RadioReference on Facebook   RadioReference on Twitter   RadioReference Blog
 

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > Commercial, Professional Radio and Personal Radio > Industry Discussion


Industry Discussion - General discussion forum for commercial and professional radio technologies. This includes manufacturers not listed below.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 10-04-2018, 5:34 PM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: W.Babylon N.Y. 11704
Posts: 572
Default FCC Report & Order to Open Up More 800 Spectrum for (PLMR)

There is a R/O from the FCC Drafted for the October 23rd Open Meeting in Washington D.C
from 10:30 to 12:30

https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/even...ission-meeting

Revitalizing the 800 MHz Band
The Commission will consider a Report and Order and Order opening up new channels in the 800 MHz Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR) band, eliminating outdated rules, and reducing administrative burdens on PLMR licensees. (WP Docket Nos. 15-32, 16-261)


This is the 88 Page Report & Order for The Addition to 800 Spectrum

https://www.fcc.gov/document/improving-800-mhz-band
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 10-05-2018, 3:59 AM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: W.Babylon N.Y. 11704
Posts: 572
Default

As I was Reading thru the Order a Bit--this Order has alot Players Getting Involved with Decisions / Recomendations / interference Issues--People like (mo) / (lmcc) / (Railroad) / (central station alarm) and a few More

There is also a Revamping on part 90 Rules--Some Stuff on Narrowbanding 150/174--450/470

this is 88 pages long with alot of twists and turns that will make your head spin--there are some parts which shows the big 3 are trying to influence the fcc on Frequency Enforcement as How I Think I Understand it --Some of the Wording and Footnotes are Interesting
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 10-06-2018, 1:56 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,060
Default

Could be interesting. It would be cool if a petition would come up to change the spectrum licensing to allow for more carriers in a 25 kHz channel as long as existing power regulations are followed. For example, if you are allowed 100W output on a 25 kHz channel, then you could run 4 6.25 kHz channels in that same channel as long as the output didn't exceed 25W per channel (still at your 100W limit for the 25 kHz of bandwidth). What I'd really like to see is an official ruling stating that 25 kHz of bandwidth is ours and we can place our carrier anywhere in it as long as we don't go beyond our existing channel. Be really handy for a few of my sites where I am my own interferer (70 miles of separation but same channels at each site) and allow me to simply shift one carrier up 6.25 kHz and the other down 6.25 kHz since I am running 12.5 kHz systems.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 10-07-2018, 6:51 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: PA
Posts: 97
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Project25_MASTR View Post
What I'd really like to see is an official ruling stating that 25 kHz of bandwidth is ours and we can place our carrier anywhere in it as long as we don't go beyond our existing channel. Be really handy for a few of my sites where I am my own interferer (70 miles of separation but same channels at each site) and allow me to simply shift one carrier up 6.25 kHz and the other down 6.25 kHz since I am running 12.5 kHz systems.
It's been a few years (almost 20) - but back when we were looking at some old Part22 IMTS channels, we posed that exact question, and the FCC response was pretty much that if it was happening within our system's footprint, they didn't care much what we did to mitigate our own interference. That was verbal, but when we got involved with the Part80 VHF Public Coast auction, we were told that shifting off frequency center was NOT an option. Was that due to different services, a different group of regulators involved, or just the mood at the FCC that day? I'd guess a combination of all 3.

I agree it would be nice to see that type of flexibility. So much in the way of rules, but the useful reality is often lacking.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All information here is Copyright 2012 by RadioReference.com LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger
Copyright 2015 by RadioReference.com LLC Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions