KidEpoxy

so, how much of them freqs has been lobbied for Shared Public Use, say for stuff like... RC planes?
Is the AMA grabbing a portion for RC, or sitting out on this freqfest/freqapaloosa

exeter_acres

My Feedback: (2)

get your wallet and go bid... nothing stoppin ya

abel_pranger

KE-

Good question.... our current 72 MHz frequencies (and the 76 MHz channels for surface use) are in a slice of the VHF spectrum sandwiched between allocations for analog TV broadcast. Right about between channels 3 and 4, IIRC. I do hope the Frequency Committee is tuned into this news.

Abel

vicman

My Feedback: (10)

Have either of you contacted anyone at Muncie to ask?

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

Didn't the wire mention just those freq's utilized for TV stations? Even tho ours are in between, that really should be a concern. And even if it was, that would be good news. That would force spectrum technology to become more competitive, meaning lower prices and more advanced technology. I think the more pressure on 72 mhz the better for everyone. Even if they have to worry about losing freq's that still helps techno advance.

F106A

My Feedback: (2)

Or, you could pass a FCC test and fly on 6M and not have to worry about any of this.

abel_pranger

Not me, I just heard of it and I doubt that any of the Freq Committee is in Muncie anyway. Good suggestion though - I'll look it up and see who is on it (recall something about a name change to Elex Tech Committee or similar). I would have Emailed Steve Kaluf, but you know......

Abel

Silent-AV8R

Here you go Abel:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/news/newtechdir.aspx

Hossfly

Removed by Hoss Fly. Contained advice on protocol to AMA Officers. Could be considered political.

KidEpoxy

Dibs on 'B'

There, good thing I called that one before the rest of the 20million folks that want it

abel_pranger

Tnx, Bill. I noticed that Greg won't be officially on-board until tomorrow, and surmise that it will take a little time for him to come up to speed on what the tech committees are doing. I did pass the question via Email to Tony Stillman, who serves on the responsible committee, and I expect would know about it if the issue has come up.

Abel

abel_pranger

Wow! Tony got back to me inside half an hour:

KidEpoxy

Abel,
I see what he said,
but what did he say?

That dont look like the kind of talk a guy that is about to grab up freqs would use.

The Toolman

There wasn't any info in his answer that I see. They are just keeping an eye on things.....

Sounds like a politicians answer to me.

Ronnie

Hossfly

OH YES! AMA is very good with those things like, ".... keeping an eye on..." AMA sees it rise up on the horizon, then they stand and watch while it GOES RIGHT OVER their HEAD. [>:]


Somewhere it was written that an oz. of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Opportunities don't wait around very long.

OTOH, all those park fliers will, for certain, take care of these little items. [:-]

abel_pranger

Ooooooooh.........I owe you an apology, KE. I asked Tony about potential impact on our current frequencies, not about exploiting a possible opportunity to get more. That's the question that popped into mind, prompted by your post. The notion that AMA might seek more frequencies passed right over my head; never saw anybody express the thought that 50 channels isn't enough. I'm about halfway through transitioning to 2.4 GHz SS, and hold the belief that demand for VHF R/C gear and space in the ether will more likely diminish than grow.

Abel

KidEpoxy

Oh, ok... No biggie Able.
That does explain why I didnt see the kind of answer I was looking for,
I had a different question in mind

I was looking at it in the light that we had some of the TV channels given to Public Broadcasting, so why not continue that split of Comercial/Public use of those freqs in the new non-TV roles. And a swell public use would be for RC toys like ours. But I would hazzard a guess that any freqs that were public tv will be sold off for (high dollar) comercial use, resulting in less public use of airwaves in total.... unless a powerful lobby org fought for some public use of a few of them freqs, but where could we find an org like that.

kid chuckles

Looks to me KE that instead of putting someone down for not asking the question YOU HAD IN MIND you would ask it yourself. That was cool Able i think 50 channels is probably more than i can use at one time lol.
Hmmmmm wonder how many politicians would even reply to somone much less in such a short time. And in doing so state they keep and eye on just such situations and have someone that contacts them in just such events.
The airways are not going to be discontinued until 2009 and who wants them. That would be a step backwards. Unless you enjoy being shot down now and then. I see alot of guys with 2-3K airplanes and 150.00 radios. And have seen two Yak 54's in that price range and One Bobcat shot down the same day running on cheap Futaba radios. That is the day i purchased a Spektrum Radio for my 2-3 hunderd dollar planes lol.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

does kid realise that with spread spectrum tech in the 100 mhz ranges, that all the worries about multipathing and shadowing that bother radios in the 2.4 gig range go away?
we want the ability to use those soon to be abandoned freqs.

abel_pranger

Mongo-

Perhaps he does; he's sharper than he lets on.

OTOH, does he also realize that SS techniques eat bandwidth..........something about time-bandwidth product needs to get into the equation. My work gets into ultra-secure comms in the EHF band. We can eat up GHz chunks of bw for some high priority record traffic, just in the interest of transmission security and acceptable latency. As they say in some other arenas, you can have it done fast, right, cheap - choose any two.

Abel