I agree with Jim on this. And since the local communication would most likely
use frequencies in the VHF/UHF range, that's pretty much line-of-site.
Therefore, the higher the antenna, the better the coverage.
It's another point that could be stressed.
Stew K3ND
--- On Wed, 5/6/09, jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net> wrote:
> From: jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Bill in the House
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2009, 3:54 PM
> The topic, while political, IS relevant here.
>
> And, as someone observed, since disasters tend to be local,
> the
> resulting
> legislation could work against regulations permitting
> useful
> structures for
> international dx work, just as easily as working in our
> favor.
>
> I might observe that localized disaster communications
> could involve
> digital store and forward messaging, particularly for
> health and
> welfare.
> In turn, that could best be served by regional stations...
>
> communicating from A to B
> might best be done via C, depending on propagation,
> terrain, and
> local conditions.
>
> Without getting detailed... I would submit that monitoring
> this bill is
> a worthwhile effort.
>
> I would, however, ask discussion be limited to executive
> summaries of
> progress,
> rather than full narrative exposition, followed by debate
> over topic
> relevance.
>
> Is that possible, or am I an foolish optimist?
>
> N2EA/Jim
>
>
>rtalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|