Jump to content

kc9pke

Members
  • Posts

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

kc9pke last won the day on June 5 2021

kc9pke had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

706 profile views

kc9pke's Achievements

  1. Carr is too busy whining on Twitter about how the FCC didn't hand Elon Musk's Starlink a blank check for broadband subsidies don't expect that clown to care about 8 shared narrowband channels
  2. My 3.45 GHz license doesn't authorize me to transmit in the 850 MHz cellular band
  3. It's actually Joever
  4. 47 USC 310(a) establishes no foreign government or representative of such may hold any FCC license 47 USC 310(b) only says common carrier licensees are subject to foreign ownership restrictions GMRS is a non-common carrier service, so long as he isn't a governmental rep somewhere else he's fine holding a license, but ULS will not accept an international address - if he can't accept mail here but has someone willing to accept on his behalf stateside he can use that person's address
  5. Used to be a Part 94 on the books for microwave radio services, and GMRS users used to be allowed to license a fixed point to point link in P94 somewhere in the 31 GHz band I have a feeling if the FCC wanted GMRS repeaters to be linked they wouldn't have axed that decades ago
  6. Back in the 80s/90s(?) GMRS licensees used to be permitted to have an additional fixed, point to point license in the 29 to 31 GHz band in Part 94, long stricken from the Code of Federal Regulations I've taken that to think the FCC has long not wanted linking in GMRS, even if they didn't outwardly say so
  7. Now that I looked at it it’s not its own rule, the rules just say under every frequency “Unless otherwise indicated, all channels have a bandwidth of 20 kHz and are designated by their center frequencies in MegaHertz [sic]” The rule that permits disaggregation is a way to split offsets and bypass that nonsense, don’t think you need a waiver for that in particular
  8. There's a proceeding from 2014 to clean up P22 rules (cannot remember the docket number offhand) and still remaining a rule that completely prohibits offset channel usage in Part 22 (I'll have to look that up as well) An experimental license configured that way on P22 channels could definitely end up being the impetus to get rid of the rule
  9. In my neck of the woods there are very few site-based paging licenses still active (and they are protected from those who won auctioned licenses, yes) and some of the EA-based ones have been sitting unallocated Indiana Paging Network has most of their operations on the shared 900 MHz ones
  10. yeah not a bad idea Me personally, I'd prefer for the FCC to reauction unused Part 22 licenses No site based filings, just construct your base station in the license market and go to town
  11. Is it? They keep renewing the license and it's still active
  12. In 2014 the FCC opened docket 14-180 to try and clean up Part 22 (the auctioned Paging & Radiotelephone Service, now popularly used by some governments as a supplement or substitute for Part 90 freqs when they're unavailable) rules Interestingly a good number of the commenters there were screaming "let us use Part 90 cert'd stuff on Part 22" in unison
  13. I've seen one license state "farming and s**t spreading" listed as their justification for a frequency
  14. This is correct, applications for new Part 90 licenses on itins only can be directly submitted to ULS without coordination
  15. Dismissed, because of course it was Reason given is because a formal process doesn't exist to allow it
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines.