On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, Paul Yonge wrote:
> The policy of some repeater coordination councils to insist on a 100-
> mile co-channel separation for UHF (and 120 miles for the lower-
> frequency bands) regardless of the ERP seems like overkill to me. In
> fairness, they do allow the consideration of terrain/ERP factors at
> locations below 3000 feet AMSL (and more stringent requirements for
> "very high profile" locations above the 3000-foot elevation).
>
> In the broadcast radio industry, we only worry about avoiding any
> overlap of the 60 db protected contour with another co-channel
> station's 40 db interference contour. Is it time to re-think the
> coordination guidelines?
Some areas may do this. It would not be a bad idea to do a terrain-based
coordination factoring in AMSL and HAAT. It would be more important to
have accurate fixes on the location of the entity being coordinated, with
the understanding that said information would be protected.
--
Kris Kirby, KE4AHR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!"
This message brought to you by the US Department of Homeland Security
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
