Maine QSO Party, September 28-29, 2024

Maine QSO Party logoThe Maine QSO Party is designed to encourage Maine stations to expand their knowledge of DX propagation on the HF and MF bands, improve their operating skills, and improve station capability by creating a competition in which W/VE, and DX stations have the incentive to work Maine. [Details]

 

902 MHz Threatened

Matt Penttila, NA1Q , writes:

If you are not aware there is a docket coming to the FCC, 24-240. This docket is not good for the current users on 902-92 MHz, which amateur radio operators have a secondary status. Not a lot of hams are on 902-928 MHz, but it is a very usable band, using repurposed commercial equipment from GE, Motorola, Uniden, Maxon, EF Johnson, and amateur equipment by Kenwood, Alinco and Retevis. Currently just in New England there are 16 linked repeaters for the NEAR900 network, and numerous others throughout New England and hundreds if not over a thousand of other 900 MHz repeaters across the US. Most are put up by clubs or individual amateurs, at thrir expense for the use by all amateur radio operators. 

Unfortunately the window is rather short for comments right now, but if it does go into effect,  comments are to be filed by September 5th 2024 and replies to comments filed by September 20th 2024.

 

More info on the effect of this is on the website:

https://www.n1wbv.net/response-to-the-nextnav-fcc-petition.html

Also attached is a PDF comment letter from David Tucker, N5ZDT, to the FCC about this docket.

Remember a similar thing happened in back in 1988 and we lost 220-222 MHz. Even if you are not active or do not use the band, please write a comment, even if it is to click and paste parts from these sources. Let’s not lose this band to one commercial interest.

Thank you, 73, 

Matt Penttila, NA1Q

Past President Blackstone Valley Amateur Radio Club 
Past President Quaboag Valley Amateur Radio Club 
Past Member CMARA
Past Member Mohawk ARC
Past Member MTARA
Past Member ECARA
Lifetime member ECARS 10201
ARRL Member

Response-to_Docket_24-240