Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mouton.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mouton!karn
From: karn@mouton.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio
Subject: 220-222 mhz under attack!!
Message-ID: <117@mouton.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-Aug-84 10:31:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: mouton.117
Posted: Thu Aug  2 10:31:40 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 3-Aug-84 23:59:27 EDT
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc
Lines: 29

I just heard yesterday that the FCC has assigned an RM number to
a petition to allocate 216-222 mhz (including of course the bottom
2 mhz of the amateur band) to land mobile. This confirms speculation
based on Robert Foosaner's (FCC Private Radio Bureau Chief) comments
at the ARRL National Convention.

Needless to say, this is a grave development. We NEED that spectrum,
particularly for packet radio linking. There is nowhere else to go
for the high speed FSK links that are being built right now. In particular,
amateur satellite gateway stations NEED 220 mhz as all current
and future satellites use all of the other VHF/UHF bands and the
gateways have to operate in full duplex.

It is becoming pretty clear that this attack is at least partially
based on the rejection of no-code: the FCC considered no-code to
be the amateur's "last chance" to populate the bottom part of
the band.  It is quite ironic that the ones who get hurt by this
proposed change (the technically oriented packeteers) are mostly
the ones who argued FOR a no-code license to increase technical
experimentation.  However, I suspect that very few of the vocal
anti-no-code crowd ever used 220-222 mhz, or 420-430 mhz, or 1215-1240
mhz, or 2310-2380 mhz...

Anyway, enough sermonizing. I strongly urge everyone to protest this
move with the FCC as soon and as strenuously as possible, even if you
don't use 220. If we don't all hang together as a group when one interest's
spectrum is threatened, then before long we'll have lost much of everything.

73, Phil Karn, KA9Q