. ARRL has been very clear that Amateur Radio is a secondary user of this spectrum. By definition, that is equally clear that if the harmful interference being reported by the primary user is not resolved to the primary user's satisfaction, the responsibility will be on the secondary user to do whatever is needed. ARRL has proposed an interim good-faith step, and is working directly with the military technical people to determine just what is needed for each individual repeater to be able to operate without causing harmful interference. In what way in your mind is this hypocricy? > The DOD is not the problem here. I agree. Each of us seems to see a different problem, and have a view of what it is. I have mine and you apparently have yours. Ed Hare, W1RFI Reply to a comment by : W1YW on 2007-06-07 This polished letter gives the impression that the DoD has accepted the ARRL's proposal. Indeed, no evidence is presented to support that supposition. Repeaters are fixed stations with defined ERPS that are essentially steady state (although subject to some changes in propagation--mostly weather-influenced). There is no reason to believe that lowering power across the board to 5 watts, for REPEATERS, will remove harmful interference to the primary users in this frequency. The issue was never, and will never be, power. It is, and will always be, ERP/SIGNAL STRENGTH IN THE DIRECTION/AT THE TWO RELEVANT RADAR SITES FROM ALL PART 97 USERS at these frequencies. That INCLUDES.... 1)FIXED and 2)MOBILE The ARRL's failure to address the HI potential from all Part 97 (420-450 MHz)users in the vicinity of these two Radar sites is an embarrassment to the amateur radio service. It provides for no solution that removes the problem, and indeed, only encourages future problems from mobile stations. Please understand: THIS IS AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION by the FCC. It is not some 'voluntary' situation. If the HI continues, then Part 97 users IN THE VICINITY of these two sites WILL BE SHUT DOWN from further operation. The ARRL has expected certain efforts to stop alleged harmful interference from BPL Part 15 sources to be acted upon in a certain way. It cannot maintain an hypocrisy which 'requires' that, while failing to solve the HI CAUSED by extant Part 97 transmissions. My opinions. The DOD is not the problem here. 73, Chip W1YW

W3LK	2007-06-07
RE: arrl's bad carma haunts ham radio
I never cease to be amazed at the sheer arrogance of many hams who feel they have some god-given RIGHT to operate an amateur radio station and the consequences be damned. The priority is the safety of this nation and not the ability to chat with a buddy on the way home from work. As for the comment about would they do this to cell sites - you bet! One of the worst locations for cell service in the Baltimore/Washington area is Ft. Meade - home of the NSA and most military intelligence agencies. There are NO cell sites within the confines of or immediately adjacent to the base. Lon - W3LK Baltimore, Maryland - Soon to be Naugatuck, Connecticut Reply to a comment by : K8NWX on 2007-06-07 "arrl has no meaningful influence here." The ARRL has nothing to do with this. We are secondary users, the government is primary, and the government needs the spectrum. Very cut and dried. The ARRL has no business sticking their noses in it, which is why they haven't. No matter WHAT the ARRL does, the ham community will just end up having a big civil war about it anyway. Reply to a comment by : W9WHE-II on 2007-06-07 arrl has no meaningful influence here. arrl has personally insulted FCC commissioners, so we can expect no empathy from FCC. That, in light of ham radio's secondary status, means that DoD can, and will, dictate terms. Its ironic, but similar rules that arrl has UNsuccessfuly tried to use to squash BPL, will now successfully be used against ham radio. The shoe is now on the other foot. The only difference is that DoD has both REAL influence and a SOLID legal footing, whereas arrl does not. Some might say that arrl's bad carma has come back to haunt ham radio. On the other hand, why not have arrl send FCC a letter "demanding" that Dod shut down the PPR systems? Afterall, those repeaters are used by emcomm hams, damit! Doesn't DoD realize that a single emcomm ham can save the civilized world from all manner of threats, including nuclear/chemical/biological ballistic missles? And if such "demands" fail....arrl can allways sue...right? (Dripping with sarcasim) Reply to a comment by : KG4RUL on 2007-06-07 "Secondary Allocation" If we wish the FCC, etal to ignore this to satisfy our needs, might it not happen to us when we have the "Primary Allocation"? Dennis KG4RUL Reply to a comment by : ONAIR on 2007-06-06 5 Watts? That's like putting us back on CB! Can't they just put the radar on to 220? Reply to a comment by : KC8VWM on 2007-06-06 All we can do is comply with the DOD/FCC request and hopefully it will serve to resolve the problem. The way I see things is that at least we still have an opportunity. Operating at 5 watts might just serve to satify thier requirements. If not, then what can you do? The security of the country obviously takes priority. I suppose we could all sit here and speculate all day long however, let's just keep our fingers crossed, wait and see what happens. 73 de Charles - KC8VWM Reply to a comment by : WW3QB on 2007-06-06 First, review the chart at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.html The good news is that amateur radio is primary for the 50, 144, and 222 MHz bands. The bad news is that amateur radio is secondary to government radiolocation (RADAR) on the 420, 900, and 1240 MHz bands. We do have most of the 2400 MHz band to ourselves. We probably only got those bands in the first place under the assumption we can co-exists with government RADAR. If that assumption is wrong, we will have nothing in UHF. It should be no surprise that amateur radio has the lowest priority for frequency allocations. Reply to a comment by : KC0VCU on 2007-06-06 Submitter's question was "What's Next?" I thought the reports earlier were pretty clear. We are a secondary user on the 440 UHF band. If our activity is causing interference we have to either co-operate to eliminate that interference, or we will have to leave the band. From the sounds of things, "leaving the band" will not be limited to CA and MA areas, it will be nation wide. It's not like there isn't any other UHF band out there that we could migrate to, though I suspect that we would see a lot of jockying for position to put repeaters in in either the 900mhz or 1.2 mhz bands. We would probably see a lot of new equipment on the market, and a lot of people selling 2m/70cm dual band equipment as 2-meter rigs. In VHF, we will probably see an expansion in 220 usage as well. We may even see more work happening at 50mhz also. I think the real down side will be that this may affect other bands where we are seconday users as well. I can see 50 meter being affected, though I don't know what the actual impact would be. Of course the DOD may be completely satisfied with the efforts put forward, and all of this is moot. We'll be seeing in the next few weeks to months I'm sure. 73 - Rusty - kc0vcu

W1YW	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
This polished letter gives the impression that the DoD has accepted the ARRL's proposal. Indeed, no evidence is presented to support that supposition. Repeaters are fixed stations with defined ERPS that are essentially steady state (although subject to some changes in propagation--mostly weather-influenced). There is no reason to believe that lowering power across the board to 5 watts, for REPEATERS, will remove harmful interference to the primary users in this frequency. The issue was never, and will never be, power. It is, and will always be, ERP/SIGNAL STRENGTH IN THE DIRECTION/AT THE TWO RELEVANT RADAR SITES FROM ALL PART 97 USERS at these frequencies. That INCLUDES.... 1)FIXED and 2)MOBILE The ARRL's failure to address the HI potential from all Part 97 (420-450 MHz)users in the vicinity of these two Radar sites is an embarrassment to the amateur radio service. It provides for no solution that removes the problem, and indeed, only encourages future problems from mobile stations. Please understand: THIS IS AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION by the FCC. It is not some 'voluntary' situation. If the HI continues, then Part 97 users IN THE VICINITY of these two sites WILL BE SHUT DOWN from further operation. The ARRL has expected certain efforts to stop alleged harmful interference from BPL Part 15 sources to be acted upon in a certain way. It cannot maintain an hypocrisy which 'requires' that, while failing to solve the HI CAUSED by extant Part 97 transmissions. My opinions. The DOD is not the problem here. 73, Chip W1YW

K8NWX	2007-06-07
RE: arrl's bad carma haunts ham radio
"arrl has no meaningful influence here." The ARRL has nothing to do with this. We are secondary users, the government is primary, and the government needs the spectrum. Very cut and dried. The ARRL has no business sticking their noses in it, which is why they haven't. No matter WHAT the ARRL does, the ham community will just end up having a big civil war about it anyway. Reply to a comment by : W9WHE-II on 2007-06-07 arrl has no meaningful influence here. arrl has personally insulted FCC commissioners, so we can expect no empathy from FCC. That, in light of ham radio's secondary status, means that DoD can, and will, dictate terms. Its ironic, but similar rules that arrl has UNsuccessfuly tried to use to squash BPL, will now successfully be used against ham radio. The shoe is now on the other foot. The only difference is that DoD has both REAL influence and a SOLID legal footing, whereas arrl does not. Some might say that arrl's bad carma has come back to haunt ham radio. On the other hand, why not have arrl send FCC a letter "demanding" that Dod shut down the PPR systems? Afterall, those repeaters are used by emcomm hams, damit! Doesn't DoD realize that a single emcomm ham can save the civilized world from all manner of threats, including nuclear/chemical/biological ballistic missles? And if such "demands" fail....arrl can allways sue...right? (Dripping with sarcasim) Reply to a comment by : KG4RUL on 2007-06-07 "Secondary Allocation" If we wish the FCC, etal to ignore this to satisfy our needs, might it not happen to us when we have the "Primary Allocation"? Dennis KG4RUL Reply to a comment by : ONAIR on 2007-06-06 5 Watts? That's like putting us back on CB! Can't they just put the radar on to 220? Reply to a comment by : KC8VWM on 2007-06-06 All we can do is comply with the DOD/FCC request and hopefully it will serve to resolve the problem. The way I see things is that at least we still have an opportunity. Operating at 5 watts might just serve to satify thier requirements. If not, then what can you do? The security of the country obviously takes priority. I suppose we could all sit here and speculate all day long however, let's just keep our fingers crossed, wait and see what happens. 73 de Charles - KC8VWM Reply to a comment by : WW3QB on 2007-06-06 First, review the chart at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.html The good news is that amateur radio is primary for the 50, 144, and 222 MHz bands. The bad news is that amateur radio is secondary to government radiolocation (RADAR) on the 420, 900, and 1240 MHz bands. We do have most of the 2400 MHz band to ourselves. We probably only got those bands in the first place under the assumption we can co-exists with government RADAR. If that assumption is wrong, we will have nothing in UHF. It should be no surprise that amateur radio has the lowest priority for frequency allocations. Reply to a comment by : KC0VCU on 2007-06-06 Submitter's question was "What's Next?" I thought the reports earlier were pretty clear. We are a secondary user on the 440 UHF band. If our activity is causing interference we have to either co-operate to eliminate that interference, or we will have to leave the band. From the sounds of things, "leaving the band" will not be limited to CA and MA areas, it will be nation wide. It's not like there isn't any other UHF band out there that we could migrate to, though I suspect that we would see a lot of jockying for position to put repeaters in in either the 900mhz or 1.2 mhz bands. We would probably see a lot of new equipment on the market, and a lot of people selling 2m/70cm dual band equipment as 2-meter rigs. In VHF, we will probably see an expansion in 220 usage as well. We may even see more work happening at 50mhz also. I think the real down side will be that this may affect other bands where we are seconday users as well. I can see 50 meter being affected, though I don't know what the actual impact would be. Of course the DOD may be completely satisfied with the efforts put forward, and all of this is moot. We'll be seeing in the next few weeks to months I'm sure. 73 - Rusty - kc0vcu

