RE: What is wrong with all this ??????
 

Good point... and that blame would be wildly misdirected and unjustified.

I'm just hoping it never becomes an issue.
With the power companies as powerful as they are, it remains a distinct possibility.
(And they'll counter ARRL/AMA/etc paltry customer counts in hundreds of thousands... with counts in the millions)

RE: What is wrong with all this ??????
 

C_Watkins,
I know what the reg says. To say we have no protection doesn't mean much, no frequency really has protection. But the FCC expects us to turn off our transmitters immediatly, the commercial users must fix and correct their interferance, but can transmitt till they do, unless interfering on other comercial frequencies.

Otherwise what's the point of having our own frequencies?

RE: What is wrong with all this ??????
 

Just want to say by the statement that no frequency has no real protection, that means that any outlaw can possibly stomp on any frequency. The FCC can not stop that, but they wont procecute him for transmitting on our freqencies, but will for the commercial frequencies. That is what the FCC means by "Protection".

Notice the astrisk in C. Watkins post 19?

RE: What is wrong with all this ??????
 

Who exactly are the primary users on the 72 MHz band? I mean if we are secondary, then who has primary rights to 72.39 MHz (RC Channel 30) for instance?

I am not talking about someone with primary rights on 72.38 MHz (in between RC Channels 29 and 30) that bleeds over, but rather some other user with primary rights right on top of 72.39?

Thanks,

RE: What is wrong with all this ??????
 

Mr Matt, I'm not sure there are any primary users of our specific channels, at this point.
It looks like the rules were possibly worded in anticipation of assigning some there, in the future ;)
I think RC is the lone group of users of those specific freqs, "right now".

The FCC seems more and more about making money, these days... they're raking in the millions on
each of their frequency "auctions", and they want to keep halving, then quartering, existing channels...
so of course there will be more channels in the future to auction off and license :eek:

Good question though...
I'll see what I can dig up if nobody else pops up, who already has proof, one way or another.

RE: What is wrong with all this ??????
 

That's what I thought, I think yard-dart is getting the wrong impression.

RE: What is wrong with all this ??????
 

Well, I'll take some of the blame for that, I suppose.
I do tend to emphasize "worst case scenario" sometimes. (within factual guidelines, of course)

RE: What is wrong with all this ??????
 

Yep, I think I jumped too fast, and a little too seriously. Sorry guys.

John

RE: What is wrong with all this ??????
 

A person has to stand behind what he believes, and fight for what they want changed. Thats what gives use the freedom and the life we have here in the USA to day. If we don't understand something or want it change we get involved if we don't nothing will change or we will never be able to change anthing
Just think what we learn here on RCU and answers to questions we need answered. We might not like the questions asked or the answers give but look what we learned!!!!!!

RE: What is wrong with all this ??????
 

I think we are secondary because we share those frequencies. The licensed users of the adjacent channels have a licience for those specific frequencies in the local area. They don't share the frequency with anybody. That is a huge differance.

RE: What is wrong with all this ??????
 

Ok who do we share 72.39 with? Or any of the 72 MHz channels?

RE: What is wrong with all this ??????
 

Hi Matt

Futaba supplies RC systems for our hobby strictly as an additional product using their existing technology. A quick Google search finds that, among other commercial uses are the control of cranes, rail links, and mining uses. The same sites show that the 72-76 MHz bands are used.

They sell both registered and unregistered stations. Note that the FCC regs give priority to commercial use, the way I read them.

http://www.futaba.com/products/irc/i...tion/index.asp
http://www.cattron-theimeg.com/csa/

They even discuss spread spectrum.

Many products are not on our frequencies, but, some are.

Although 72.39 is not specifically mentioned, my guess is that it is used.
Heck, you know more than most about this, I am really hesitant to post anything about the subject. I am sure that a little additional research would show other manufacturers also providing commercial rc equipment on "our" frequencies.

JR

RE: What is wrong with all this ??????
 

?????? Original post

RE: What is wrong with all this ??????
 

J R,
Doing a search of the site I don't see 72 Mhz mentioned except for reciever frequecies. Although some transmitters state that other frequencies are available on request. From this I get the impression this is to support older systems. I know many industrial radio control systems were switched to a higher band when the R/C narrow band came out. Though they were not specifically on our band I think some of them were wide band. I don't know for sure if wide band industrial controllers are still legal or not.

Mr. Matt
I think that 72.39 is channel 30? If so you may have to share that frequency with me if you and I show up at the same site. If an industrial control station is given a license, I think it will be the only user of that frequency withen a certain radius, don't know what radius the FCC uses. Any one else using that frequency withen that radius would be illegal. Though they may have provisions for shared use of licensed frequencies also.

RE: What is wrong with all this ??????
 

I found a couple of products that used 72MHz. Most did not, as you say. It could be that they are legacy uses, again, as you say. However, the potential remains for their use.

I thought the following, originally offered up by BasinBum might be useful to everyone. I had never seen it before:

"Author: Don Ayers
Hello R.C. Nuts!

Ever have the problem of people showing up at your hill with unmarked channels on their transmitters? You ask for their channel, and they say, "Um, 72.810?"

The frequency is not readily useful in preventing a disaster, is it?

Here's a interesting conversion that, once memorized, can me done in a few seconds in your head. You can then amaze your friends as you call out their correct channel number from just hearing the frequency!

Here goes:


Take the hundredths from the frequency (72.810; use just "81"
Subtract 21 (81-21=60)
Divide by 2 (60/2=30)
Add 21 (30+21=51)
You're done. The answer is channel 51!
This can also be reversed, and yield the frequency when only the channel number is known, although this is less useful at the field:

Take channel number (51)
Subtract 21 (51-21=30)
Multiply by 2 (30x2=60)
Add 21 (60+21=81)
Put 72. in front of the answer (72.81)

By remembering these conversions, the answer is immediately available when needed, and no one has to scramble for a full page channel chart when some yahoo is threatening to turn on an unmarked transmitter!
Hope this is of interest to some out there - happy flying! "

RE: What is wrong with all this ??????
 

Another way with less math maybe easier to remember



Take the hundredths from the frequency (72.810; use just "81")
Add 21 (81+21=102)
Divide by 2 (102/2=51)
You're done. The answer is channel 51!

This can also be reversed, and yield the frequency when only the channel number is known, although this is less useful at the field:

Take channel number (51)
Multiply by 2 (51x2=102)
Subtract 21 (102-21=81)
Put 72. in front of the answer (72.81)

RE: What is wrong with all this ??????
 

I love stuff like that... Thanks :D

RE: What is wrong with all this ??????
 

OK! But the point was that we all share those channels. The licienced users, such as those pagers that were supposedly between our channels, do not share those frequencies.

RE: What is wrong with all this ??????
 

Yard-dart,

Better armed is always better. Take some time and read the AMA membership manual. Yes there are some inconsistencies, but overall it pretty well lays out the AMA and how it operates (or should operate).

I amazed at how much is thrown at the AMA by people that have never bothered to crack the cover of the manual. Of course there are those that probably can not comprehend what it says . . . . but that is a broader problem for which I have no suggestions for a cure. The old saw is that they say "I could care less about . . . . " and then spend an inordinate amount of time gripping about it on various Internet forums.

Red S.