Chris Boone wrote:
> AINT GONNA HAPPEN!!!
>
> 6 is not 4m....and 4 and 5 TV still have plenty of DTV assignments, AND to
> correct the numbers, DTV5 has the fewest of stations left AFTER 6/12 with 4
> or 5 iirc, NOT DTV 6 (which has more than 2 allocated/licensed on it..dont
> know where you got that info!!! BUT its WRONG!!)..
>
> ALSO Senior broadcast Broadcast consulting engineers (one of them former VP
> of Engineer for ABC Radio) has proposed expanding the FM band down into TV 5
> and 6 areas...they would have a better chance than hams.....
> 4? Too many TV4s left on DTV (or LP analog!) and thus 4mtrs wont be
> available...also 72-76MHz is used by RC modelists and especially RC
> FLYERs...nope, you DON'T want to open up that bag of worms....6 has some
> channels available (actually ANY amateur frequency allowed the emissions
> required, can do RC model...but the chances of a 70+ mph flying bullet
> hitting someone and causing serious damage OR death keeps the 50.8-51Mhz
> range empty except them (I HOPE!)
When the 6-meter band actually opens that area is packed. I sure
wouldn't want a $5,000 plus model controlled on those frequencies. I
doubt even most of today's hams are aware of their existence. Only
those of us from the "old days" when that was highly popular. Even then
there were problems, probably more so than today when digital is about
the only mode used.
Wayyy back...in the 60's or maybe earlier, a friend who was a ham and RC
modeler lost a small plane when a station came on about a mile away and
the plane failed to respond. He found the wings outside a greenhouse.
The rest was inside.
I can't imagine any ham in their right mind using any section of six as
the risk is just too great. I wouldn't even use a learners model in
there. They might get away with it for years but sooner or later, some
one some where will come on with the inevitable result.... At least
today's *good* RC gear is much less prone to interference than the stuff
we used to use.
73
Roger (K8RI)
> ..use of the 53MHz channels has been
> discouraged for over a decade....but those RC guys who ARENT hams use 72/76
> quite a bit and the FCC does NOT want to put a freq agile group in there or
> even close!!! NO WAY
>
> Chris
> WB5ITT
> Frequency Coordinator, Society of Broadcast Engineers
> RC flyer since the 1970s!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 50mhz-bounces@mailman.qth.net [mailto:50mhz-bounces@mailman.qth.net]
> On Behalf Of James Duffey
> Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 11:09 PM
> To: J. Gordon Beattie, Jr., W2TTT
> Cc: microwave@lists.valinet.com; 6meter@yahoogroups.com;
> 50mhz@mailman.qth.net; towertalk@contesting.com; W2TTT@arrl.net; James
> Duffey; donmar1234@aol.com
> Subject: Re: [50mhz] [Mw] TV Channels 2-6 Post Transition
>
> Count me in. We should at least try for a shared basis, or
> geographical restrictions. - Duffey
> On May 16, 2009, at 9:50 PM, J. Gordon Beattie, Jr., W2TTT wrote:
>
>
>> Hi Folks!
>> There are only two stations using channel 6 after the June cutover.
>> Why are we not asking for a 4m band allocation, even with
>> restrictions?
>> Does anyone know the process of petitioning the FCC?
>> In other countries there is a 70.0-70.5 allocation and while
>> participation
>> is small, more countries have made allocations in the last decade
>> and there
>> is activity.
>> Anyone want to collaborate on a petition?
>>
>> Thanks & 73,
>> Gordon Beattie, W2TTT
>> 201.314.6964
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
>> [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of donmar1234@aol.com
>> Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 2:54 AM
>> To: towertalk@contesting.com
>> Subject: [TowerTalk] TV Channels 2-6 Post Transition
>>
>> There are?20?Full Power TV stations listed for channels 2-6 post
>> transition
>> and many Low Power TV stations. You can download the list from the FCC
>> here:? www.dtv.gov?? lower rhs of the page.
>>
>> 73,
>> Don
>> KW7R
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 6
>> Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 16:37:34 -0400
>> From: "Roger (K8RI)" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>
>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] New TV antennas
>> To: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
>> Cc: Tower Talk List <towertalk@contesting.com>
>> Message-ID: <4A0F240E.9080803@tm.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>>
>>
>> Jim Brown wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 16 May 2009 04:01:22 -0400, Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Even here in Michigan we will have at least two active digital
>>>> stations
>>>> on Ch 2. Nation wide I believe there will be on the order of 20-30.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That is not accurate. Most broadcasters are abondoning Ch 2-6
>>> channels
>>>
>>>
>> That map is quite different from the FCC channel listing I looked at
>> about a month ago. Although they do have channel 2 showing up in the
>> Kalamazoo area.
>>
>> There was a table showing present, or rather pre-change date channels
>> before they changed the date and the projected channels. That to was
>> quite different than what I have seen on the FCC page.
>>
>> They also had a Saginaw station with is currently about 12 miles from
>> me, *currently* located in Badax which is way over in the thumb.
>>
>>> because, during the first years of DTV, they learned that the impulse
>>>
>> noise
>>
>>> in this frequency range seriously degrades DTV performance.
>>>
>> That used to be a problem but I doubt it is much of a one at present
>> except maybe in Chicago. The big problem is propagation which could
>> be
>> a big problem with digital.
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|