W9WHE-II	2007-06-07
RE: arrl's bad carma haunts ham radio
arrl has no meaningful influence here. arrl has personally insulted FCC commissioners, so we can expect no empathy from FCC. That, in light of ham radio's secondary status, means that DoD can, and will, dictate terms. Its ironic, but similar rules that arrl has UNsuccessfuly tried to use to squash BPL, will now successfully be used against ham radio. The shoe is now on the other foot. The only difference is that DoD has both REAL influence and a SOLID legal footing, whereas arrl does not. Some might say that arrl's bad carma has come back to haunt ham radio. On the other hand, why not have arrl send FCC a letter "demanding" that Dod shut down the PPR systems? Afterall, those repeaters are used by emcomm hams, damit! Doesn't DoD realize that a single emcomm ham can save the civilized world from all manner of threats, including nuclear/chemical/biological ballistic missles? And if such "demands" fail....arrl can allways sue...right? (Dripping with sarcasim) Reply to a comment by : KG4RUL on 2007-06-07 "Secondary Allocation" If we wish the FCC, etal to ignore this to satisfy our needs, might it not happen to us when we have the "Primary Allocation"? Dennis KG4RUL Reply to a comment by : ONAIR on 2007-06-06 5 Watts? That's like putting us back on CB! Can't they just put the radar on to 220? Reply to a comment by : KC8VWM on 2007-06-06 All we can do is comply with the DOD/FCC request and hopefully it will serve to resolve the problem. The way I see things is that at least we still have an opportunity. Operating at 5 watts might just serve to satify thier requirements. If not, then what can you do? The security of the country obviously takes priority. I suppose we could all sit here and speculate all day long however, let's just keep our fingers crossed, wait and see what happens. 73 de Charles - KC8VWM Reply to a comment by : WW3QB on 2007-06-06 First, review the chart at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.html The good news is that amateur radio is primary for the 50, 144, and 222 MHz bands. The bad news is that amateur radio is secondary to government radiolocation (RADAR) on the 420, 900, and 1240 MHz bands. We do have most of the 2400 MHz band to ourselves. We probably only got those bands in the first place under the assumption we can co-exists with government RADAR. If that assumption is wrong, we will have nothing in UHF. It should be no surprise that amateur radio has the lowest priority for frequency allocations. Reply to a comment by : KC0VCU on 2007-06-06 Submitter's question was "What's Next?" I thought the reports earlier were pretty clear. We are a secondary user on the 440 UHF band. If our activity is causing interference we have to either co-operate to eliminate that interference, or we will have to leave the band. From the sounds of things, "leaving the band" will not be limited to CA and MA areas, it will be nation wide. It's not like there isn't any other UHF band out there that we could migrate to, though I suspect that we would see a lot of jockying for position to put repeaters in in either the 900mhz or 1.2 mhz bands. We would probably see a lot of new equipment on the market, and a lot of people selling 2m/70cm dual band equipment as 2-meter rigs. In VHF, we will probably see an expansion in 220 usage as well. We may even see more work happening at 50mhz also. I think the real down side will be that this may affect other bands where we are seconday users as well. I can see 50 meter being affected, though I don't know what the actual impact would be. Of course the DOD may be completely satisfied with the efforts put forward, and all of this is moot. We'll be seeing in the next few weeks to months I'm sure. 73 - Rusty - kc0vcu

WD4AOG	2007-06-07
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
Come on folks. This is something like moving next to an airport then complaining about the noise and demanding that the airport move. We've known all along that we are not the primary users on this band. Any repeater owner or user on 440 mhz who thinks this is unfair has been ignoring the rules and regs. Inconvenient and unfortunate? Yes. Unfair. Sorry, but no.

KG4RUL	2007-06-07
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
"Secondary Allocation" If we wish the FCC, etal to ignore this to satisfy our needs, might it not happen to us when we have the "Primary Allocation"? Dennis KG4RUL Reply to a comment by : ONAIR on 2007-06-06 5 Watts? That's like putting us back on CB! Can't they just put the radar on to 220? Reply to a comment by : KC8VWM on 2007-06-06 All we can do is comply with the DOD/FCC request and hopefully it will serve to resolve the problem. The way I see things is that at least we still have an opportunity. Operating at 5 watts might just serve to satify thier requirements. If not, then what can you do? The security of the country obviously takes priority. I suppose we could all sit here and speculate all day long however, let's just keep our fingers crossed, wait and see what happens. 73 de Charles - KC8VWM Reply to a comment by : WW3QB on 2007-06-06 First, review the chart at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.html The good news is that amateur radio is primary for the 50, 144, and 222 MHz bands. The bad news is that amateur radio is secondary to government radiolocation (RADAR) on the 420, 900, and 1240 MHz bands. We do have most of the 2400 MHz band to ourselves. We probably only got those bands in the first place under the assumption we can co-exists with government RADAR. If that assumption is wrong, we will have nothing in UHF. It should be no surprise that amateur radio has the lowest priority for frequency allocations. Reply to a comment by : KC0VCU on 2007-06-06 Submitter's question was "What's Next?" I thought the reports earlier were pretty clear. We are a secondary user on the 440 UHF band. If our activity is causing interference we have to either co-operate to eliminate that interference, or we will have to leave the band. From the sounds of things, "leaving the band" will not be limited to CA and MA areas, it will be nation wide. It's not like there isn't any other UHF band out there that we could migrate to, though I suspect that we would see a lot of jockying for position to put repeaters in in either the 900mhz or 1.2 mhz bands. We would probably see a lot of new equipment on the market, and a lot of people selling 2m/70cm dual band equipment as 2-meter rigs. In VHF, we will probably see an expansion in 220 usage as well. We may even see more work happening at 50mhz also. I think the real down side will be that this may affect other bands where we are seconday users as well. I can see 50 meter being affected, though I don't know what the actual impact would be. Of course the DOD may be completely satisfied with the efforts put forward, and all of this is moot. We'll be seeing in the next few weeks to months I'm sure. 73 - Rusty - kc0vcu

ONAIR	2007-06-06
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
5 Watts? That's like putting us back on CB! Can't they just put the radar on to 220? Reply to a comment by : KC8VWM on 2007-06-06 All we can do is comply with the DOD/FCC request and hopefully it will serve to resolve the problem. The way I see things is that at least we still have an opportunity. Operating at 5 watts might just serve to satify thier requirements. If not, then what can you do? The security of the country obviously takes priority. I suppose we could all sit here and speculate all day long however, let's just keep our fingers crossed, wait and see what happens. 73 de Charles - KC8VWM Reply to a comment by : WW3QB on 2007-06-06 First, review the chart at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.html The good news is that amateur radio is primary for the 50, 144, and 222 MHz bands. The bad news is that amateur radio is secondary to government radiolocation (RADAR) on the 420, 900, and 1240 MHz bands. We do have most of the 2400 MHz band to ourselves. We probably only got those bands in the first place under the assumption we can co-exists with government RADAR. If that assumption is wrong, we will have nothing in UHF. It should be no surprise that amateur radio has the lowest priority for frequency allocations. Reply to a comment by : KC0VCU on 2007-06-06 Submitter's question was "What's Next?" I thought the reports earlier were pretty clear. We are a secondary user on the 440 UHF band. If our activity is causing interference we have to either co-operate to eliminate that interference, or we will have to leave the band. From the sounds of things, "leaving the band" will not be limited to CA and MA areas, it will be nation wide. It's not like there isn't any other UHF band out there that we could migrate to, though I suspect that we would see a lot of jockying for position to put repeaters in in either the 900mhz or 1.2 mhz bands. We would probably see a lot of new equipment on the market, and a lot of people selling 2m/70cm dual band equipment as 2-meter rigs. In VHF, we will probably see an expansion in 220 usage as well. We may even see more work happening at 50mhz also. I think the real down side will be that this may affect other bands where we are seconday users as well. I can see 50 meter being affected, though I don't know what the actual impact would be. Of course the DOD may be completely satisfied with the efforts put forward, and all of this is moot. We'll be seeing in the next few weeks to months I'm sure. 73 - Rusty - kc0vcu

KC8VWM	2007-06-06
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
All we can do is comply with the DOD/FCC request and hopefully it will serve to resolve the problem. The way I see things is that at least we still have an opportunity. Operating at 5 watts might just serve to satify thier requirements. If not, then what can you do? The security of the country obviously takes priority. I suppose we could all sit here and speculate all day long however, let's just keep our fingers crossed, wait and see what happens. 73 de Charles - KC8VWM Reply to a comment by : WW3QB on 2007-06-06 First, review the chart at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.html The good news is that amateur radio is primary for the 50, 144, and 222 MHz bands. The bad news is that amateur radio is secondary to government radiolocation (RADAR) on the 420, 900, and 1240 MHz bands. We do have most of the 2400 MHz band to ourselves. We probably only got those bands in the first place under the assumption we can co-exists with government RADAR. If that assumption is wrong, we will have nothing in UHF. It should be no surprise that amateur radio has the lowest priority for frequency allocations. Reply to a comment by : KC0VCU on 2007-06-06 Submitter's question was "What's Next?" I thought the reports earlier were pretty clear. We are a secondary user on the 440 UHF band. If our activity is causing interference we have to either co-operate to eliminate that interference, or we will have to leave the band. From the sounds of things, "leaving the band" will not be limited to CA and MA areas, it will be nation wide. It's not like there isn't any other UHF band out there that we could migrate to, though I suspect that we would see a lot of jockying for position to put repeaters in in either the 900mhz or 1.2 mhz bands. We would probably see a lot of new equipment on the market, and a lot of people selling 2m/70cm dual band equipment as 2-meter rigs. In VHF, we will probably see an expansion in 220 usage as well. We may even see more work happening at 50mhz also. I think the real down side will be that this may affect other bands where we are seconday users as well. I can see 50 meter being affected, though I don't know what the actual impact would be. Of course the DOD may be completely satisfied with the efforts put forward, and all of this is moot. We'll be seeing in the next few weeks to months I'm sure. 73 - Rusty - kc0vcu

WW3QB	2007-06-06
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
First, review the chart at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.html The good news is that amateur radio is primary for the 50, 144, and 222 MHz bands. The bad news is that amateur radio is secondary to government radiolocation (RADAR) on the 420, 900, and 1240 MHz bands. We do have most of the 2400 MHz band to ourselves. We probably only got those bands in the first place under the assumption we can co-exists with government RADAR. If that assumption is wrong, we will have nothing in UHF. It should be no surprise that amateur radio has the lowest priority for frequency allocations. Reply to a comment by : KC0VCU on 2007-06-06 Submitter's question was "What's Next?" I thought the reports earlier were pretty clear. We are a secondary user on the 440 UHF band. If our activity is causing interference we have to either co-operate to eliminate that interference, or we will have to leave the band. From the sounds of things, "leaving the band" will not be limited to CA and MA areas, it will be nation wide. It's not like there isn't any other UHF band out there that we could migrate to, though I suspect that we would see a lot of jockying for position to put repeaters in in either the 900mhz or 1.2 mhz bands. We would probably see a lot of new equipment on the market, and a lot of people selling 2m/70cm dual band equipment as 2-meter rigs. In VHF, we will probably see an expansion in 220 usage as well. We may even see more work happening at 50mhz also. I think the real down side will be that this may affect other bands where we are seconday users as well. I can see 50 meter being affected, though I don't know what the actual impact would be. Of course the DOD may be completely satisfied with the efforts put forward, and all of this is moot. We'll be seeing in the next few weeks to months I'm sure. 73 - Rusty - kc0vcu

KC0VCU	2007-06-06
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
Submitter's question was "What's Next?" I thought the reports earlier were pretty clear. We are a secondary user on the 440 UHF band. If our activity is causing interference we have to either co-operate to eliminate that interference, or we will have to leave the band. From the sounds of things, "leaving the band" will not be limited to CA and MA areas, it will be nation wide. It's not like there isn't any other UHF band out there that we could migrate to, though I suspect that we would see a lot of jockying for position to put repeaters in in either the 900mhz or 1.2 mhz bands. We would probably see a lot of new equipment on the market, and a lot of people selling 2m/70cm dual band equipment as 2-meter rigs. In VHF, we will probably see an expansion in 220 usage as well. We may even see more work happening at 50mhz also. I think the real down side will be that this may affect other bands where we are seconday users as well. I can see 50 meter being affected, though I don't know what the actual impact would be. Of course the DOD may be completely satisfied with the efforts put forward, and all of this is moot. We'll be seeing in the next few weeks to months I'm sure. 73 - Rusty - kc0vcu

KA2FIR	2007-06-06
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
DONT DO IT! Reply to a comment by : RADIOGUYR2 on 2007-06-06 only problem is !!!!! I have heard that its not only a interfearance with 450 but the HF band seems to get strange with pulses and high noise levels when it was on in the local area. I was talking to one ham who said it put spikes across the ham band---his bandscope and gave him a S9 noise level on 40 mtrs. Another related it to the same as listing to the second ticking of the WWV clock with no voice anouncement. oppppssss!!!! What about the mobile ham traveling through the area next to the airbase that is on 450???? won't he interfear with the harmonic that the system is generating? Back to 2/220 band. Reply to a comment by : RADIOGUYR2 on 2007-06-06 Bet they wouldn't do this to the cell phone people. Reply to a comment by : N6ACA on 2007-06-06 I can understand reducing power requirements, but from what I read it specifies output power from the repeater transmitter, not EIRP. What is to stop a repeater owner from installing several directional antennas with high gain and a fairly narrow beam width (i.e. 90 or 120 degree sort of like what is used in a cell phone site tower) to deliver a higher effective radiated power to the repeater users? 73 N6ACA Aaron

