It doesn't at all.

No, I posted exactly what the FCC says on the issue. The point of the FCC
document is to address concerns.

What part of 47 CFR does the dish come under?

Wait a minute here.  1 watt is the propagating field (far field) and does
not include the energy stored in the near field. OSHA addresses the issue of
energy in the near field here:

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiofrequencyradiation/electromagnetic_fieldmemo/elect
romagnetic.html#Section%206

Pay particular attention to:

"NEAR-FIELD: The region located less than one wavelength from the source is
called the "Near-field". Here, the relationship between E and H becomes very
complex, and it requires measurement of both E and H to determine the power
density. Also, unlike the far-field where EM waves are usually characterized
by a single polarization type (horizontal, vertical, circular, or
elliptical), all four polarization types can be present in the near-field.

Since both the E field and the H field components of electromagnetic waves
are absorbed by living tissue, and since the relationship between E and H is
complicated in the near-field, we must measure both E and H when evaluating
near-field hazards. This includes all low frequency sources, such as RF heat
sealers.

The near-field is further divided into the "reactive" near-field and the
"radiative" near-field. The outer boundary of the reactive near-field region
is commonly considered to be a distance of 1/2p times the wavelength (l/2p
or 0.159 x l) from the antenna surface. The radiative near-field covers the
remainder of the near-field region, from l/2p out to l (one full
wavelength).

In the reactive near-field (very close to the antenna), the relationship
between the strengths of the E and H fields is too complex to predict.
Either field component (E or H) may dominate at one point, and the other way
dominate at a point only a short distance away. This makes it extremely
difficult to find the true power density there. Not only would E and H both
have to be measured, but a new term called the phase relationship between E
and H is needed. Present survey meters (such as OSHA's Narda and Holaday
units) measure only the magnitude E or H, not this phase relationship.
Although it would be very helpful to know the true power density, our
present compliance efforts do not require us to determine it. During a
compliance survey, both the E field and the H field components are measured
separately, read from the meter as E2 and H2 quantities, and each quantity
is compared individually against the Radio Frequency Protection Guides
(RFPG) of the ANSI C95.1-1982 standard. If either the E field or the H field
component exceeds the limits of the RFPG, the level is considered high.

As you might have guessed, the reactive near-field region has another
surprise in store for you. In this reactive region, not only is the EM wave
being radiated outward into space, but there is a "reactive" component to
the EM field. Very close to the antenna, energy of an unknown amount is held
back and is stored very near the antenna surface. This reactive component
can be the source of confusion and danger in attempting measurements in this
region. In other regions the power density is inversely proportional to the
square of the distance from the antenna. In the vicinity very close to the
antenna, the energy level can rise dramatically with only a small additional
movement towards the antenna. This energy can be very dangerous (even
hazardous) to both humans and measurement equipment where high powers are
involved.

 CAUTION: When the radiating dimensions of the antenna are much smaller
than one wavelength and/or the frequency is low (as with heat sealers), it
is especially important to be aware of the POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS REACTIVE
FIELDS WHICH MAY EXIST IN THE REACTIVE NEAR-FIELD. Exercise extreme caution
for both your safety and the equipment when making near-field measurements,
in the case of heat sealing machines. As you move nearer to the antenna in
the reactive near-field, the energy can increase much quicker than what is
computed by the inverse-square law. Some electromagnetic energy is stored in
the near-field in the vicinity of the antenna that can be an unsuspected
source of dangerous energy. This "reactive field" energy is especially
dangerous with high power systems. The closer to the radiating source you
get, the more caution should be exercised. "

 The relation between the E and H field  are predictable and are regular
calculated in industry using various EM modelling programs such as ANSOFT,
NEC, Zealand, etc. Ham Radio operators use NEC regularly for their backyard
creations.

 >
 > Complain that the signal is much stronger in front of the feedhorn.
 > Logical, but Bzzzzt - anything in front of the feedhorn instantly
 > shuts the transmitter down on a Hughes system.

 On a correctly operating Hughes system. What about all the others?

 >
 > Now see what new fear-mongering you can devise about these terrible,
 > terrible microwaves!

 Perhaps the greatest fear is installed by those who claim that something
is 100% safe, foolproof, etc. History shows a poor track record in that
area.

 >
 > There is greater exposure from a typical cell phone held to the ear,
 > because of distance factors, and there've been a LOT of studies that
 > fail to show any problem there, even though those afraid of microwaves
 > are sure it must be frying brains.

 Just in today's news:

 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071207145613.hnkq6bin&show_article=1

 From 1974:

 http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA
007521

 From 1967:

 http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=4522127

 More documented effects on brain function:

 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/7218/19483/00900856.pdf

 Upon testicles:

 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel6/8203/24832/01123206.pdf

 Remember, human testicles are much larger than mice testicles so their
radar cross section is larger for the same wavelength and resonance effects
can occur.

 When you say far greater exposure, what are you comparing it to?

 More importantly, if microwaves/RF are not dangerous then why were
extensive studies undertaken in 30-40 years ago which resulted in exposure
limit guidelines/ regulations? There are no exposure limit guidelines for
hot cooking surfaces on stoves and yet the burn danger is much higher.

 Not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer so smoking does not lead to lung
cancer? There is a great variation in human biological mechanism, each with
its own propensity to certain diseases and conditions. What is benign to one
person may be lethal to another (example: peanuts).

 The sun has an intensity of about 900 Wm^2, which is 90 mW/cm^2 or about
450 times stronger than the radiation field of the dish. A one hour exposure
to the sun could result in blistering of the skin and a 100 fold increase
risk in cancer in some individuals. It can also cause loss of vision and is
of sufficient intensity to create chemical changes within the body (creation
of vitamin D).

 Epileptics may have siezures induced by EM fields:
http://www.tetrawatch.net/papers/emr_epilepsy.pdf

 It is commonly known that cell phone use while driving is a growing cause
for accident. The cell phone does not jump up and grab the steering wheel.
The typical reason why a cell phone user has a car accident is that they
weren't paying attention, their mental function was distracted away from
driving. Yet, the same effect is not seen to the same high degree from
talking to passengers in the car, eating a sandwhich or listening to the
radio. Is the cell phone being held close to the head affecting the brain?
Are judgement and awareness being affected?  The IEEE study cited above
measures a depression in the alpha brain waves.

 I agree that common sense is the best rule. Don't stick your head in front
of a dish, keep kids away. Common sense would also dictate that nothing is
100% safe, there are plenty of unknowns out there and don't take risks that
are not worth the return. If you have light skin, cover up when you go out
in the sun, if your skin is more pigmented you have less concern. With EM
radiation the risk factors are not yet known or defined. It has been clearly
documented that there are biological effects of EM radiation, from buring of
flesh to subtle alterations of brain waves. Some effects are obvious, some
are not. I think, in most cases,  it is best to give people the scientific
data known to do date and let them decide for themselves whether something
is safe or not, which is what the FCC document tries to do.

 > ---
 > Don Bradner
 > donb (not don) at arcatapet.com
 > '90 Wanderlodge PT40 "Blue Thunder"
 > towing '07 Jeep Liberty
 >

According to MotoSat, certain conditions were imposed  by the FCC as
conditions of their operation. These included mounting the dish 6' above the
ground and licensed installers only. You can read it here:

http://www.motosat.com/downloads/internet/#tfes

It says:

"These rules apply to the installation of all Temporary-Fixed Two-Way 0.74
m, 0.98 m

and 1.2 m earth stations using the DIRECWAY service including those mounted
and

operated on vehicles, such as an emergency response vehicle or a consumer
recreation

vehicle. A "Temporary-Fixed" earth station (TFES) is, according to the FCC
rules, an

earth station that changes its location (coordinates) anytime during a
six-month period.

For the purposes of this document, all HNS earth stations using DIRECWAY
service,

mounted on a vehicle or truck or otherwise used as a transportable antenna
for stationary

operation, are considered TFES (Temporary-Fixed Earth Stations).

The FCC has imposed the following conditions on the FCC licenses held by
Hughes

Network Systems when operating, installing and deploying Temporary Fixed
Earth

Stations and is mandatory for all installations made within the Continental
United States

as well as Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and other
U.S. territories.

These conditions are also required by HNS for all other installed locations
using the

DIRECWAY service (and may be supplemented by regulatory requirements in
other

jurisdictions) in order for Hughes Network Systems to meet its obligations
to its space

segment suppliers."

From the downloads available on the page, under TFES documents,

TFES Regulations, conditions #2 and #5.

"2. "Installation" is the physical mounting and wiring of the DIRECWAY
Two-Way

Satellite System on a vehicle or other stationary site in order to prepare
for correct

operation. The installation and removal of a Temporary-Fixed antenna must
only be

done by a MotoSAT/HNS-Certified Installer."

"5. For large vehicles with roof mounts, the height of the bottom lip of the
antenna when

fully deployed must be at least six feet above the ground at all times, or
six feet above

a surrounding surface which a person may easily access."

Since these are conditions imposed by the FCC, they must not be lawful laws?
Does a federal law have to be enacted by Congress or can it be decreed by an
agency? The stipulations for TFES are determined on a case by case basis by
the FCC since TFES dishes can vary widely. The height requirement is written
into the requirements of their license and is not explicit in 47CFR. 47CFR
should give the FCC the authority to issue such licenses.

If there is no chance of danger/injury, why is the dish required to be
mounted six feet in the air?

People fall down stairs everyday and are hurt, yet they aren't required to
wear helmets, airbags or other restraining devices. Why does the FCC impose
restrictions that keep the dish 6 feet away from a person?

Is MotoSat simply lying?

Goddam.

Your.  It belongs to you.

You're.  Contraction for YOU ARE.

Did nobody attempt to learn anything in English class?  Was anybody
listening?

KH