usswood
Member
0005738378 - ALLEN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT PW WQOU857 MOD
Add Freq: 442.0~448.0 MO 0.323/0.323w 100KC3F
Add Freq: 442.0~448.0 MO 0.323/0.323w 100KC3F
Isn't this in the Ham Band 70cm?
- Thread starter usswood
- Start date
- Status
n5ims
Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 3,993
There have been a few threads on this and some activity from the ARRL to try and fight the licenses.
http://www.arrl.org/files/media/News/Petition_to_Deny_Applications_FINAL_08042010.pdf
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsEntry/...tachmentKey=18865156&attachmentInd=applAttach
http://forums.radioreference.com/am...c-license-surveillance-robots-70-cm-band.html
http://forums.radioreference.com/ka...-licenses-issued-metro-surrounding-areas.html
Information on what is being licensed is here https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsEntry/...tachmentKey=18592654&attachmentInd=applAttach
The license for this equipment basically allows three frequencies for that equipment, 436-442 MHz, 442-448 MHz, and 448-454 MHz. An agency must license their first unit on the lowest range, the second on the middle range, and the third unit on the final range. There is a limit of 8000 (currently, but this may change) units that can be made. Also the users must prevent interference with the federal government users in the associated frequencies used by this device. As a secondary user of the band, no such protection is provided to amateur radio operators.
Basically the devices are very low power (about a third of a watt) and have very short range. They are used to provide intel during SWAT operations. The device would be put into harms way from a safe distance and audio/video would be monitored by SWAT in safety.
Here is the manual for one of the devices being licensed if you want to see what may be used. https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=1798065
rfradioconsult
Member
Amateur UHF is as a secondary user, 2 Meter Amateur is the Primary user.
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
Totally irrelevant. "2 meter amateur" would be 144-148 MHz and has nothing to do with the 442-448 MHz subband being discussed here.
rapidcharger
Member
Sounds like a big risk of a Steve Urkel moment when someone transmits on their ham radio and the swat team robot detonates a bomb.
nd5y
Member
The ReconScout is just a camera on wheels. It can't detonate anything.
rapidcharger
Member
I'm sure Steve Urkel could find a way to make it do it on accident. :wink:
Either way, my point is that doesn't sound like a very good idea. Especially with all the baofengs and aging repeaters with problems etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.
nd5y
Member
Yep, and the control unit uses the 75 MHz RC channels. Both are too easy to jam intentionally or unintentionally.
MTS2000des
5B2_BEE00 Czar
Easy way to make this go away is be the first one to provide an internet feed of the UNENCRYPTED NTSC video of one in use, you know, do what Broadcastify does- give it to the local media during a SWAT or high profile call.
You'll see the video moved to a more appropriate band, like 2.4GHz and use a modern encrypted video signal (which it SHOULD) instead of smack dab in the middle of the HAM band, in NTSC- which BTW, most older cable ready tuners (of which there are millions of in older TV sets, VCR's, set top CATV boxes) can also tune in, especially if they have a varactor type tuner.
You'll see the video moved to a more appropriate band, like 2.4GHz and use a modern encrypted video signal (which it SHOULD) instead of smack dab in the middle of the HAM band, in NTSC- which BTW, most older cable ready tuners (of which there are millions of in older TV sets, VCR's, set top CATV boxes) can also tune in, especially if they have a varactor type tuner.
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
Alternatively, you might see the ham band reallocated to exclusive government use and then auctioned to the highest industry bidder for remote control use.
rfradioconsult
Member
Totally relevant, that is why other licensed users are being assigned frequencies within the Amateur UHF spectrum and not within the 2 Meter spectrum, where Amateur is primary.
NF2G all posts are relevant to those who keep an open mind.
n4yek
Member
I agree, it is relevant and correct. We as ham radio operators are allocated as secondary users of the UHF band and have always been.
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
If it was relevant, then what point was being made? There is no logical connection between the 2 meter ham band and the allocation of frequencies to non-hams on 70 cm.
n4yek
Member
He was just trying to point out that un-like 2 meters where we do have Primary privilege, that on UHF we are Secondary users, nothing more.
KB7MIB
Member
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)
Just an observation, the statement could have been worded a little better, putting it more like you've said. It didn't quite make sense the way he worded it, although I got what he was trying to say.
Just an observation, the statement could have been worded a little better, putting it more like you've said. It didn't quite make sense the way he worded it, although I got what he was trying to say.
jparks29
John McClane
I can see this going south pretty quick.
A local QSO screws up their video feed, then they find the 'terrorist; jamming their camera...
"Tonight at 10, a local man is accused of remotely disabling a high tech security device on the the police departments new bomb disposal robot, putting millions, possibly billions, of people at risk. Frank A. Ham, , a 68 y/o engineer From Podunksville, has been described as 'always tinkering with radios'. Police are interrogating him to ascertain his connections to the war on terror. A search of his house, by police revealed an arsenal of radio jamming equipment, and an antenna that was described by police as 'something you could talk to China' on.
Richard A. Copper, a detective, had this to say. "It's unreal, that the suspect would have that kind of capability, in his own home, no one needs to have that capability, and you can buy these anywhere, with no background check, we need to ban these, for the children"
Yup, it'll happen, give it time.
A local QSO screws up their video feed, then they find the 'terrorist; jamming their camera...
"Tonight at 10, a local man is accused of remotely disabling a high tech security device on the the police departments new bomb disposal robot, putting millions, possibly billions, of people at risk. Frank A. Ham, , a 68 y/o engineer From Podunksville, has been described as 'always tinkering with radios'. Police are interrogating him to ascertain his connections to the war on terror. A search of his house, by police revealed an arsenal of radio jamming equipment, and an antenna that was described by police as 'something you could talk to China' on.
Richard A. Copper, a detective, had this to say. "It's unreal, that the suspect would have that kind of capability, in his own home, no one needs to have that capability, and you can buy these anywhere, with no background check, we need to ban these, for the children"
Yup, it'll happen, give it time.
W2NJS
Member
That's a very well done spoof. Problem is that it's too close to the truth, or at least it could be. Perhaps the thing to do with you local PD if they put a Recon Robot in to use is to visit them and point out that there is all kinds of radio stuff operating in the 70 cm band and that more likely than not they're going to encounter interference. The ARRL was absolutely livid when this matter came up the the FCC still allowed it, subject to certain "controls" that Recon Robot is supposed to adhere to.
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
The FCC is no longer going to pay much attention to anybody other than the radio industry when it comes to whether anything should be allowed on the radio anywhere. The Commission is run by lawyers rather than engineers, and is part of an Executive Branch that is totally "on the take" regardless of which party is in control.
Yep, I agree. They are mostly from the telecom industries, over there at the FCC.
Once Riley Hollingsworth left, there really is no one there that gives a hoot anymore.
- Status
Similar threads