RADIOGUYR2	2007-06-06
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
only problem is !!!!! I have heard that its not only a interfearance with 450 but the HF band seems to get strange with pulses and high noise levels when it was on in the local area. I was talking to one ham who said it put spikes across the ham band---his bandscope and gave him a S9 noise level on 40 mtrs. Another related it to the same as listing to the second ticking of the WWV clock with no voice anouncement. oppppssss!!!! What about the mobile ham traveling through the area next to the airbase that is on 450???? won't he interfear with the harmonic that the system is generating? Back to 2/220 band. Reply to a comment by : RADIOGUYR2 on 2007-06-06 Bet they wouldn't do this to the cell phone people. Reply to a comment by : N6ACA on 2007-06-06 I can understand reducing power requirements, but from what I read it specifies output power from the repeater transmitter, not EIRP. What is to stop a repeater owner from installing several directional antennas with high gain and a fairly narrow beam width (i.e. 90 or 120 degree sort of like what is used in a cell phone site tower) to deliver a higher effective radiated power to the repeater users? 73 N6ACA Aaron

N7WR	2007-06-06
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
The frequencies used by the "cell phone people" do not interfere with the military radar. However, want to bet that even at 5 watts most of the repeaters are eventually told to shut down? Reply to a comment by : RADIOGUYR2 on 2007-06-06 Bet they wouldn't do this to the cell phone people. Reply to a comment by : N6ACA on 2007-06-06 I can understand reducing power requirements, but from what I read it specifies output power from the repeater transmitter, not EIRP. What is to stop a repeater owner from installing several directional antennas with high gain and a fairly narrow beam width (i.e. 90 or 120 degree sort of like what is used in a cell phone site tower) to deliver a higher effective radiated power to the repeater users? 73 N6ACA Aaron

RADIOGUYR2	2007-06-06
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
Bet they wouldn't do this to the cell phone people. Reply to a comment by : N6ACA on 2007-06-06 I can understand reducing power requirements, but from what I read it specifies output power from the repeater transmitter, not EIRP. What is to stop a repeater owner from installing several directional antennas with high gain and a fairly narrow beam width (i.e. 90 or 120 degree sort of like what is used in a cell phone site tower) to deliver a higher effective radiated power to the repeater users? 73 N6ACA Aaron

N5KBP	2007-06-06
RE: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Cali
Re-read it. The 5 watt at the transmitter is strictly a temporary fix until they do the studies. As stated after the studies some might be able to come back up in power and some may have to shut down completely. Just depends upon how close and what kind of propagation they get to the affected bases. Marty N5KBP Reply to a comment by : N6ACA on 2007-06-06 I can understand reducing power requirements, but from what I read it specifies output power from the repeater transmitter, not EIRP. What is to stop a repeater owner from installing several directional antennas with high gain and a fairly narrow beam width (i.e. 90 or 120 degree sort of like what is used in a cell phone site tower) to deliver a higher effective radiated power to the repeater users? 73 N6ACA Aaron

N6ACA	2007-06-06
FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in Californ
I can understand reducing power requirements, but from what I read it specifies output power from the repeater transmitter, not EIRP. What is to stop a repeater owner from installing several directional antennas with high gain and a fairly narrow beam width (i.e. 90 or 120 degree sort of like what is used in a cell phone site tower) to deliver a higher effective radiated power to the repeater users? 73 N6ACA Aaron

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

From
From	TODAY
Subject	Re: FCC/DOD Says Power Down: UHF Repeaters in California Reduced to 5 Watts:
Subscribe	Check this box if you wish to subscribe to this topic and receive eMail notifications.
Body

To send this article review to a friend, complete the form below. We'll send a copy of the comment along with your introduction.

Send To:
Friend's Name:
Introduction: