New 80 Meter Allocation
Charlie Chisholm (NO7UP)
on
December 12, 2006
View comments about this article!
Hello -
I don't agree with the FCC's decision to allow voice all the way down to 3600. It doesn't make any sense to me, and seems to be inconsistent with every other band.
On every other band, there is a space above the first 100kHz, and there was talk of reserving that for wider-bandwith HF digital communications modes (especially future modes).
By allowing voice communications all the way down to 3600kHz, it will be very difficult in the future to re-allocate a small section for wider bandwidth digital communication modes, especially since to do so, the FCC would have to remove privileges previously granted.
Eight meters is a big band, so the allocation for CW/ digital/image should extend to 3650. The 40-meter allocation only goes to 7125, but that is because 40 is a much smaller band. The allocation on 20 goes to 14.150 and on 15 it goes all the way to 21.200.
It just doesn't make any sense for the allocation on 80 to go only to 3600.
Where will the wider-bandwidth digital modes of the future take place? -- In the CW portion? -- In the RTTY portion? What about the displaced nets that currently operate above 3600?? Where will they go -- the lower CW portion? If that happens, good luck on finding a place to ragchew on 80CW without conflicting with a net!
The section from 3600 to 3650 would be ideal for both of these activities.
This is a perfect example of a government bureaucracy (most members of which are not amateur operators) imposing its will -- against the majority of comments given to it in this proceeding.
Is it too late to change the situation? Is the Report and Order set in stone? What is a Petition for Reconsideration? How does someone get one of those started?
What does everyone else think about this situation?
- Charlie Chisholm NO7UP
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KF4HR on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The 80/75 meter band changes don't make sense to me either, and many others. The drawbacks to the changes on 80/75 were well documented, (after the fact), in QST.
We caught wind of a few of these changes possibly coming down the pike (like the FCC approving Sky Command for example), but there wasn't much said about the potential band relocations.
I find it amazing the ARRL wasn't able to better influence the FCC. Obviously there's a major disconnect and/or lack of ccordination between the FCC policy makers (people actually making the final decisions in Washington), and the ARRL.
Perhaps we should consider ourselves lucky. With this level of FCC/ARRL coordination, the FCC could have made the 80/75 meter band 'voice only' and moved all CW and digital operations to 10!
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by W6TH on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
You will have to get organized and not let the governments of any kind become bosses and control you, it is up to the people of These United States of America to limit the power of Governments of what they can do and not do.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
.:The Constitution and the Bill of Rights was to limit the power of the Government. Now is the time to show "your Power".:
.:
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by N8NOE on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Revolution!...
75/80 is being asked now to hold on the decision of re-allocation. Just For the Fact of too many people moving around and Nets. Read the ARRL Site, for a bit more but this is the latest!..
I'm NOT against a Revolution though!
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by W6TH on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
I haven't seen any improvements in band locations since the year of 1946. Seems to me all changes of the past years has been to dislocate, to force a change in the usual status to disrupt.
An indication is plainly seen how much the ARRL cares for the National Traffic System. What do you think of an organization that represents you people that doesn't pay any taxes, but puts the burden upon your shoulders.
Selling magazines and not supporting themselves, or supporting you, but for the grants from the Government with your tax money.
I quote Barnum and Bailey; a sucker is born every minute.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KX8N on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I don't agree with the FCC's decision to allow voice all the way down to 3600. It doesn't make any sense to me, and seems to be inconsistent with every other band. "
If the FCC can create 60 meters which is channelized, and 30 meters which is exclusively CW, then they have the right to do whatever they want to with 80 meters.
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by AB0WR on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Folks, we got exactly what the ham community asked for - NOT what the ARRL asked for but what the entire community as a whole asked for.
Take a look at the comments that the FCC based the R&O on. It is a fact that many of the comments wanted wider phone priviledges than the ARRL asked for.
And the ARRL did nothing that I can find to counter these comments. Why is that? My guess is that the ARRL has developed such a hubris that they didn't think the FCC would consider anything other than what the ARRL proposed.
The old adage of "Be careful what you ask for, you might get it" comes readily to mind.
The argument about experimentation with wider digital modes also rings somewhat hollow. The FCC was quite forceful in the R&O that they consider the RTTY/data portions of the bands to be *narrow* bandwidth pieces of spectrum.
If we want spots for experimentation with wide modes, the space for them should be taken from the very top of the bands - e.g. 3975-4000khz. Let that area be a free-for-all. Digital, FM, AM, SSB, anything you can think of.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KA3NRX on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I guess the thing that really threw me for a loop was the amount of cw frequency space that was taken away from the General/Advanced class ticket holders.....I realize they are gaining with the ssb extensions, but man, what a huge loss for those guys......I hope that a compromise can be reached, because I agree, it seems way too extreme of a maneuver......
Vince P
KA3NRX
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by NA4IT on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'd just like to see the "National Association for Amateur Radio" aka the ARRL get back to the business of promoting amateur radio instead of "special interest" groups...
That's exactly why I canceled my membership and left the ranks of ARES.
Scott NA4IT
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KI4NX on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I agree it's too much. But, as with the rest of the bands it's what we make of it. If we all agree to use portion of the new allocation for one thing or another, then a simple "gentleman's arrangement," as we've done in the past, will work for all. There is room for all and we can govern that ourselves. It's not like we can only use cw in only one part, it's no wide modes in the lower part of 80m. We can make this work for all and we all win.
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by W3WN on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Although most petitioners agreed with an expansion of the 80/75 phone band, I think just about everyone was caught by surprise with the FCC decision to lower the start of SSB to 3600 kHz. Most expected 3700, a few even 3650, so as to leave the digital group in 3600 - 3650 alone.
The question in my mind remains "why?" Or to put it another way, what does the FCC know that we don't?
I think, IMHO, that this is a harbinger of the coming of a no-code HF license. My suspicion is that the major change on 75 phone indicates that the NCHF ticket or tickets will be upon us in the near future, and that the FCC expects that as a result, the amateur community will need this additional phone allocation on 80.
If that is the case, then obviously they also think that a NCHF ticket will be popular enough to warrant this. That's a good thing, isn't it? (Is it?)
Having said that, I do think that starting SSB at 3600 is a mistake, and that 3650 makes more sense. Moving the bottom of the phone band up to 3650 still leaves plenty of room for SSB without crowding CW and digital users. Hopefully, reason will be seen and an adjustment will be made (as the ARRL has asked the FCC to do) before the new allocations get too entrenched; otherwise, you will soon be reading in this forums something on the lines of how the big bad ARRL gave into the CW/Digital special interests at the expense of the poor unfortunate SSB users, which is the opposite of what you are now reading about how the big bad ARRL gave into the SSB special interests at the expense of the poor unfortunate CW/Digital users... but that's another story...
73
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by W6TH on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
And the ARRL did nothing that I can find to counter these comments. Why is that?
Strange you should ask and mention this. The ARRL is of and for the FCC, they go hand in hand; what the FCC wants, the ARRL will do all in their effort and power to see that it is done. The ARRL is not going to bite the hand that feeds them. Both the ARRL and the FCC wash each others hands and both are out for making money.
This band plan looks great for contesting, could it eventually fit in with the future?
I am looking forward when the day comes and the radios will be made without a place to plug your Bug or Paddle into and minus the Keyer.
.:
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by N9WB on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think that the entire 80-meter band should be open to phone. Setting up a environment where Amateurs are pitted against Amateurs for a place to operate has gone on too long.
CW can operate within the phone bands if a bit of courtesy is given it.
While we are at it, the Generals’ should have full Amateur Privileges. The Extra should be a vanity license for those who choose to go that extra mile. That’s how it used to be before incentive licensing messed Amateur Radio up.
Give the Technicians all privileges above 28 MHz.
If you want to belly ache about something, worry about this gimme Entry Level License with H.F. phone privileges that the ARRL seems to be intent upon.
I think the FCC did a good job on this one. They didn’t rubber stamp the ARRL.
Vy 73, Walt N9WB
Amateur Extra
ARRL Life Member
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by WW5AA on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Looks like no one here has gone to the ARRL web site. Read before flamming requested!
73, de Lindy
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by THERAGE on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Eight meters is a big band, so the allocation for CW/ digital/image should extend to 3650."
Yeh, eight meters to 3650 is a big band. I'll have to look up the new R & O on that one. :-) 73
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KB1SF on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I find it absolutely fascinating that nobody has yet questioned how we all must STILL ask the FCC for "permission" to re-allocate our sub-bands in the Amateur Service. And even when they DO re-allocate things, some of us have the nerve to complain that they didn't do exactly as we wish.
When, oh when, are we all going to wake up and realize we are being horribly over-regulated?
Throughout most of the rest of the world, the frequencies in the Amateur Service are regulated by bandwidth, NOT by license class or operating mode. Only in the United States are our bands carved up into ever-smaller sub-bands (and sub-sub bands) based on the class of license we happen to hold and/or the mode we are using. What’s more, in order to have access to more frequency space, a person must first pass an ever-more-irrelevant series of tests, one for the Morse Code followed by a series of multiple-choice “achievement tests” where successful applicants collect "merit badges" (frequency privileges) like we were all still in the Boy Scouts.
Certainly, right now, things are all very neat and tidy, with all of us in our respective license-class-and-operating-mode "cubbyholes". And, the status quo is certainly far less painful than having to implement voluntary band planning for HF like most other countries in the world have ALREADY done.
But, unfortunately, trouble is now brewing in our over-regulated Ham Radio Paradise. That's because the current (FCC regulated) arrangement has now become legally discriminatory under Federal law, not to mention ever more expensive for the FCC to maintain and administer. What's more, by arbitrarily "walling off" portions of our spectrum based on one's license class and/or (arcane) operating mode, the current regulatory system for our Service leaves large portions of our spectrum virtually unoccupied, while other portions are often completely jammed.
The simple fact that US Hams had to play "Mother may I?" and then wait YEARS for the FCC to finally act on a simple request to re-allocate tiny sub-band slivers of our spectrum is absolute proof that the current "incentive" and regulated sub-band foolishness is arbitrary, capricious, and inflexible (not to mention wasteful of both spectrum and the taxpayer's money). It is also totally incapable of actively encouraging new operating modes, as well as accommodating those new modes when they happen to come along.
Right now, the regulatory approach to the Amateur Service in the United States could best be described as, "50 years of tradition unhampered by progress". That's because the FCC's basic regulatory and frequency allocation approach to our Service assumes we are all still operating in the same way (and with the same technology) as we were in the 1950s.
We deserve better…much better.
73,
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by W2BLC on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A couple of hours ago I posted a comment about this subject. It vanished shortly after it was posted. Anyone else having this problem?
I doubt if this is intervention on anyone's part. Rather, I believe it to be an anomoly in site operation. Might be something to watch for in the future.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by W4LGH on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You know, what ever the FCC does, someone is gonna bitch about it. Every change they make will affect someone, but stop taking it so personal. The atmosphere today has been so poluted with "political correct-ness" that everyones skin has gotten way to thin. Everyone takes everything so personal, lighten up and just have fun playing radio. At least the FCC didn't "SELL" our frequencies off to someone. When did the FCC get the power to "SELL" frequencies? Or did they? Maybe they have been doing this illegaly?
Ham's have always been a self policing group, and I am sure that it will all work out ok, and there will be several new gentleman's agreements on when and where to run what mode. We CAN work it out, as long as we have our frequencies!!
Hang in there, the world hasn't ended yet!
73 de W4LGH - Alan
www.w4lgh.com
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KB9CRY on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey it is cast in stone now and will go into effect on Dec. 15.
I trust that you filed your opinion with the FCC duing the public comment period?
If yes, then you did what you could. If no, quit whining now when it's too late.
There's more voice operation that all the other and I'm sure that factored into the decision.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K3AN on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with W3WN when he says, "I think, IMHO, that this is a harbinger of the coming of a no-code HF license."
No-code is coming soon. No-test in another decade or so, and no-license (when we all become freebanders) within 20 years. Some will argue that I'm being too optimistic, and that all these changes will come a lot sooner.
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K1XT on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If one looks at the letters taken in by the FCC during the open comment period on any given rule change past or present concerning ham radio, you will see that they tend to take close consideration of individual comments and requests. You will see the ARRL's too. But my personal observation is that the FCC tends to rule more in favor of the mass individual comments sent in by everyday hams. If you have something to express, send it to the FCC yourself and don't expect someone else to do it for you. Watch for the open comment periods and write a well composed (and grammatically correct) letter that includes plenty of support for your point of view. When they ask for comments, send them in.
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by N4KZ on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't at all agree with the views of some posters that the FCC and ARRL are joined at the hip. The ARRL asked for 75m phone expansion down to 3725 and the FCC enacted 3600 as the bottom phone band edge instead. That fact hardly supports the above contention.
I, for one, liked the FCC's action of making 3600 kHz the bottom edge of the 75m phone band. Why? I started in ham radio in high school and am now in my 50s -- so I've been around for awhile -- and have never been comfortable with the 75m phone culture that exists. You know, the culture that certain groups "own" their frequencies and have a "right" to run others off by causing interference; the culture that looks down on calling CQ to establish communications like we do on every other band; the culture that you must talk with the same people night after night after night and never admit anyone new to the group without a proper hazing ceremony first; the culture that finds juvenile on-air behavior as funny or desirable. I could go on and on.
I, for one, hope that with a much larger phone band, those of us who would like to actually use 75m phone to communicate with and meet new hams around the country and world, to call CQ and behave in a positive manner on-air will actually have space to do so while those who enjoy the existing 75m phone culture can continue to their "thing."
Of course, I probably live in a fantasy world about a different kind of 75m phone culture springing up in the newly expanded phone bands.
As some of you have seen, the ARRL has petitioned the FCC now -- at practically the last minute since the changes take effect at one minute past midnight on Dec. 15 -- to delay implementing any change to the range of 3600 to 3635 kHz to preserve the status quo. That essentially means maintaining that segment as digital/CW/and automatic message forwarding only. That would push the bottom of the phone band to 3635 kHz. I admit I am not too crazy about the petition. But it is a reasonable compromise. I still don't like it but could live with it.
The ARRL's own committee had originally proposed expanding phone down to 3700 but the League BoD donned its great conservative blinders and went with 3725 instead. That was not nearly enough.
I am not an ARRL basher. I am a 38-year League member and proud of it but I didn't agree with the League on this one and still don't. I too like to operate digital modes. Frankly, I think all the CW and digital modes, including the nets on 80m, could easily fit into 3500 to 3600 kHz. After all, they fit into 100 kHz on every other active HF band. But it's the FCC's inattentiveness to the fact that the expansion to 3600 wiped out the digital automatic operation window that's the fly in the ointment. The FCC's own R&O didn't even address this issue which tends to support the view that someone in Washington wasn't fully in tune with what they were about to do regarding digital modes on 80m.
I do agree with the view that the big 75m phone band expansion is probably timed to coincide with a big influx of new HF hams after the mandatory Morse Code testing goes away sometime in 2007.
I love CW and operate it often but hey, at the age of 52, I seldom work anyone younger than me. Most are older. There's a real undeniable trend at work here.
We need some new blood.
I'd rather that the 75m phone band start at 3600 but I could live with 3635. The fact that ARRL was willing to give in so much on that must indicate strong support among phone ops for a much expanded 75m. The League board was out of touch went it pushed 3725 -- a whole 25 kHz expansion for Extras. Gimme a break.
73, Dave, N4KZ
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by QSYING on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It is always a good thing to bash the ARRL at every opportunity, especially if the issue at hand has little or nothing to do with the ARRL.
FCC went far beyond what ARRL asked in this matter.
ARRL is currently asking FCC to stay and correct what may have been an error or may have been deliberate on FCC's part.
This has precious little to do with any alleged shortcomings on the part of ARRL.
No good deeds go unpunished.
KC9JUB
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The focus should be on deregulation of the bands and not on adding several additional layers of restrictions and/or limitations based on operating modes etc. which only serves to limit us, our capacity and our future potential ability to communicate.
Quite frankly, the FCC should leave it up to hams to decide how we should effectively "slice & dice" and utilize "our" bands effectively. This should be the job of organizations like the ARRL for example.
This would have provided us with more flexibility to change our minds in the future without a carved in stone R&O in the way of implementing future changes. No, the ARRL isn't perfect, but at least we could make such changes or revisions in weeks and not years from within our own ranks.
That's the problem with asking for these controls from a government regulatory body like the FCC. Sometimes you just might get what you ask for but at the expense of what? This recent R&O is definitely carved in stone and it's apparent that something definitely got lost during the translation on several occasions during the process.
Can these changes be made just as easily and adapted as our needs require from within an organization like the ARRL? I am going to say when changes like this are mandated by the FCC, it will probably take lots of red tape to eventually get the job done.
I much rather prefer the gentleman's agreement approach which was originally introduced by the ARRL in utilizing bandwidth many years ago. It's not perfect either but it's certainly well recognised that the main problem with the idea of involving the FCC in implementing additional regulations or imposing certain operating/band restrictions of our bands based on perating mode(s) etc. only seems to creates additional issues for us to contend with as we have clearly seen demonstrated with this R&O recently.
I feel this recent R&O will probably require future FCC involvement and future updated revisions as newer modes or issues are experimented with and/or introduced into our service.
..Or perhaps we should also request the FCC to become involved and regulate scertain sections of each band for future experimental purposes too? Does anyone see the problem with asking for that to be carved in stone in an R&O format?
We should already have this ability and freedom to choose how things are done within an organization like the ARRL to modify the current band operating structure as it see's fit without any outside FCC involvement at all in the process.
However, it seems we won't have this ability to implement our own changes from within if we continue to petition the FCC and request they control every aspect of amateur radio band utilization in the future.
"Operating mode by R&O" only sets the stage to further restrict and channelize each band allocation into specific band slices and modes that are not in any way flexible or adaptable enough to facilitate future revisions, expansion nor can we make our own adaptations from within our own ranks as our needs may require.
This recent R&O only further demonstrates an example of how outside controls can upset the apple cart by further introducing us to the idea of additional red tape to get in the way of implementing changes or revisions as we need them in the future.
The challenge we face right now is the question of will they ever get this R&O "right" anytime soon in the immediate near future?
Who will answer the question of identifying any potential implications these decisions made today will have for us in the long term future?
73 de Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
"Undone"
|
|
|
by N4QA on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ARRL:
"She didn't know what she was headed for.
And when she found what she was headed for...
mama it was too late!
She's come undone..." - Burton Cummimgs and The Guess Who
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by N0AH on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Don't take this the wrong way, but maybe this reflects what most amateur radio operators feel about the newer digital modes?
I think the original proposal was to give phone privledges down to 3.625MHz........so I don't see any blame (flame) earned by the ARRL.
And last but not least, 160M band plan was retooled by a volunteer world wide decision in 2000 regarding it's band plan. So alas, have patients. I would just keep operating digital where you have been. The few flakes who want to stomp on you will figure it out and move a few Khz's.
My guess is that 3.625MHz will be the friendly dividing line regardless of revised band plans-
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K1CJS on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Everybody seems to be complaining about the restructuring R&O. There are even some off-the-wall comments about what to expect. The FCC is only reacting to what it sees and what is requested of it. I would suggest stepping back and looking at what we're seeing right now--and thinking about it.
Some of the comments from other articles come to mind here--some that show what the FCC is hearing. I'll list a few of them here.
1. What if I don't want to experiment, what if I only want to talk.
2. Hey, I just want to buy a rig and an antenna, put them together and use them.
3. I have no interest in building anything.
4. All I want to do is get on the air and do some communication with hams in other countries.
These comments are the ones that come to mind right now, I know there are many others--and from quite a few hams. There is only a minority of us left who actually want ham radio service to be what it was originally intended to be--an experimenters service and a place to try out new ideas. The rest just want to get on the air and talk--either by voice, by morse, or by other digital modes. Maybe the FCC was looking at those people when they made the reallocations.
The exclusive segments for CW and experimenting are shrinking. Phone bands are expanding. The operators who just want to get on and talk are winning. It looks like those of us in the minority are fighting a battle we may lose, and the amateur radio service will become another strictly regulated service. We'll lose the ability to do our own repairs, to make our own equipment and to experiment and become just a communicating service. If things keep going the way they are, soon it will be illegal to open the equipment--let alone work on it. It will be forbidden to try anything out of the regular, ordinary modes, and everything (all equipment) will have to be checked and certified. It really seems to be the direction we're moving in.
I think we better wake up now, while we have a chance to salvage something out of the mess. If we don't, we'll end up as another "citizens band" type service, or a service that's so tightly regulated we'll have lawmen pounding at our door if we're off frequency--or we say "sh*t" during a conversation while we're on the air.
|
| |
|
American Relay
|
|
|
by N4QA on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ARRL:
"American Relay, I said get away
American Relay, listen what I say
Don't come here hanging around my bands,
Winlink funk all o'er your hands
I don't need your email noise
I don't need your Pactor toys
Modem lights can hypnotize
Sparkle someone else's eyes
Now Relay, get away from me
American Relay, mama let me be"
- Burton Cummings and The Guess Who...sort of.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KE3HO on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<< My guess is that the ARRL has developed such a hubris that they didn't think the FCC would consider anything other than what the ARRL proposed. >>
I agree with AB0WR - The ARRL put in their comments "knowing" that the FCC would take their recommendations and pay little attention to all of the individual hams who commented. When the FCC paid more attention to all of the individual hams' comments, the ARRL was taken by surprise. I think they were in a state of shock over this, and that it why it has taken them so long to request a delay in enacting the changes. I expect that the FCC will not delay the changes. They followed their own procedures, accepted comments from interested parties during the comment period, then acted based on those comments.
As for what these changes may mean regarding the FCC's future intentions, I think that the FCC is moving towards fewer license classes - probably just two. It would reduce their administrative overhead and simplify enforcement operations. I think that a no-code HF license is not far away, and probably at the same time there will be a consolidation of license classes to gradually reduce the number of classes. Just my opinion.
73 - Jim
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by N1XBP on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I think the upcoming changes only make sense if they are also planning to mess with the licensing system soon. I think we're going to see two licenses for HF. One with code, and one without. Bringing the Extra and General segments more into line with each other makes me think they will blend them together (which personally, as a general, would dissappoint me greatly.) I also think it would be nice if they would add another "Experimenter's" license like Technician used to be and give people a sliver of spectrum for new and unusual experimentation with digital modes, ALE, spread spectrum, etc. etc. but limit that sliver to 100 watts ERP.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KB9CRY on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just got off the ARRL's website and it seems that they are petitioning the FCC to delay implementation of the 80 M changes for the exact concerns listed by the article's author.
So they aren't so bad after all?!
I'd say sending a note of your feelings and constructive suggestions to the ARRL would be in order.
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K9RQ on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
According to the league's website today, they are asking the commission to reconsider, postpone the implentation and move the lower edge of the phone band up to 3635 kHz. Should be interesting to see how that flies.
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KK9H on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The reality is simply "supply and demand." The demand for spectrum as represented by shear numbers is for voice, not CW or digital modes at the present time. The supply is from 3.5 MHz to 4.0 MHz so 1/5th of the band goes to CW and digital modes and 4/5ths goes to voice. Happily CW and the digital modes are much more spectrum efficient modes.
73, Don
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by WI7B on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with the FCC Omnibus R&O that will go into effect of 15DEC2006. Phone down to 3600 KHz.
I think the action taken yesterday by our League is too little, too late. It was last-minute and without the consultation of the members.
I am truly dissapointed.
73,
---* Ken
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I thought amateur radio was suppose to be a self regulated, self policing entity etc... etc..
Does the ARRL no longer have the authority to change it's own gentleman's agreements and band plans. It now seems they are looking to the FCC for such clarification in the form of enacted band usage legislation?
This entire R&O is like asking for more governmental control of how the amateur radio spectrum should operate. This seems to contradict the original mission statement of the ARRL and further introduces the idea of placing unnecessary stop signs at the end of each one of our driveways.
We already have a long standing flexible gentleman's agreement in place that is supposed to be adaptable enough to suit our changing operating needs as we see fit. Isn't that one of the reasons why the ARRL exists as a representing entity for hams in the first place?
Why this rhetorical and contradictory "R&O - more band control" legislation was presented or is even required to implement such changes is beyond me. Maybe hams suddenly like the idea of regulating our service like any other radio service by adding more FCC rules to the mix?
For example, let's not just eliminate CW as an operating requirement for HF, let's just go the extra mile to make sure it's completely dead by mandating laws into place that it cannot in any way be assigned it's own operating spectrum. But.. yet we can agree to have certain digital modes assigned it's own operating spectrum.
See what I mean? ...Why is that exactly?
Perhaps this also means we will all be getting 40 channel dials assigned to our 80 meter rigs in the future?
Hey, it's just some constructive thoughts on the subject to think about.
73
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KI6LO on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Not that I like or agree with all the changes in the new order, but why all the comments and complaints this late in the game. The announcement has been out for nearly a month and the order goes into affect on Friday 12/15. Those who have concerns or complaints should have been writing to those who can make a difference or posting comments way before now. As the old saying goes, "You snooze, you lose".
Gene KI6LO
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by NA4IT on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One important thing to consider has been eluded to in these posts, and all should consider it wisely:
It looks like the FCC considered all comments "equal". In other words, one individual's comment carried just as much weight as the ARRL's. So if that is the way the "ball bounces", next time everyone needs to file their own comments instead of waiting for the ARRL to do it for them.
A voice of one soon dies, a voice of thousands is heard!
Scott NA4IT
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The ARRL's petition for Partial Stay is unnecessary and atypical.
From ARRL.org
----<<< "To justify its far greater-than-requested expansion, the League asserted, the FCC relied on the flawed logic of a handful of commenters who specifically asked for a 3600 to 4000 kHz phone band. Some commenters had made the case during the proceeding that the "CW subband" is vastly underutilized while space for SSB is at a premium.
>>> Flawed logic? I don't think so. The so called "handful of commenters" the ARRL is referring to also includes a group of hams that spent time quantifying band usage by mode and presented REAL DATA showing a 2:1 ratio in Phone vs CW usage - versus the hearsay and hogwash the ARRL continues to to spew about the merits of WinLink.
----<<< "Most important, however, is the loss of spectrum for automatically controlled digital modes. The ARRL petition cites the comments of several League members decrying the loss of spectrum for PACTOR, CW and RTTY."
>>> Hey, majority rules. If you don't use it, you lose it. CW nets traffic nets are an anachronism.
The 25 Khz at the bottom of the 80, 40, 20 and 15 meter CW bands is also an anachronism. If Digital Modes are so important, why doesn't the ARRL petition the FCC to allow all license classes to utilize this space? The 160, 30, 17, 12 and 10 meter bands aren't segmented this way, so why the inconsistency?
----<<< "The Winlink 2000 system was cited as a best practice (?) by several post-Hurricane Katrina reviews, including the Congressional "Failure of Initiative" report," remarked ARRL South Texas Section Emergency Coordinator".........etc., etc.
>>> Best practice?? Says who?? Just the ARRL and ARES, that's who. Of course, this is the typical ARRL- ARES driven nonsense with ZERO data to back up their claims. From the Failure of Initiative Report, this is the extent of what was mentioned about how WinLink and ARES saved the day during Katrina:
"Additionally, the NCS coordinated the frequencies
used by the nearly ** 1,000 Amateur Radio Emergency
Services (ARES) volunteers ** across the nation who served
in the Katrina stricken area providing communications
for government agencies, the Red Cross and the Salvation
Army. Emergency communications were conducted not
only by voice, but also by high-speed data transmissions
using state-of-the art digital communications software
known as WinLink."
>>> All 1000 were ARES volunteers and did this all on their own. As usual, there is no mention of ARES volunteers coordinating operations with local emergency management officials, just the NCS, Red Cross and the Salvation Army.
How many messages were communicated via WinLink and what type of traffic was handled? As usual, there are no details, just stories.
These are the little details that don't appear in the report, just the "glory and glam" a certain group of individuals wants added makes the report.
WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KB1SF on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Charles (KC8VWM) wrote: "However, it seems we won't have this ability to implement our own changes from within if we continue to petition the FCC and request they control every aspect of amateur radio band utilization in the future.
"Operating mode by R&O" only sets the stage to further restrict and channelize each band allocation into specific band slices and modes that are not in any way flexible or adaptable enough to facilitate future revisions, expansion nor can we make our own adaptations from within our own ranks as our needs may require."
------------------
BINGO!
In fact, in typical "Mother may I?" fashion, the ARRL has now gone back and petitioned the FCC to re-think it's latest move, ostensibly because, as they put it, "RTTY and data users" stand to be displaced, and that the decision "significantly burdens and adversely impacts CW nets above 3600 KHz, including emergency and public service nets."
What a farce!
I'm wondering what the League (et al) are going to do when the FCC finally comes to us and says, "OK, folks…from now on, you Hams can do anything you want, anywhere in the HF bands, just as long as you adhere to the ITU recommended bandwidths (6 KHz on most HF bands except 1 KHz on 30 Meters, and 20-30 KHz on 10 Meters). That is, we really don't care any longer what you put where, just as long as you adhere to these broad bandwidth limits."
My friends, that day IS coming. And it may very well be here sooner than many of us would like
In fact, I firmly believe that what the FCC recently did to re-allocate tiny portions of our HF bands is simply the tip of the iceberg. There is far more "deregulation" in the cards for us in the future. And, right now, we Hams are horribly ill prepared to voluntarily administer our HF bands when that responsibility is finally dropped back into our laps...as it most assuredly will be.
In fact, along with voluntary HF band planning, I believe a long-overdue re-thinking of the FCC's long-enshrined concept of "incentive licensing" will soon have to come on the chopping block as well. That's because the FCC will FIRST have to ditch incentive licensing before they can realistically start regulating us by bandwidth rather than license class and operating mode. Otherwise, they'd no longer have any "rewards" (license-and-mode-based sub-bands) to pass out as the "incentives" for us to "upgrade".
Sadly, we US Hams are STILL obsessed with constantly looking to the government to do our HF band planning, not to mention perpetuating ever-more irrelevant barriers in our licensing system that were designed (by the ARRL in concert with the FCC) for no other useful purpose than to keep the "riff raff" out of the hobby. The result of all this over-regulation (and over-licensing) is that now, when it is becoming ever-clearer that the FCC ultimately wants "out" of those responsibilities, we are horribly un-prepared to regulate ourselves. We simply don't know how.
As I've said, most other countries around the world are ALREADY regulating their Amateur Services this way because their governments never signed up to incentive licensing nor the resultant carving up of their Ham bands by license class and operating mode that such over-regulation creates. From the start, these countries turned the whole issue of "what goes where" on ALL the bands internationally allocated to the Amateur Service over to the Hams themselves. And that "hands off" approach has been working well for them ever since.
But, for a whole lot of reasons (many of which I've outlined previously) my hunch is that the cash-strapped (not to mention litigation-averse) FCC is now desperately looking for a way…ANY way…to quickly get out of the regulated HF sub-band (and incentive licensing) business for the Amateur Service.
So, rather than once again playing "Mother may I?" to the FCC to now "undo" some of what they've done (or didn't do) in their latest R&O, I believe the League would do well to offer their good offices to the FCC to start taking a long, hard look at the horribly over-regulated, "license-class-and-mode-based" foolishness that's now become the unspoken "elephant in the room" whenever serious HF band-planning efforts for the Amateur Service in the United States are discussed.
My guess is that the FCC is now growing weary of waiting for us to take the initiative on these issues. And, unless we act quickly to offer workable alternatives, my hunch is that they will be dropping the whole, smelly band-planning mess back in our laps for us Hams to solve…on our own.
73,
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by AD5TD on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I don't care what the FCC does, I'll just use it. Personally, I think the expansion of 80M was long needed and I will take advantage of it.
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KE7AKS on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Well, being a 75/80 Meter newbie I don't yet have a real feel for the band, but whenever I noticed the band was open, it seemed to be quite piled up on the phone- ssb sections, and those ol' boys were fast on the draw and quick on the key. The nets that I checked into were great, but had a rather large check in. My observation was that it would be nice if we could enlarge the band, not just divide it up differently
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by W4CNG on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Looks like I will have to add another FAN to my 75 meter dipole to get down to the bottom.....
Steve W4CNG
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As Rod Serling would most likely say, Somehow your ham ticket is going to be the price of admission for passage to the long awaited ride on a regulatory vehicle traveling through time and space without any bus stops along the way. You are now entering the proverbial Omnibus in the ARRL Twilight Zone.
I suspect this is all somehow going to become very interesting, in a very unexpected sort of way.
...All aboard!
73
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by W5ESE on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with the author of this column that the
Final R&O was a disaster for 80 meters, and
particularly for those who use the Automatic/wide
band data segment.
As far as entrusting the amateur community (the
ARRL) to administer the bands instead of the FCC;
I don't agree with that.
Many ARRL Division Directors have admitted that
they didn't read all the email or correspondance
addressed to them regarding license restructuring
or the regulation by bandwidth issues, in some
cases, saying "I don't have time".
The FCC, by law, is required to review EVERY
comment timely filed, on petitions for rulemaking,
and Notices of Proposed Rulemaking. The ARRL
Directors are free to ignore any they "don't have
time for".
In the regulation by bandwidth petition, ~80% of
the filed comments OPPOSED significant aspects of
the ARRL's petition. They were WAY out of touch
with the amateur community on that one.
Scott
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by N4KZ on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Interesting group of comments. To the one or two who don't understand what's got people riled, go to www.arrl.org and read about the League's last-minute effort to scuttle part of the 75m phone expansion.
As for the ARRL bashers -- I've never been one. I have been an ARRL member for 38 years -- my whole time licensed -- and proudly support the organization.
But this time they have made a whopper of an mistake by waiting until the last minute to correct a situation that they caused!
Wait! ARRL caused this? You bet -- by originally asking for a ridiculously small 75m phone band expansion. The League's own committee recommended that as a result of novice refarming, the phone band go down to 3700 kHz. But the ARRL board said no, we want just down to 3725 -- a paltry 25 kHz increase.
I maintain that if a more reasonable request, read that as BIGGER request, had been made in the first place, none of this would be happening.
The League should have asked for the band to expand down to 3675 or maybe even 3650. That would have been a reasonable change. Nobody really would have been displaced. It would have been relatively noncontroversial. End of story.
But the paltry request to expand down to just 3725 got some folks thinking, got that group collecting data on CW/digital band occupancy and that got the FCC's ear and the rest is history.
And, yes, the FCC threw a curve ball at the League by initially saying it agreed with the ARRL novice refarming proposal (which was down to 3725) but the unreasonably small expansion got people fired up.
So this will be most interesting. It took the FCC more than two years to act on all this. Can this agency really make a decision on the ARRL's two petititons by 12:01 a.m. Friday, Dec. 15? History says nope.
73, Dave, N4KZ
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K0RGR on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think ARRL got blindsided on this, and I also think it's fairly understandable.
The original NPRM for this docket declared that the Commission was "accepting the proposal from the ARRL" without any changes. Then, in the final R+O, they slipped in this change! I remember reading the NPRM for the first time, I thought that meant that they would do the other big thing ARRL proposed in that docket - to grant no code Techs the same priveleges as the Novices and Tech + operators would have under the new band plan. FCC turned that one down at the time because the International rules still forbade it. I was hoping they'd reconsider now.
I'm still hoping they do.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Selling magazines and not supporting themselves, or supporting you, but for the grants from the Government with your tax money."
Last time I checked, the ARRL was NOT receiving any of your, or my tax money.
There may be specific grants for specific public service purposes, but ARRL does not get any general tax money.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Does anyone else have their curiosity aroused by the fact that the largest increase in space was given to the group of hams that in general have the LEAST regard for the rules and consideration for others?
Hmmmm.....
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by N6AJR on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
it is changed this way so there is more room for us O'F's to talk about our lumbago.
the age of the average ham is creeping up and we need more room to talk about our ailments..:)
the FCC is just accomadating reality..
:)
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"...we are horribly un-prepared to regulate ourselves. We simply don't know how. "
Keith, I agree on that one. It is obviously something we have lost. And considering the people coming in, and general society today, there is absolutely NO WAY we will ever get it back.
Self-regulation? What an anachronistic concept - as dead as dinosaurs.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Self-regulation? What an anachronistic concept - as dead as dinosaurs."
Sad, but true.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N4QA,
Remember the day we ran into Albert Flasher? On our way back to Saskatoon?
:)
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by G0GQK on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've just read the ARRL statement and it says ' The League has asked the FCC to postpone or modify part of part of metres (11 DEC) while it considers a request to maintain the Status Quo. The ARRL was not requesting re-consideration of the entire band expansion.
MORE IMPORTANT however is the loss of spectrum for automatically controlled digital modes ! There's a punch on the nose for you !
Could it be that they want the coders to move to 30 metres which is barely in use, plenty of space there !
Perhaps this is set in stone, until it isn't !
G0GQK
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by N3OX on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Does anyone else have their curiosity aroused by the fact that the largest increase in space was given to the group of hams that in general have the LEAST regard for the rules and consideration for others?"
Gotta make sure 75m is big enough for every foulmouthed ham jerk who wants it, otherwise they've got to find somewhere else to go.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by W5ESE on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> MORE IMPORTANT however is the loss of spectrum for
> automatically controlled digital modes ! There's a
> punch on the nose for you !
No offense taken.
CW operators lost most of the non-phone spectrum
they're allowed to use on 80m.
Automatically controlled digital stations lost
all of the spectrum they're allowed to use on
80m.
> Could it be that they want the coders to move to
> 30 metres which is barely in use, plenty of space
> there !
I hear plenty of 30m activity here.
Propagation-wise, there is little resemblence
between 30m and 80m. They're not even comparable.
73
Scott
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K4JSR on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My buddy Steve said, "Looks like I will have to add another FAN to my 75 meter dipole to get down to the bottom.....
Steve W4CNG"
Don't go into "Fan Dipolar Disorder"
N6AJR, another refugee from the world famous Forget-Me-Not Rest QTH and Old Fart Farm, has said it well, also.
Now I can "FAN" the flames of being revolting!
Is this a great topic, or what?
With no rules or regs we could all go off on an archy
tangent!!! How's that for a stretch-'til you wretch,
Charles?
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with most posters. This is just a "sucker punch". The FCC is caving in to those that want a 1.6-30 mhz CB like service.
SSB(<3khz bw) has been around since the the 50's.
Digital modes are more state of the art. As the Novice test's of the 1950's stated what the U.S. Amatuer Radio Service is about....Paraphasing....To provide a pool of skilled individuals that want to advance the state of the art in radio and electronics.
I would have rather seen more SSB BW on 40M. Perhaps above 7.350mhz would have been far better for old timers and newbies alike.
My buck 380 opinion.(my 2 cents)
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KA4HWX on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"by WI7B on December 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I agree with the FCC Omnibus R&O that will go into effect of 15DEC2006. Phone down to 3600 KHz.
I think the action taken yesterday by our League is too little, too late. It was last-minute and without the consultation of the members.
I am truly dissapointed.
73,
---* Ken "
The ARRL seems to do a lot anymore without consultation of the members.
John
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by WI7B on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From QRZ.COM...
http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=3&t=140177
"December 15th band-warming party
Vintage radio hobbyists in the United States will celebrate the federal goverment's expansion of the 75 meter phone band with a 'bandwarming' party from 3600-3800Kc starting at 0500 GMT Dec. 15, 2006.
The festivities are slated to begin Thursday evening December 14th, when vintage radio enthusiasts in Canada will gather around several frequencies between 3700-3800, where they already enjoy phone privileges.
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of a decision to enlarge and more closely match the size of the 75 meter phone band with levels of activity, has specified enactment at midnight, Eastern time.
A number of U.S. stations have been granted the use of Special Event 1x1 Call Signs to help commemorate the regulatory upgrade.
By coincidence, December 2006 marks 100 years since radio pioneer experimenter Reginald Fesseden's celebrated Amplitude Modulation broadcasts, considered by many to be the first voice and music signals to be heard by the public audience for wireless.
The 'bandwarming' of 2006 will again feature the AM mode, as vintage radio enthusiasts warm up their vacuum tube gear on a December night a century later.
For more information:
http://amfone.net
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by AI4IT on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Something has changed in terms of band spectrum on 80 meters and a few others. I can't change it now. What?
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by AI4JD on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Why do people complain of loosing cw operating space when you can operate that mode any where within the amateur bands? For the most part 75/80m is very crowded and extra space was needed. I must say that im not a digital person when it comes to amateur radio to me it should be exclusive cw and voice operation i mean if your computer is doing all the work i can do that here on wonderful word wide web just my 2 cents. 73 to all and god bless mike ai4jd
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by N4KC on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Has it been lost on everyone that holders of Advanced and Extra Class licenses will soon have even more vast new areas of the amateur bands in which they can operate ANY legal mode that they wish? Extras can fire up CW or PSK or RTTY or SSB on 3625. Or go to any number of other modes. The only restrictions are that no voice mode can be used in the CW/data portions, including 3.5 to 3.6 mhz starting Friday.
That gives true experimenters much more of the spectrum in which they will have at their disposal all permitted modes available to hams--so long as they go sit for the exam that allows them to upgrade.
And why do nets or digital ops have to move? Simply upgrade to Extra and you can operate anywhere where it's legal for hams to operate, using any mode you want in most places. I see no reason why SSB can't co-exist with CW and PSK if we can still carry on amid the shortwave broadcasters on 40 meters. Just be courteous, avoid knowingly interfering with anyone already there, and politely move if politely asked. That's why God gave us the VFO.
If you care enough about your hobby to get bent out of shape because you are losing a slice of spectrum (that many of you never operated on before anyway), vent that anger in a positive direction and upgrade! Have you looked at the questions on eHam or in the readily available study guides? Don't tell me you couldn't apply a little of the time and brain power you spend posting on these forums and study for and pass the Advanced and Extra elements.
73,
Don N4KC
www.donkeith.com
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by N1EY on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
:find it amazing the ARRL wasn't able to better influence
: the FCC. Obviously there's a major disconnect and/or
:lack of ccordination between the FCC policy makers
:(people actually making the final decisions in
:Washington), and the ARRL.
The ARRL is NGO. IT is not the government. It does not
recognize all hams in the world. It does not
represent every ham in the USA. The FCC is your
government and represents your best interests. We are
doomed if you think that the ARRL and the FCC's opinion
should agree on every matter. It would a signal of the end of our democracy.
If the ARRL had their way, then Winlink would be all
over these frequencies instead of some yet to be
determined protocol that is actually technically
superior. The people in general want phone, so the FCC
has given them phone. Data modes can be used in the
phone bandwidths. SSTV is already a pseudo phone mode.
N1EY
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by WO0Z on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Quite frankly, the FCC should leave it up
>to hams to decide how we should effectively
>"slice & dice" and utilize "our" bands
>effectively. This should be the job of
>organizations like the ARRL for example
In a word, no.
I'm a member and all, but the ARRL has all these constuencies and they don't always represent all of hamdom. Particularly the sacred traffic nets. I've done some time with them, and I enjoy the people on them, but compared to the longstanding need for more phone on 80 (which was obvious to anyone willing to listen for any time these last 20 years or so I've been on the air), it just doesn't cut it.
I have more sympathy for the digital stuff, but maybe that can be accomodated by sharing from 3550 to 3600 somehow.
As for those who said to tinker with the CW stuff, bite your tounge.
Some of the added regulation we US hams put up with is in tacit recognition of our large numbers and the chaos it would bring internationally if every US ham was allowed to go everywhere and do everything.
When a DX station decides to do CW or voice, they can use the US allocations to pick and choose how much US ham, um, input they want. Some stations, after all, find it difficult to have a real conversation with anyone (especially DX to DX) if there's propagation to the US at any given moment. A problem US hams just don't have.
Why make their life tougher by having all of us everywhere?
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by N1EY on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
:::Selling magazines and not supporting themselves, or
:::supporting you, but for the grants from the Government
:::with your tax money."
::Last time I checked, the ARRL was NOT receiving any of
::your, or my tax money.
::There may be specific grants for specific public
::service purposes, but ARRL does not get any general tax
::money.
Just so you know the following. The dues is
approximately $5 million annually. Employee
compensation, payroll taxes and benefits is $6 million.
Approximately 3.2 million comes from QST advertisements
and sales. Only 300k comes from VE fees.
My concern is the salaries. They are very high. It is
only a society and not a business. People don't get to
choose to work for their society and make an
extragavant wage. They should be compensanted adequately.
The people are way into the top 10%
for wages nationwide.
The CEO makes $155k per annum plus benefits. The
average in this country approaches $30k.
How much does the fellow stocking shelves at the ARRL
make? I think quite considerablely less.
I'm upset because after I joined then I have most crazy
hassle in renewing! They charged my credit card and
my membership expired. Several emails were fired off.
A promise was made to investigate. Nothing happened.
Finally, I got some results. I got my November and
December issues during the same week,
N1EY
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by AD6WL on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>Extras can fire up CW or PSK or RTTY or SSB on 3625. Or go to any number of other modes. The only restrictions are that no voice mode can be used in the CW/data portions, including 3.5 to 3.6 mhz starting Friday.<<<
Check again:
There is no digital allowed above 3600.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by AD6WL on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/wt04-140/Hambands3_color.pdf
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by W7ETA on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Some day the FCC will wake up, and have a way hams can send comments to them.
In this day and age, I just can't imagine why the FCC hasn't set up such a system--its absolutely inexcusable that hams don't have a way to communicate with the FCC!
We should all be thankful the FCC studiously reads eHam to find out what hams really think, at least until they set up a system where hams who want to, can communicate directly to them.
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by AE6RO on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think they took too much away from the CW guys on 80. No, I didn't file my comments in a timely fashion nor am I now or have i ever been an 80 meter CW operator.
It's like that Twilight Zone episode where the three men return from space and one disappears. One of the two left behaved as if the missing man neve existed but the 2nd man remembered.
Maybe it's like the one where the jetliner gets sent back in time. They saw dinosaurs and next the 1939 World's Fair. They could have landed at La Guardia.
Maybe it's like the one where everyone had to think really happy thoughts or Billy Mumy would send them to the cornfield. AE6RO
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
No, I didn't file my comments in a timely fashion nor am I now or have i ever been an 80 meter CW operator.
It's like that Twilight Zone episode where the three men return from space and one disappears.
----------
I understand your situation perfectly. In fact, the reply you are now reading on your display was originally created in the year 1965. It is only now appearing for the first time after traveling through a black hole originating at the Forget-Me-Not Rest QTH and Old Fart Farm, which is the very epicenter of the space time continuum.
True Story!
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The FCC is your
government and represents your best interests."
OK, which is it? "Goverment" or "represents our best interests"?
Just curious.
|
| |
|
Just hit the PTT and speak...
|
|
|
by W1DUD on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
....Don't forget your licence is a privilege not a right....just utilize the new allocation and stop complaining and all the whackjob conspiracy theories. "73" thedud
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA2JJH,
Mike,
E-mail me. I have a laser story for you. I lost your e-mail address.
mhz
Back to net control.
|
| |
|
Patience and the New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by AI2IA on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Is it too late to change the situation? Is the Report and Order set in stone? What is a Petition for Reconsideration? How does someone get one of those started?
What does everyone else think about this situation?
- Charlie Chisholm NO7UP"
It should not be asking too much for U.S. amateur radio operators to WAIT. It is not yet December 15th. The changes have not even gone into effect yet, and already the hue and cry is raised to change the changes.
I don't know yet whether these changes are good or even tolerable. One thing I do know, that it is wise to wait until the changes go into effect and to experience the results before forming comments on them and generating petitions. The FCC can do this. These changes will go into effect! So, we show some intelligence and respect by waiting and feeling the results, accumulating some statistics, and living with their change for awhile before putting together a position on it. You can offer all sorts of theoretical impacts, but when you can point to real results, then and only then will reasonable people listen to you. Wait. Experience. Document. Share information. Gain a consensus, then act. It will come across so much better!
|
| |
|
RE: Patience and the New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by W4VR on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The FCC carefully reviewed the record in this proceeding and decided it was in the best interest of amateur radio, not necessarily in the arrl's, to extend the phone band down to 3600 kHz. The arrl did seek comments from its members after the fact as to whether the extension was justified...too little too late. With two days left before the new rules go into effect, I doubt the arrl will persuade the FCC to change it's rules or place a temporary freeze on the use of 3600-3635 kHz by phone operators. All the arrl is doing with this last-minute pleading is simply shooting itself in the foot and losing more respect with the FCC staffers.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I think they took too much away from the CW guys on 80."
Agree!
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The worst of the worst ham operators will now have more space to operate. The mega-lid 75 meter, foul-mouthed phones ops can widen their signals even more. A sad day for ham radio indeed.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The CEO makes $155k per annum plus benefits. The
average in this country approaches $30k."
No, no, no. That is WAY below average even for an ordinary wage earner.
I'm willing to bet NO CEO makes that little, even of non-profits. $155k is rather LOW for a CEO in the real world.
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by WX4O on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I figure if I want to operate CW above 3600 I'll just do it. I don't care for 'rules'. What next.... will the FCC
take the petition for no-code and change it to be no CW allowed anywhere. Just do what you want. Screw 'em.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by N7QNO on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
What CW guys on 80?? A few weeks ago I heard the subject come up among a group on 80.. Everyone dialed around the entire sub-band and heard zero cw signals.Here on the west coast except contest weekends there is virtually no activity.I suppose the case could be made to allow other or all modes current and as yet un-known to utilize the spectrum but the day of a cw only sub-band needs to come to an end.I personally enjoy cw about as much as other modes but one has to realize that if we are going to keep spectrum it has to be used and 150 khz of silence doesnt cut it.
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by N1BHH on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The ARRL didn't get any calls, or cries, from any of the digital crowd until after they published the R&O. Why didn't the Winlinkers respond during the comment period? Because they were too busy kissing each others bums over an endorsement: The Winlink 2000 system was cited as a best practice by several post-Hurricane Katrina reviews, including the Congressional 'Failure of Initiative' report. Sounds like the league must have been innundated with calls and emails from all these guys who think that Winlink will come through in the next environmental disaster. I don't think it will.
Don't any amateur radio operator know that the digital modes take up less bandwidth than a single sideband signal? Maybe it's time for the FCC to push through what it wanted to do years ago, and that is, put bandwidth requirements into effect. This is one service which doesn't have a bandwidth requirement where the broadcasters do and the land mobile services do. I'd love for that to happen. That would get alot of people upset, like this initiative from the league is stirring up.
A change to the rules I think should also include expansion on 30 meters including a phone subband and expanding further the 17 and 12 meter bands. And while they're at it and the foreign broadcasters seem to be moving higher in frequency at 7 Megahertz, why not expand the band downward like they wanted to do in the first place. I guess a couple of their precious religious broadcasters who have been popping up just below 7 MHz. have something to do with that. That's another one to think about, how much was shovelled to the FCC for that little move. A broadcaster can snap it's fingers and get whatever frequencies it wants while the ARRL won't do a thing and help out the amateurs it hasn't represented in years. Just check the leagues membership numbers, as the amount of money they ask for rises, the numbers of members falls.
The league only represents a few. You can take that to the bank.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Everyone dialed around the entire sub-band and heard zero cw signals."
That may be true on the West coast. It most certainly is NOT true in the East. I have NEVER tuned the 80m band without hearing many CW signals.
Last I heard, the FCC rules were for both east and west.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I figure if I want to operate CW above 3600 I'll just do it. I don't care for 'rules'. What next.... will the FCC
take the petition for no-code and change it to be no CW allowed anywhere. Just do what you want. Screw 'em."
Freebanding, are we now, John?
We hams have as many privileges as we do because we have a reputation for following the rules. Yes, I know many do not, but let's not make it worse!
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"A change to the rules I think should also include expansion on 30 meters including a phone subband and expanding further the 17 and 12 meter bands."
So the HUGE increases they got weren't enough? Sheesh - can you say "greedy"?
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K0CBA on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Let's face it.....some people would bitch if they were hung with a new rope.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KC2IJI on December 12, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Damn, you'd have thunk that they were giving away beachfront property.......
It's a number on the dial-seems to me that the 80 phone band is the most crowded of ham allocations-at night, 40 is probably better but jammed with broadcasters, 80 is wall to wall. Listening to the AM guys fight with the sidebanders is funny-lots of folks think a frequency is written on their FCC papers.
Unlike many ham bands, though, 80 is busy.
Once the CW requirement is dropped, there will be a one time influx of new hams...life will go on, CW will blaze away at the low side of each allocation, and no one in the real world (and most hams) will care.
The FCC opens up the one really busy ham band left ? Say thank you, and wonder why we need this sort of regulation.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by W2RDD on December 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The FCC has no problem removing privileges previously granted. Ask a General class cw operator.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K4RAF on December 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The FCC actually listened & profiled the ECFS comments, rather than trust the ARRL at "face value". I read the comments then & if this is a trend, the bandwidth bait & switch stands no chance based on overall ECFS filings....
Narrowbanders should have no problem getting along. Phone expansion on 75 is something to celeberate!!!
All the jammers, please QSY down the band for new fishing rights!!!
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KG8JF on December 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
There are two intities in this world that find it impossible to please everyone. These two intities are the FCC and the ARRL. I don't care what they do, someone will bitch about it. As for me, I view it like changing the furniture around in the living room. I may not like it right now, but for sure, I will get used to it. Lighten up folks and get a life. It is not going to affect my wealth or health one bit, so I just don't have the time to worry about it
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KG8JF on December 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Once in a while the FCC has to show all that they are in charge
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by W6TH on December 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
I always thought that the air waves were given to all free. Who has the rights to claim as theirs, to convey or transfer, as property or rights.
Another specific act of Government power and control by the use of due course of law.
America, another Roman power under a different name. We come to Liberate, not to conquer.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by AA4LR on December 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's abundantly clear that the FCC's decision to move the 75m band all the way down to 3600 kHz was a last-minute changed that wasn't very well thought out.
Look at the regulations: 97.221 (b) defines the small sub-bands where amatuer stations can be automatically controlled using digital emissions. It defines the segment 3620-3635 as being permitted.
However, with the changes to the 80m band, this frequency range is no longer permitted to be used for digital emissions -- since it isn't part of the 80m band as defined by the FCC regulations.
It surprises me that the ARRL took so long to file this petition. I served them up with comments on this the day it was annouced and pointed out the discrepancy with 97.221(b). Seems like 3650 kHz is a better delimiter between 80/75m -- saves 50 kHz for digital communications while still giving a generous 150 kHz for phone expansion. (Note that CW emissions are still permitted everywhere, although Advanced and General licensees cannot use the same band segments as before)
Frankly, I'd rather we moved to a de-regulated environment like every other country on the planet and have the bands work like 160m -- where modes are not bound to certain small segments.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by N9VO on December 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey, they could always upgrade!!
As they say, follow the Winlink! Whoops I mean to say, "follow the money"
Anyone who thinks the ARRL hasn't lost touch, has. Soon to be ex-member.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K6TLA on December 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I've been popping down to the CW subband on 80 from time to time and usually hear few if any signals. Most activity appears to be DX'ers below 3525 with very little activity above. I think the expansion of the phone segment on 80 is a bit radical but it is probably realistic based on the operating preferences of the present. The change would have probably never have been considered if there had been more consistant CW activity on 80.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on December 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The change would have probably never have been considered if there had been more consistant CW activity on 80.
---------
I don't buy that.
The "trend" is to eliminate Morse code testing in many countries. This recent decision to expand the phone portion of the band in the US 80 meter band is a reflection most likely addressing that particular issue for that most likely possibility in the future.
The thought process behind the decision making process was the idea that CW op's can pretty much use CW anywhere their license permits. Using CW does not require the idea of "reserving" any particular band segment for "exclusive CW use only" band segments in order for CW op's to actually use CW.
Any unused frequency should be more than sufficient for that intended purpose. However, I do suspect the "get off my exclusive CW frequency" mentality crowd will continue to bear arms against the SSB op's for awhile, but such things seem to inevitably occur anyway for a while whenever anything involves change.
73
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KE7HLR on December 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> The ARRL didn't get any calls, or cries, from any of the digital crowd until
> after they published the R&O. Why didn't the Winlinkers respond during
> the comment period? Because they were too busy kissing each others bums
> over an endorsement:
Um, because nobody knew that the 75m voice band was going to expand all the way down to 3600kHz *until* the R&O was published. Duh...
Try to keep up, will you?
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation - how to handle it.
|
|
|
by AI2IA on December 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Many of these posts are going to be very far off the mark when seen with hindsight six months from now.
The FCC made a decision that was theirs to make. Everything now is pure speculation. Once we live with it for a few months, we can all come back with hard facts, some statistics, and a few good expamples to bolster our positions and possibly fill in petitions. Considering the current action being taken by the ARRL in regard to the FCC and favored treatment of BPL, the better approach to their band changes at the moment it to accept their decision diplomatically until we can all give it a try living with it, and then after doing our homework, to come back with some comments about it.
Everything between now and then is anarchy, one-agenda diatribes, factionalism, empty speculation, and idle jabbering. If we hope to remove the politics from FCC decisions, then let us give them some time to see the effects of their recent decision so that we don't look like a bunch of discordant and disorganized fools.
|
| |
|
RE: "Undone"
|
|
|
by AE6RO on December 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N4QA: More like, "American Woman! Get away from me-he"
American woman! Mama let me be-e!
Stop hangin' around my door! I don't wanna see your shadow no more.
Got more important things to do than spend my time gettin' old with you!
Now woman! said get away-ay etc."
How about that? Big hit around 1970s when I got my Novice.
That reminds me. Back then I spent all I had buying an HW-16, antenna, and most of all, crystals. Then the FCC, maybe 8 months later, moved the Novice band and allowed VFOs. So I was stuck with all those crystals and no money for an HG-10B. Luckily, or unluckily, my cousin gave me his VF-1.
AE6RO
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by W5PVR on December 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Compairing bands, modes, frequencies and power limitations with other countries shows us how fortunate we are. Let's not mess it up.
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by N1EY on December 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K4JF ->
Why don't you think about how much money it really is?
Think about what the CEO does. Think about how much it
is than 99% of the hams make.
N1EY
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by W9OY on December 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Looks to me if you want to get your "CW privileges" back all you have to do is upgrade to extra class, not a very hard thing to do. Weak signal CW is no good in the phone bands, but strong signal CW works pretty much anywhere.
73 W9OY
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KB3LSR on December 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I finally upgraded to General so now this applies to me! I'm glad that I get an extra 100KHz of phone, but overall I suffer a loss of 150KHz of CW space, so Generals actually lose 50KHz from the deal. Looks like I'll have to upgrade to Extra someday. And now I bet they'll drop the morse code requirement because I finally passed the test (after 3 tries!!).
73 de KB3LSR
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K1MVP on December 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
from, W4GLH
"hams have always been a self policing group, and am
sure it will will all work out,--with several
gentlemens agreements on when and what to run"
This MIGHT be true were it another band, but have
you listened to 75 phone whithin the last 10 years,--
one would be "hard pressed" to find many "gentlemen"
on 75, IMO.
73, K1MVP
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"However, I do suspect the "get off my exclusive CW frequency" mentality crowd will continue to bear arms against the SSB op's "
Judging from the comments here and other places, you have that exactly backwards.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Looks to me if you want to get your "CW privileges" back all you have to do is upgrade to extra class"
Wrong. Extras are as squeezed as anybody else. Few operated ONLY below xx.025.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by W6TH on December 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
Reality is a question of perspective; the further you get from the past, the more concrete and plausible it seems -- but as you approach the present, it inevitably seems incredible.
Have and enjoy you new band plans. CW 4 ever.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by W6TH on December 13, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
Let me bring up the past.
Back in and on December 7 1941, the day of pearl Harbor, we hams were all set to work the extended 40 meter new phone band. This was to be December 8 1941. On December 7 1941 there were many trying out the band and operating illegally. The time I was listening was at 2:30 in the afternoon. A very strong station broke in and told those on phone that Pearl Harbor was under attack by the Japanese. This same band plan is happening now that was done on the 40 meter band back in 1941. We lived with it and I am sure you will do the same, although you have no choice and either did we, but went along with it as not a choice of our own.
Let me make one comment; When CW goes out entirely, you all will be back into what is called CBer's as it was CW that held ham radio radio together, aka Amateur Radio.
Take it from an old timer, I mean an old old timer, before WWII when ham radio was ham radio and men were men and the women loved them that wasy.
73 my children and behave yourselves.
W6TH a non vanity call.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: "Undone"
|
|
|
by N4QA on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE6RO,
See American Relay...up the ladder a ways.
BTW,
I've used a VF-1 as a QRP xmtr, using a pi network coupler.
And, I used to operate CW as a Novice from 7150 to 7200 Kcs...xtal control, of course...back when the FCC had the division correct!
72.
Bill, N4QA
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K4RAF on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"It's abundantly clear that the FCC's decision to move the 75m band all the way down to 3600 kHz was a last-minute changed that wasn't very well thought out."
It is? Do you have your "beer goggles" on? Clear is that they profiled the ECFS comments, looked over the usage (heavy) & said to the ARRL "here's our way".
This misconception many seem to have that it was not well thought out only proves that the FCC will have to streamline all the amateur classes, subbands, & other seperation methods by force when necessary. Expanding phone on 75M was a MUST!
Just wait till they combine all the classes & subbands when CW IS ELIMINATED as a testing hurdle!
K4RAF
wifidx@gmail.com
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just wait till they combine all the classes & subbands when CW IS ELIMINATED.
--------------
...Did they combine all license classes and subbands in every other country that dropped CW as a testing requirement?
73 & Happy Holidays.
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by N4QA on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K8MHZ wrote:
N4QA,
Remember the day we ran into Albert Flasher? On our way back to Saskatoon?
:)
Nope.
But I do remember:
We're so sorry, Uncle Albert - Beatles
and
I'm going back to Indiana - Jackson Five
72.
Bill, N4QA
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K4KYV on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Section 1.429(e) of the FCC rules provides that when a petition for reconsideration is timely filed in proper form, public notice of its filing is published in the FEDERAL REGISTER. Section 1.429(f) provides that oppositions to a petition for reconsideration may be filed within 15 days after public notice of the petition’s filing in the FEDERAL REGISTER.
All persons filing oppositions to the ARRL's Petiton for Reconsideration regarding the phone band expansion should be aware that Section 1.429 requires a printed copy of the opposition to be served on the petitioner. In the case of the League, this would be Christopher D. Imlay, General Counsel for the ARRL, at Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper, P.C. in Silver Spring, MD.
As of 14 December 2006,05:59 GMT, these petitions are posted on the FCC website:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518711102
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518710734
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518710722
Here is the complete text of Section 1.429:
§1.429 Petition for reconsideration.
(a) Any interested person may petition for reconsideration of a final action in a proceeding conducted under this subpart (see §§1.407 and 1.425). Where the action was taken by the Commission, the petition will be acted on by the Commission. Where action was taken by a staff official under delegated authority, the petition may be acted on by the staff official or referred to the Commission for action.
Note:
The staff has been authorized to act on rulemaking proceedings described in §1.420 and is authorized to make editorial changes in the rules (see §0.231(d)).
(b) A petition for reconsideration which relies on facts which have not previously been presented to the Commission will be granted only under the following circumstances:
(1) The facts relied on relate to events which have occurred or circumstances which have changed since the last opportunity to present them to the Commission;
(2) The facts relied on were unknown to petitioner until after his last opportunity to present them to the Commission, and he could not through the exercise of ordinary diligence have learned of the facts in question prior to such opportunity; or
(3) The Commission determines that consideration of the facts relied on is required in the public interest.
(c) The petition for reconsideration shall state with particularity the respects in which petitioner believes the action taken should be changed.
(d) The petition for reconsideration and any supplement thereto shall be filed within 30 days from the date of public notice of such action, as that date is defined in §1.4(b). No supplement to a petition for reconsideration filed after expiration of the 30 day period will be considered, except upon leave granted pursuant to a separate pleading stating the grounds for acceptance of the supplement. The petition for reconsideration shall not exceed 25 double-spaced typewritten pages. See also §1.49(f).
(e) Except as provided in §1.420(f), petitions for reconsideration need not be served on parties to the proceeding. (However, where the number of parties is relatively small, the Commission encourages the service of petitions for reconsideration and other pleadings, and agreements among parties to exchange copies of pleadings. See also §1.47(d) regarding electronic service of documents.) When a petition for reconsideration is timely filed in proper form, public notice of its filing is published in the Federal Register. The time for filing oppositions to the petition runs from the date of public notice. See §1.4(b).
(f) Oppositions to a petition for reconsideration shall be filed within 15 days after the date of public notice of the petition's filing and need be served only on the person who filed the petition. See also §1.49(d). Oppositions shall not exceed 25 double-spaced typewritten pages. See §1.49(f).
(g) Replies to an opposition shall be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions has expired and need be served only on the person who filed the opposition. Replies shall not exceed 10 double-spaced typewritten pages. See also §§1.49(d) and 1.49(f).
(h) Petitions for reconsideration, oppositions and replies shall conform to the requirements of §§1.49 and 1.52, except that they need not be verified. Except as provided in §1.420(e), an original and 11 copies shall be submitted to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties filing in electronic form need only submit one copy.
(i) The Commission may grant the petition for reconsideration in whole or in part or may deny the petition. Its order will contain a concise statement of the reasons for the action taken. Any order disposing of a petition for reconsideration which modifies rules adopted by the original order is, to the extent of such modification, subject to reconsideration in the same manner as the original order. Except in such circumstance, a second petition for reconsideration may be dismissed by the staff as repetitious.
(j) The filing of a petition for reconsideration is not a condition precedent to judicial review of any action taken by the Commission, except where the person seeking such review was not a party to the proceeding resulting in the action or relies on questions of fact or law upon which the Commission has been afforded no opportunity to pass. Subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section, such a person may qualify to seek judicial review by filing a petition for reconsideration.
(k) Without special order of the Commission, the filing of a petition for reconsideration shall not excuse any person from complying with any rule or operate in any manner to stay or postpone its enforcement. However, upon good cause shown, the Commission will stay the effective date of a rule pending a decision on a petition for reconsideration. See, however, §1.420(f).
(Secs. 4, 303, 307, 48 Stat., as amended, 1066, 1082, 1083; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307)
[41 FR 1287, Jan. 7, 1976, as amended at 44 FR 5436, Jan. 26, 1979; 46 FR 18556, Mar. 25, 1981; 52 FR 49161, Dec. 30, 1987; 63 FR 24126, May 1, 1998]
www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/cfr/title47/part1.html#1.429
Use the link below to view the entire text of all FCC regulations.
http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/cfr/title47/index.html
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K4KYV on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The above link worked for me last night, but has gone dead. Here is how to access the list:
1. View the FCC website at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/
2. Just to the upper right of the page, under "ECFS Main Links" click on "Search for filed comments."
3. At the top of the new page, copy and paste, or type into the "1. Proceeding" box the following: 04-140
4. At the bottom of the page, click on the button "Retrieve Document List", and the updated filings should appear in order, beginning with the most recently filed.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by W9OY on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K4JF
It looks to me when I read the allocation table that the extra class has CW privileges between 3.5 and 4mhz. No other license class has close to these privileges so how am I wrong?
vy 73 W9OY
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KT1B on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W6TH says
Strange you should ask and mention this. The ARRL is of and for the FCC, they go hand in hand; what the FCC wants, the ARRL will do all in their effort and power to see that it is done. The ARRL is not going to bite the hand that feeds them. Both the ARRL and the FCC wash each others hands and both are out for making money.
--------------------------------------------------------
The ARRL is taking the FCC to court because the FCC is attempting to legistlate away harmful interference to mobile stations.
The ARRL has been a thorn in the FCC's side over BPL, right from the beginning.
The ARRL just sent a fax to the FCC commissioners because they were using biased and inaccurate information in BPL presentations.
Take a look at the Leagues web site and what they are doing. You will find that they are either A. Fighting the FCC on something or B. Trying to clean up a mess that the FCC made.
The ARRL doesn't seem to me to be afraid of the FCC or in bed with them if they're taking them to federal court. It's unlikely that if the ARRL was overly concered with anything other than Amateur Radio it would oppose the FCC on such a regular basis.
If your statement about the ARRL doing what the FCC wants were true, there would be no court case, and no fight against BPL.
Right now the ARRL is trying to get the FCC's latest screwup fixed. They've been able to get them to correct the error about certain digital emission bandwidths on hf and they are working to have the subbands on 80 meters for automatic control restored by getting the demarcation point between digital/cw and ssb changed to 3635 kHz.
The details are on their web site.
I have found the ARRL to be professional and to be operating in the interests of all amateurs, regardless of their particular interest in the hobby.
Right after the FCC screwed up what was to be a non controversial change, the ARRL was working immediately to get things cleaned up.
73, enjoy the new phone spectrum on 75.
Scott
KT1B
Haverhill, MA
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KT1B on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The ARRL is trying to get the demarcation point moved up to 3735 kHz. That will restore the area where automatic control of digital stations is allowed.
I think that point will work well and there will be enough space for cw and digital in the 135 kHz between 3500 kHz and 3635 kHz.
CW is rather narrow, as is psk-31, compared to the 40 kHz of effective space that we have on 40, the 135 kHz subband proposed on 80 is huge.
When the dx phone is heavy, just about all cw and the majority of digital is below 7040 kHz. With the 250 hz filter the band doesn't seem overly crowded.
Narrow filters with narrow modes work wonders.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by WI7B on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, TONIGHT I'll be using SSB voice on 3.605 MHz at 9:01 PM PST (12:01 AM EST). Already got a sked!
Welcome to the Future!
73,
---* Ken
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From the ARRL's petition, quote:
5. There will be irreparable harm to a large number of operators and licensed users of the fixed, automatically controlled data stations at 3620 to 3635 kHz if the requested Partial Stay is not granted.
These stations are used and relied on by mobile and marine mobile Amateur stations, and they are used, and ready for use, in disasters and emergency communications.
>>> I find "irreparable harm" a little much, how about you? If the FCC does a good faith examination of the statement "large number of operators" and simply compares the number of Data users to Phone users - as well as the fact that data is an inherently narrow bandwidth mode anyway- the petition has no merit.
The "mobile and marine mobile" and "emergency communications" statements are ridiculous and don't warrant a single second of review by the FCC.
"Finally, the public interest favors grant of the partial stay."
Come again?? Remember, if the entire ARRL membership was on board with this petition, that represents just 22% of amateur radio. WinLink users account for about 1% of the entire amateur radio population.
So much for the "public interest".....
WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by AD6WL on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>I think that point will work well and there will be enough space for cw and digital in the 135 kHz between 3500 kHz and 3635 kHz.<<<
I agree. I believe that 3.500 - 3.635 Mhz is the appropriate amount of space for CW, RTTY, PSK31 and all the other digital modes. This seems like a resonable amount of space that should satisfy all hams.
This leaves a lot more available space for phone ops.
|
| |
|
Good use for fan dipole
|
|
|
by N4QA on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'll bet that the phones and fax machines have been running red hot at FCC & ARRL this week <g>
72.
Bill, N4QA
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KT1B on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> I find "irreparable harm" a little much, how about you? If the FCC does a good faith examination of the statement "large number of operators" and simply compares the number of Data users to Phone users - as well as the fact that data is an inherently narrow bandwidth mode anyway- the petition has no merit.
The "mobile and marine mobile" and "emergency communications" statements are ridiculous and don't warrant a single second of review by the FCC.
"Finally, the public interest favors grant of the partial stay."
-----------------------------------------------------
Stations operating under automatic control deserve some spectrum. I don't use them and probably won't but that doesn't mean they don't deserve a piece of the pie.
Mobile and maritime mobile stations use some of these stations to send e-mail automatically.
Depending on the mode use the bandwidth used can be as wide as 3 kHz.
Digital is not inherently narrow. To send the same info via digital as analog you need more bandwidth, not less. By using effective compression and / or limiting the amount of uncompressed data to send, digital modes can be made to be very very narrow and efficient.
During natural disasters such as Katrina, the ability to send and receive email from anywhere is a very useful tool for emergency communications. Keeping a network of automatic stations ready for this use on 80 meters is definately in the publics interest.
-----------------------------------------------------
Come again?? Remember, if the entire ARRL membership was on board with this petition, that represents just 22% of amateur radio. WinLink users account for about 1% of the entire amateur radio population.
So much for the "public interest".....
WA1RNE
------------------------------------------------------
Even if it's less than one percent, doesn't matter. The fact is that an email gateway is a very valuable tool in some or most emergencies.
The other thing to remember is that every mode deserves a piece of the pie.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
During natural disasters such as Katrina, the ability to send and receive email from anywhere is a very useful tool for emergency communications. Keeping a network of automatic stations ready for this use on 80 meters is definitely in the publics interest.
--------
Sure but does anyone realize that a 10 element Yagi on VHF is quite capable of sending a signal 200 - 300 miles away to an unaffected infrastructure?
80 meters HF isn't the only game in town during an emergency.
Also there is some interesting upcoming "internet access" technology in the form of what is known as "Loral Skynet" satellite transmissions coming from the Telstar 6 satellite, located at 93(degree) west longitude that are soon intended to be used by commercial airliners like Boeing, to provide internet connectivity for it's passengers while the aircraft is in flight.
Surely, we (or FEMA etc.) can "pipe" into such internet access technologies during a widespread disaster like Katrina.
Why bother using 80 meters for this?
73 Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by WI7B on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As of 4:12 PM EST, I have seen no change on the FCC WTB werbsite regarding the Omnibus R&O to postpone anything. In less than an hour it will be COB in Washington,D.C.
I surmise the ARRL postponement petition has been ignored and the full R&O will be implemented as publsihed.
73,
--* Ken
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KT1B on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sure but does anyone realize that a 10 element Yagi on VHF is quite capable of sending a signal 200 - 300 miles away to an unaffected infrastructure?
80 meters HF isn't the only game in town during an emergency.
Also there is some interesting upcoming "internet access" technology in the form of what is known as "Loral Skynet" satellite transmissions coming from the Telstar 6 satellite, located at 93(degree) west longitude that are soon intended to be used by commercial airliners like Boeing, to provide internet connectivity for it's passengers while the aircraft is in flight.
Surely, we (or FEMA etc.) can "pipe" into such internet access technologies during a widespread disaster like Katrina.
Why bother using 80 meters for this?
73 Charles - KC8VWM
-----------------------------------------------------
VHF and UHF are very useful for emergency communications as well.
What you use in a particular situation depends on what is available to you and what is available on the other end.
Best to maintain all capabilities.
Satellite internet delivered by geostationary birds is likely to remain a connection of last choice because of the 500 ms delay and somewhat limited bandwidth.
We had relatives down in LA who went thru the storm, it would have been very handy for them to have satellite internet. We were able to communicate with them via text messaging. Sprint PCS got text messages in and out even when voice wasn't working.
In a situation like that you are likely to be using everything that is available to you. Email via winlink on HF, data on vhf and uhf, commercial services such as satellite and any cellular or LL service that may be available.
If 80 meters isn't your game then you have plenty of other choices.
In a 500 kHz wide band, 135 kHz for digital / cw is not very much.
A 200 to 300 path is fairly long on vhf and as you say will require a fairly good antenna as well as an unobstructed path. Not always available.
Many people would say "why go to that much trouble when you can use HF".
Another advantage of a band like 80 meters is with NVIS you can blanket a wide area with very good coverage, even for mobiles. Mobiles need not worry about driving behind hills or shadow areas.
For quick deployment, you can't beat it.
VHF and UHF will allow for handheld coverage but infrastructure needs to be setup for effective coverage.
The real key is to know the strengths and weaknesses of all modes of communications that are available to you and use what makes the most sense.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by AD6WL on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>"I think that point will work well and there will be enough space for cw and digital in the 135 kHz between 3500 kHz and 3635 kHz."<<<
>>>"You know I don't really see what the big deal is. As far as I'm concerned, the CW, RTTY and digital guys can stay right where they are."<<<
But they can’t stay right where they are. Come 15 Nov, RTTY and other digital modes, or any portion of there signal, will not be allowed above 3.600Mhz. This is by law not just by a gentleman’s agreement.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KT1B on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As of 4:12 PM EST, I have seen no change on the FCC WTB werbsite regarding the Omnibus R&O to postpone anything. In less than an hour it will be COB in Washington,D.C.
I surmise the ARRL postponement petition has been ignored and the full R&O will be implemented as publsihed.
73,
--* Ken
--------------------------------------------------------
Looks like they're asleep. I don't think it's been ignored, I just don't think they have acted on it yet. We are talking about the FCC. Enjoy your sked on 3605 kHz. Maybe I'll get up around midnight and check out the scene here on the east coast.
73
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Stations operating under automatic control deserve some spectrum. I don't use them and probably won't but that doesn't mean they don't deserve a piece of the pie."
>> That's fine - on VHF, UHF or Microwave, just not on HF.....
"Mobile and maritime mobile stations use some of these stations to send e-mail automatically."
>> Maritime mobile "WinLinkers" are in a vast MINORITY....repeat, VAST. Well-to-do hams who happen to be sailors do not deserve a "piece of pie" just because down deep they are too cheap to use a commercial email service.
"Depending on the mode use the bandwidth used can be as wide as 3 kHz. Digital is not inherently narrow. To send the same info via digital as analog you need more bandwidth, not less. By using effective compression and / or limiting the amount of uncompressed data to send, digital modes can be made to be very very narrow and efficient.
>>> Digital is indeed inherently narrow, except for PACTOR III and WinLink. PSK31 runs about 250Hz, PACTOR runs about 450 Hz and PACTOR II at about 600 Hz, plus 200 Hz of channel guardband. That's approx. 20% or less than a 3 Khz wide SSB transmission, so what do you consider qualifies as "narrow" transmission?
"During natural disasters such as Katrina, the ability to send and receive email from anywhere is a very useful tool for emergency communications. Keeping a network of automatic stations ready for this use on 80 meters is definately in the publics interest."
>>> That is your opinion, not fact. NO Winlink sponsors have EVER produced a scrap of verifiable data showing that a significant percentage of emergency traffic was handled via WinLink. Continuous weather reports do not qualify as emergency message traffic.
-----------------------------------------------------
Come again?? Remember, if the entire ARRL membership was on board with this petition, that represents just 22% of amateur radio. WinLink users account for about 1% of the entire amateur radio population.
So much for the "public interest".....
WA1RNE
------------------------------------------------------
Even if it's less than one percent, doesn't matter. The fact is that an email gateway is a very valuable tool in some or most emergencies.
>>> It certainly does matter. How would Winlink users react if they were the primary users on our HF bands and a new digital group USING A PROTOCOL THAT DOESN'T HANDSHAKE WITH WINLINK AND REQUIRES A $1000 PROPRIETARY HARDWARE INTERFACE started petitioning the FCC for spectrum and making unverified claims of public service heroism, yet they make up less than 1% of U.S. amateurs???
As the old saying goes, 'tis a little different when the shoe is on the other foot......
The other thing to remember is *not every one and *not every mode deserves a piece of >HF< pie.
Are WinLink users really interested in amateur radio or are they displaced WiFi internet hobbyists?
WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NO Winlink sponsors have EVER produced a scrap of verifiable data showing that a significant percentage of emergency traffic was handled via WinLink. Continuous weather reports do not qualify as emergency message traffic.
---------------
Winlink for sending emergency traffic is fuzzy logic. You could just as easily use many other modes and protocals that use very little bandwidth in comparison to accomplish the exact same thing.
For example you could just zip up all the message traffic into a single file on a PC and "upload" all the emergency message traffic you have (perhaps 100's of individual outbound emergency traffic messages) to a station located outside the affected disaster area using an HF digital mode like CLOVER. The recieving station would in turn recieve the file containing the messages from thier HF radio into thier PC.
They would then relay those messages using a program that would read email addresses from each message header of every message in a matter of seconds and then this program would instantly email those same messages over the internet to it's intened recipients.
Let the station at the recieving end sort out the email, not the people working inside the disaster zone. Thier primary function would be to "collect" recieve and enter message traffic into a laptop for transmission at a defined intervals via CLOVER, or other similar digital capable of tranferring "files" over HF radio to a station who has full email and internet capability at the recieving end.
At least this is how I would pass 100's of individual messsages for email transmission in a highly efficient manner during an event like Katrina.
73
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Charles;
What do you expect when you have a bunch of packet radio junkies working under an ARES umbrella?
I have no problem with hams who want to run data modes; RTTY was around before I was licensed and I had friends who enjoyed it. Heck, I still run CW every now and then, our oldest data mode.
What I do find irritating is this "National Society of Amateur Radio Operators" and their gungho ARES Heroes of Ham Radio who feel all emergency communications must have HF email capability in order to be functional.
It is true that the Governor's yacht might need email capability in times of emergency, but the one about maritime-hams needing spectrum for WinLink so they can read their email while taking an island cruise is a real beauty.
WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: "Undone"
|
|
|
by AE6RO on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N4QA: I missed your "American Relay" verse when I put up the lyrics as I remembered them. Pretty funny!
Yeah, I had a lot of fun in those crystal control days on 7150- 7200. It was sure hard scraping up money for those crystals. Then I couldn't use them anymore.
I sure can't imagine putting a Heathkit VF-1 on-the-air as a transmitter. How well did it get out? How hard was it to build the pi-net for it?
My cousin told me how to give it grid-block keying so it would match the HW-16. But it chirped really badly. So I used a footswitch and listened to it yowl between dots and dashes. Then it began drifting really badly--too badly to use.
So I put FETs in it instead of tubes which cured the drift. My parents sold the pair to a high school buddy. Got an HW-101 by then.
I still use an HW-16 and it is better on CW then my HW-101 was. Even got an HG-10B this time. I'm told it sounds good on-the-air. 73, AE6RO
I sure like that 1970s music! Sounds so much better now than back then.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KT1B on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
-------------------------------------------------
"Stations operating under automatic control deserve some spectrum. I don't use them and probably won't but that doesn't mean they don't deserve a piece of the pie."
>> That's fine - on VHF, UHF or Microwave, just not on HF.....
"Mobile and maritime mobile stations use some of these stations to send e-mail automatically."
>> Maritime mobile "WinLinkers" are in a vast MINORITY....repeat, VAST. Well-to-do hams who happen to be sailors do not deserve a "piece of pie" just because down deep they are too cheap to use a commercial email service.
--------------------------------------------
If I am reading between the lines correctly, you do not feel that Winlink should be allowed on HF, or possibly on the air at all, because for the most part it is an abuse of Amateur Radio. Like in the old days when a phone patch may have been used to beat the long distance charges or an autopatch used to beat payphone or cellular charges back in the early and expensive days of cellular.
You also take exception to the fact that this winlink mode is very expensive, when in reality it probably should be available as a software program that would run on most computers and be usable by anyone, not just someone willing to shell out a kilobuck for the dedicated unit.
Is that somewhat accurate?
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>>”Well, TONIGHT I'll be using SSB voice on 3.605 MHz at 9:01 PM PST (12:01 AM EST). Already got a sked!”<<<<<
Well, there it is folks. The phone ops are ready to move on down and take over the entire band. There was another article on eHam about CW and phone coexisting. But as you can see that will not happen. The phone ops won’t slowly work their way down as the upper portions of the band become crowded. Nope. They’re going straight down to the bottom and as close as they can get to the CW ops. As if to say “This is our portion of the band.” Sure you can operate CW there but you won’t be able to because the phone ops are already staking out THEIR portion of the band.
Well, TONIGHT I’ll be using CW on 3.605 at 8:59PM PST (11:59 AM EST).
I already have a sked and I hope all other ops will check to see if the freq is in use first and not intentionally QRM my QSO.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think more correctly is the idea that some people are tying to use amateur radio as a personal gateway and free ISP for the purpose of having thier own exclusive wireless internet access pipeline.
Go ahead, knock yourselves out. I don't use HF or 80 meters anyways. I am after all just an SWL / No Code Tech who knows & uses code on VHF.
However, I have to admit it would be nice to preserve it for those who may wan't to enjoy using it in the future.
73 KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KB3LSR on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Even though I have one more final to take tomorrow (and them I'm done for the term!!), I think it'd be funny to listen to the utter chaos on the bands tonight. LoL, there will be SSB on top of CW, RTTY and digital modes strewn about, it'll be a total fiasco! I probably won't use my new privileges tonight, but it sure will be fun to listen to! It seems that no one wants to relinquish any part of "their" band pursuint to the new laws.
On a completely different note, did you guys read about GI Joe's Electronics and how the FCC slapped him with a huge fine for CB amps and whatnot?
73 de KB3LSR
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by IAMAHAM on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
there will be SSB on top of CW, RTTY and digital modes strewn about,
There won't be any RTTY or other digital modes above 3600. This is against the rulz. The digital ops got the shaft big time.
|
| |
|
75M phone ops are the worst!
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The worst of the worst ham operators will now have more space to operate. The mega-lid 75 meter, foul-mouthed phones ops can widen their signals even more. A sad day for ham radio indeed.
|
| |
|
RE: 75M phone ops are the worst!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You said that right...
See you on the other side.
Long live CW.
--... ...--
-.. .
-.-. .... .- .-. .-.. . ...
-.- -.-. ---.. ...- .-- --
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"K4JF
It looks to me when I read the allocation table that the extra class has CW privileges between 3.5 and 4mhz. No other license class has close to these privileges so how am I wrong?"
As I said, very few Extras operated ONLY between 3.500 and 3.5025. Most used other frequencies, and will be just as squeezed as anyone else in those frequencies. There was no change in the exclusive frequencies (yet), but the other areas are just like anyone else.
|
| |
|
RE: 75M phone ops are the worst!
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
40 minutes until we have a new expanded Citizens Band called 75 meters!
|
| |
|
RE: 75M phone ops are the worst!
|
|
|
by KB3LSR on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
We could spark up a code/no-code debate on the new privilges to really get some hams fired up. Well, at least Extra has another benefit to work for, the CW space I lost as a General because of this.
|
| |
|
RE: 75M phone ops are the worst!
|
|
|
by WI7B on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OLDFART13,
You don't even have a callsign. How are you going to hold any QSO on 80 meters.
Hiding your identity is the sure sign of a real LID.
---* Ken
|
| |
|
Ahh, that was nice!
|
|
|
by N4QA on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just finished a CW QSO with Danny, N7DC on 3604.5 Kcs.
Several FB CW ops hanging out there tonight.
Some tuner-uppers in the background too.
Less than 5 mins remaining.
72.
N4QA / QRP
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by W9OY on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
perhaps you should look at the allocation table. There is no advanced, general, tech or novice activity of any kind allowed in the extra phone portion. I really don't see why you keep referring to the bottom 25 khz.
5 minutes and counting
vy 73 W9OY
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by WI7B on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, I didn't step on a single CW QSO. I would never do that since I love CW. I started on 3.915 instead, not 3.905.
Welcome to the new ear!
73,
---* Ken
|
| |
|
And now...
|
|
|
by N4QA on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Engaged in a CW contact with Ron, WB9SBI, on 3700 Kcs.
Saaay, this ain't too bad...so far <g>
72.
Bill, N4QA
|
| |
|
The AM guys sound great!...
|
|
|
by N4QA on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
But the 'sideband' guys are all upside down!
Oh! Guess that's because the receiver in my DSW-600 experimental QRP CW rig is currently USB only.
It's a shame that I can't understand a word the 'sidebanders' are saying <g>.
72.
Bill, N4QA
|
| |
|
RE: The AM guys sound great!...
|
|
|
by N4QA on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
And, no... don't think I'll be adjusting the BFO so as to be able to understand them <g>
|
| |
|
RE: The AM guys sound great!...
|
|
|
by WI7B on December 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm glad we can all work together! Lost my voice tlaking. It was like a damn burst forth or a champaign cork popped. Did talk on the band edge, but got close.
Happy New Year!
73,
---* Ken
|
| |
|
RE: The AM guys sound great!...
|
|
|
by W4LGH on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well the new BAND PLAN is in FULL Effect!! Has the world as you know it ended yet?
Sun is still shining here.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N4KC wrote:
"Has it been lost on everyone that holders of Advanced and Extra Class licenses will soon have even more vast new areas of the amateur bands in which they can operate ANY legal mode that they wish? Extras can fire up CW or PSK or RTTY or SSB on 3625. Or go to any number of other modes. The only restrictions are that no voice mode can be used in the CW/data portions, including 3.5 to 3.6 mhz starting Friday."
Better read the FCC regulations again OM. Data and RTTY are not permitted above 3.6MHz to any license class. Only CW is permitted to mix with phone/image.
For Extras the 75/80M allocations are:
CW/data/RTTY 3.5-3.6 MHz
CW/Phone/image 3.6-4.0 MHz
data/RTTY stop at 3.6Mhz for all classes of license.
73,
Mike WA3KYY
|
| |
|
RE: 75M phone ops are the worst!
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OLDFART13 wrote:
"The worst of the worst ham operators will now have more space to operate. The mega-lid 75 meter, foul-mouthed phones ops can widen their signals even more. A sad day for ham radio indeed."
I haven't ever heard those type of ops below 3.850 which was the old bottom edge of the General portion. The phone expansion only takes Generals to 3.800. Advanced goes to 3.7 and Extra 3.6. Since the Extra exclusive portion was already only lightly used, the region 3.6-3.7 is likely to be lightly used for a long time, even if CW testing is dropped for Extra.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KC2PRZ on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey I am fine with NCHF. I can pass the written from general and almsot pass the written for extra but can't pick-up code (and I have tried almost every program and class that exists). I have no problem with the FCC, though I wish we were self regulated. While I may only have had my license for 7 months I have been around HAM radio since I was born. There are 4 people in my family with licenses (including me) and another 1 who will probably be licensed in the comming years. I actually read the ARRL and FCC websites weekly to keep up to date. If you didn't complain previously (during public comment) SHUT UP now, it is too late stop acting like children.
73
|
| |
|
Well, that was fun...
|
|
|
by N4QA on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Had a great time operating CW between 3600 and 3700 Kcs from midnight to about 0100 EST last night. Everyone I heard was very well behaved.
Next, guess I'll spend some evenings between 3500 and 3600 Kcs, with emphasis on ~ 3580 to 3600 doing some classic RTTY, PSK31 and CW. After that, guess I'll slowly move down to 3500, taking note of all activities found from 3500-3600.
*Maybe*, I'll find a microphone somewhere and join the fun on 'sideband' above 3600 for a little while...
72.
Bill, N4QA
|
| |
|
RE: Well, that was fun...
|
|
|
by WI7B on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Most everyone acted well. I even did a little CW above 3.6 myself when I lost my voice talking. I've also learned I can't type well and talk on the radio well at the same time. HaH!
73 all,
---* Ken
|
| |
|
Well, that was not fun...
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I was having a fine QSO on 3.63 when all the sudden the flood gates opened. Some ham from CO, whose call I won't mention, just starts calling CQ right on top of me. Maybe he didn't hear me but I was running abt 1.2Kw. He just kept on working everyone contest style. What a shame. After he ended my QSO with his malicious interference I tuned around and his wide signal could be heard below 3.600.
It seemed that all these phone ops jumped straight down to 3.600 and worked their way up. They just had to rub it in the face of the CW ops. I work phone also, but not much on 75 meters. Now I have a total disgust with the 75 meter ops. OK, give me some time and I will get over it. I still can't see why so much space was given to phone and taken away from CW. And don't tell me I can operate CW above 3.6, because last night proved that I can't. It just seems that the ARRL petition was reasonable: CW & Digital from 3.500 - 3.635.
But, I'm glad some you ops had a good time. I am sure most of you operated in a decent manner.
Ok, I'll stop my crying now and go get some work done today.
73, Steve
|
| |
|
RE: Well, that was fun...
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Next, guess I'll spend some evenings between 3500 and 3600 Kcs, with emphasis on ~ 3580 to 3600 doing some classic RTTY, PSK31 and CW"
Keep in mind that the new ARRL bandplan has RTTY/Data listed from 3.570 - 3.600 now. So PSK31 will now be around 3.570 vice 3.580.
73, OF
|
| |
|
RE: Well, that was fun...
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I was listening to about 4 or 5 CW stations at about 11:55. Then I started hearing a few tuner upper's hetrodynes coming in over a few CW op's.
Then it suddenly seemed liked everything turned inside out when my atomic clock flipped over to precisely 12:00. Everything I was hearing changed from CW into SSB.
I bet it made them feel dirty... :)
73
|
| |
|
Keep listening Chuckee...
|
|
|
by W1DUD on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
..
RE: 75M phone ops are the worst! Reply
by KC8VWM on December 14, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
You said that right...
See you on the other side.
Long live CW.
--... ...--
-.. .
-.-. .... .- .-. .-.. . ...
-.- -.-. ---.. ...- .-- --
Keep listening on your Rad Shack DX398 Chuckee. Just another techee flaming all the LICENCED operators on HF. So who is the TROLL now Chuckee. Like I said before you have no irons in this fire. Just go away. W1DUD a General class operator.
|
| |
|
RE: Keep listening Chuckee...
|
|
|
by IAMAHAM on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
He's entitled to his opinion. So what he is only a Tech. He may upgrade later when he is ready. Everyone has to start somewhere. Just because he is a Tech doesn't mean his opinion doesn't count.
|
| |
|
RE: Well, that was not fun...
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I was listening to about 4 or 5 CW stations at about 11:55. Then I started hearing a few tuner upper's hetrodynes coming in over a few CW op's.
Then it suddenly seemed liked everything turned inside out when my atomic clock flipped over to precisely 12:00. Everything I was hearing changed from CW into SSB.
I bet it made them feel dirty... :)"
That really sums it up. There was total disregard for ongoing CW QSOs and malicious interference. I know it wasn't all the phone ops but there were a lot.
|
| |
|
I have a question for you...
|
|
|
by W1DUD on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RE: Keep listening Chuckee... Reply
by IAMAHAM on December 15, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
He's entitled to his opinion. So what he is only a Tech. He may upgrade later when he is ready. Everyone has to start somewhere. Just because he is a Tech doesn't mean his opinion doesn't count....First of all what's your call? Second,it's none of your business how I respond to Charles because he has consistently criticized higher class operators and he still hasn't upgraded. He is the same individual who has said to me on eham that my licence isn't worth the paper it is printed on because it is a dumbed down exam and yet HE still has not upgraded. Look maybe Charles is a upstanding member of his community and a good family man. But don't come on this thread and denigrate what I and others have done and hide under the mask of "opinion". If he wants respect it can't be delegated it has to be earned. OVER. W1DUD
|
| |
|
Relocating the PSK31 'subband'
|
|
|
by N4QA on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OF13 said:
"Keep in mind that the new ARRL bandplan has RTTY/Data listed from 3.570 - 3.600 now. So PSK31 will now be around 3.570 vice 3.580.
73, OF"
Okey dokey but, if that's the way it pans out, I'll be sending the bill, for re-crystalling my PSK-80 'Warbler' PSK31 rig, to ARRL and, maybe FCC too <g>
72.
Bill, N4QA
|
| |
|
** Introducing MR. Ham Radio Himself - W1DUD **
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1DUD..., General Class Somebody huh?
Boy you sure are a real somebody there Mr. Paul Hooligan, W1DUD - General Class Ham Radio Operator Extrodonairre!
Heck they should just make a plaque in honor of your call sign and post it on the wall at ARRL headquarters in Newington for being so special.
I can only hope to aspire to become as good as you someday, Mr. Hooligan so I can look down my nose at other Techs just like you do!
Incidentally, you don't seem to have any class with your general license. I can't help but wonder if this also means you don't have any education?
Please accept my apologies Mr. Hooligan, but I happen to have an education myself. You see, it all started way back whyen this busy and boring schedule of earning degree's, advancing my career, saving people's lives, running a business and everything else I have done has most probably severely stunted my ham radio growth activities until the last few recent years.
Yes..I know..., now before you start saying anything..., I have already considered that the more important activity of obtaining a ham radio "General Class Operator Extrodonairre" certificate is the more important thing I should have done with my life.
Now, only if you will have the patience to bear with me for just a while longer because my neighbors in my trailer park at my redneck of the woodpile, just don't seem to fancy the idea of large protruding HF antennas over their rusted cars they have jacked up on their front lawns in my neigborhood.
So do you know what this all means Mr. Hooligan?
It means ...Wow..., Mr. W1DUD!! You're obviously way better than I will ever be!!
I can't help but wonder if you coincidently happen to live in a mobile home trailer park just like me?! How da heck did ya ever git yer own antlers up 'dere boy!?
...WOW! Your pretty special there Mr. Ham Radio.
W1DUD! ...The *DUD* Himself! The Dudster, The Dudarama, Dudly!
Say, those are some nice CB handles.
72 de KC8VWM - The Lowly Technician Class Operator who is way below W1DUID in class.
ha.. ha.. ha..
|
| |
|
RE: Relocating the PSK31 'subband'
|
|
|
by WI7B on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I was having a fine QSO on 3.63 when all the sudden the flood gates opened. Some ham from CO, whose call I won't mention, just starts calling CQ right on top of me." - OLDFART13
You mean 3.603, not 3.63. Yes, I heard him also. Everyone did. It seemed he was acting like a Net Control, or something. Must have been running legal-limit.
73,
---* Ken
|
| |
|
Or, I could switch to classic RTTY
|
|
|
by N4QA on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've used the PSK-80 Warbler QRP PSK31 rig for classic RTTY contacts before...
So if the 3580+ area will now be occupied by RTTY, then I'll just leave the crystals alone.
I like classic RTTY better anyway!
Don't ya just love it when a plan really starts to come together?
72.
Bill, N4QA
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by W3UA on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Now in the US I have what I had in Europe for ages -- SSB from 3600 to 3800 (and even more). I wish I had SSB down to 7040. For me there is no challenge to work CW anywhere on the bands (and the only time I may need more CW space is contest). The simple calculation -- CW signal in the contest needs 150 Hz maximum, SSB needs 1.5 KHz. So 100 kHz can allocate as many stations on CW, as 1 MHz on SSB. Still, it will be easier to operate CW than sideband. if there is no contest, there is more than enough bandwith available.
The less regulation, the better. There is NO official bandplan on 160 (despite some home made policemen try to enforse self-invented rules) -- and we use the band as needed. In CW contest rag chewers can live in the upper 50 kHz, in SSB it's still possible to work on CW in the lower 10-15 KHz (if some die hard wants to).
Use it of lose it!
|
| |
|
Where do I start?
|
|
|
by W1DUD on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
** Introducing MR. Ham Radio Himself - W1DUD ** Reply
by KC8VWM on December 15, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
W1DUD..., General Class Somebody huh?
Boy you sure are a real somebody there Mr. Paul Hooligan, W1DUD - General Class Ham Radio Operator Extrodonairre! ..It's Paul Houlihan.
Heck they should just make a plaque in honor of your call sign and post it on the wall at ARRL headquarters in Newington for being so special....... I have never been and never will be a member of the ARRL.
I can only hope to aspire to become as good as you someday, Mr. Hooligan so I can look down my nose at other Techs just like you do! .....You still don't get it.
Incidentally, you don't seem to have any class with your general license. I can't help but wonder if this also means you don't have any education? Yes I do.
Please accept my apologies Mr. Hooligan, but I happen to have an education myself. You see, it all started way back whyen this busy and boring schedule of earning degree's, advancing my career, saving people's lives, running a business and everything else I have done has most probably severely stunted my ham radio growth activities until the last few recent years...... You were licenced 3 yrs ago, over 20,000 hits?
Yes..I know..., now before you start saying anything..., I have already considered that the more important activity of obtaining a ham radio "General Class Operator Extrodonairre" certificate is the more important thing I should have done with my life........ What a great excuse. It appears to me from pulling your callsign on Google you are Very active on ham radio.
Now, only if you will have the patience to bear with me for just a while longer because my neighbors in my trailer park at my redneck of the woodpile, just don't seem to fancy the idea of large protruding HF antennas over their rusted cars they have jacked up on their front lawns in my neigborhood.......... Might make for a good ground plane.
So do you know what this all means Mr. Hooligan? No.
It means ...Wow..., Mr. W1DUD!! You're obviously way better than I will ever be!!...... I never said that.
I can't help but wonder if you coincidently happen to live in a mobile home trailer park just like me?! How da heck did ya ever git yer own antlers up 'dere boy!? Single family home at end of a dead end street. 125' dipole strung up between 3 60 foot trees.
...WOW! Your pretty special there Mr. Ham Radio. Thank you.
W1DUD! ...The *DUD* Himself! The Dudster, The Dudarama, Dudly!
Say, those are some nice CB handles. Can you tell me the MARS CAP mod for my Yaesu FT2000?
72 de KC8VWM - The Lowly Technician Class Operator who is way below W1DUID in class. You said it not me.
ha.. ha.. ha.. The joke is on you......W1DUD
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by W1DUD on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Merry Christmas and a happy and healthy New Year to you and your family Charles. "73" thedud
|
| |
|
RE: Well, that was not fun...
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"There was total disregard for ongoing CW QSOs and malicious interference."
No surprise there.
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by WA3SLN on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I'm on 160 almost every night (1810) and some nights it's hard to raze anybody. Come on down the water is fine. We have to use what we got. Mike WA3SLN
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by IAMAHAM on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ALL CLASS LICENSE NOW MEAN NOTHING!!!!!
WELCOME TO THE NEW CITIZENS BAND!!!!!
OUT!!!
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by N4ST on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, as of today with the FCC's posting of DOC-269012A1 it looks like it *is* cast in stone. Along with the removal of the Morse Code requirement.
12/15/2006 - The Day the Music Died
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Remember this?
by KC8VWM on December 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"I suspect this is all somehow going to become very interesting, in a very unexpected sort of way."
---------------
Now go and read this:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269012A1.doc
73
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by WI7B on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, old timers. I fyou feel that the era of "real" amateur radio has ended, i suggest you burnyour licenses in protest. For the rest of us, the heirs of Marconi and Fessenden, we will progress into the future.
73,
---* Ken
"This change reflects revisions to international radio regulations made at the International Telecommunication Union’s 2003 World Radio Conference (WRC-03), which authorized each country to determine whether to require that individuals demonstrate Morse code proficiency in order to qualify for an amateur radio license with transmitting privileges on frequencies below 30 MHz. This change eliminates an unnecessary regulatory burden that may discourage current amateur radio operators from advancing their skills and participating more fully in the benefits of amateur radio." -FCC DOC-269012A1
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K3NG on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>12/15/2006 - The Day the Music Died
Actually it's the Day the Music *Test* died. The music continues to play on. Are you quitting the band, or do you want to keep making music that will encourage future generations to keep playing? The choice is yours.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by N5HNY on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh for crying out loud guys. You can tune up and down the CW portion of 80 and hardly hear any signals on there. I remember back 25 years ago when even the novice portion was kinda crowded and the lower 25 khz was really packed.
Now there is not that much activity at all. But guess what ? There will be more activity when some of these new no CW required hams shake out and there is a return to CW. Then there will be an issue of CW band space. Like was stated above, will it then be too late ?
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KL7IPV on December 15, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I posted another article but here is the link in that post:
[url]http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269012A1.pdf[/url]
Times are changing!
Frank
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K3NG on December 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>There will be more activity when some of these new no CW required hams shake out and there is a return to CW
Exactly. All we have to do is get these new hams coming in interested in CW after they get licensed. In my experience you don't have to do much, they just naturally become interested and want to learn it. We just have to be there to show them how to do it.
I think the testing requirement change is actually going to create more CW operators in the long run, many more than the track we're currently on.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by N4ST on December 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The Day The Music Died"
Some words/phrases have meaning beyond the literal interpretation. Just as music didn't actually die ~50 years ago, CW didn't actually die on 12/15/2006. You either get it, or you don't. ZUT
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K3NG on December 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Some words/phrases have meaning beyond the literal interpretation
The meaning of American Pie has been debated for years.
Don McLean once said "You will find many 'interpretations' of my lyrics but none of them by me [...] Sorry to leave you all on your own like this but long ago I realized that songwriters should make their statements and move on, maintaining a dignified silence"
Even so I think we're on the same side. I'm for showing this new generation of hams the fun of CW and getting them hooked.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on December 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Exactly. All we have to do is get these new hams coming in interested in CW after they get licensed."
NO! Most of the NEW hams coming on HF will be the NCT who have been sitting on their rear ends for years waiting for the FCC to eliminate the morse exam. They are unteachable and useless. There are other NCT who are in the process of learning CW. They will be teachable and will probably turn out to be good ops. Then there are the HF operators who currently do not hold a license. These are the hams we much Elmer. Forget about the useless NCT who only want their welfare HF entitlement; they can't be elmered. That is the only future we have to look forward to beside the new Citizen's Band.
12/15, A day that will live in Ham Radio infamy.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by N4KC on December 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Remember back in high school when the teachers made us read books we didn't want to read and we developed a strong dislike for reading? And to the point many of us never became readers, even when we could have. Maybe...just maybe...now that code is not a requirement to get a license and to experience a broad range of amateur radio's possibilities, the code might accidentally become another aspect of the hobby that new hams will want to try. I hear plenty of CW sigs and can always find somebody to talk to, and there is NO FCC requirement that people operate A1 emission. We all choose to do so for whatever our reasons might be.
We can take two tacks here. We can bitch and moan that the hobby has regressed to CB and anyone coming into it without having to suffer the way we did is less entitled to move among us...and certainly not worthy of our time or effort. Or we can decide that this move might introduce a lot of potentially good hams to more of the hobby (along with some clinkers, but that's always a statistical likelihood) and once we get them in church, we might be able to convert them to the ways of CW righteousness.
One thing is for certain. The rules are what the rules are, and cry all you like, the toothpaste ain't going back in the tube!
73 and long live CW,
Don N4KC
www.donkeith.com
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by W4ZV on December 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W3UA wrote:
"The less regulation, the better. There is NO official bandplan on 160 (despite some home made policemen try to enforse self-invented rules) -- and we use the band as needed. In CW contest rag chewers can live in the upper 50 kHz, in SSB it's still possible to work on CW in the lower 10-15 KHz (if some die hard wants to)."
You might like to rethink that before you decide to go below 1843 kHz on SSB.
FCC Enforcement Letter from Riley Hollingsworth:
"September 12, 2001
Mr. George W. Wehrung
1312 Sempronius Road
Chappell Hill, TX 77426
Re: Amateur license W5TZ
Dear Mr. Wehrung:
The Commission has received the enclosed complaint alleging that you interfered with communications on the 160 Meter Amateur band in the 1800 to 1840 kHz portion of the band that, according to the international band plan, is set aside for CW, RTTY and other narrow band modes. The complaint alleges that you have deliberately operated LSB on 1820 to 1825 kHz on top of CW stations.
Band plans are voluntary in nature, but the Commission depends upon them because they minimize the necessity for Commission resources to be used in solving Amateur problems and they provide an opportunity for Amateurs to use various modes of Communications. Where interference results from band plans not being followed, the Commission expects substantial justification to be shown by the operators ignoring the band plans.
Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, gives the Commission the authority to obtain information from licensees about the operation of their stations. Accordingly, you are requested to respond to the enclosed complaint within 20 days of this letter. Please address your response to 1270 Fairfield Road at the letterhead address. Please be advised that Congress had made punishable a willfully false or misleading reply to a letter of this type.
You may call me at 717-338-2502 if you have any questions about this matter.
Enclosures: 3 pages"
http://www.arrl.org/news/enforcement_logs/2001/0922.html
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K3XF on December 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"We can take two tacks here. We can bitch and moan that the hobby has regressed to CB and anyone coming into it without having to suffer the way we did is less entitled to move among us...and certainly not worthy of our time or effort. Or we can decide that this move might introduce a lot of potentially good hams to more of the hobby (along with some clinkers, but that's always a statistical likelihood) and once we get them in church, we might be able to convert them to the ways of CW righteousness. "
Well said!!
This is probably the most extroverted (adj.
Marked by interest in and behavior directed toward others ... ) and, coincidentally, constructive comment I have seen.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K3NG on December 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>12/15, A day that will live in Ham Radio infamy.
Whether or not this is true we won't know for another five or ten years. This is an opportunity to welcome many new people into the hobby. However, there's obviously a portion of hams that would rather see the negative side of this, and take advantage of the situation to bash newcomers and basically wreck the hobby to stroke their egos.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K3NG on December 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oldfart, here's a post I put in the main flamefest forum. I think you might benefit from reading it.
The FCC eliminated the code test today. They did not eliminate:
CW
the CW bands
CW operators
the fun of CW
the reliability of CW
the magic of CW
CW history
new hams becoming interested in CW
old and new hams who love CW
quality ham radio operators
CW demonstrations at Field Day
the CW mode button on your rig
copying an S1 CW signal
elmering
CW contests
CW DXing
the magic of radio
the unique sound of CW sent from a bug
QRP CW
code practice
a good fist
CW classes
building your own CW rig
a raspy aurora CW signal on 6 meters
CW traffic handling
exchanging written Morse code messages with your children for fun
the brotherhood of Amateur Radio
public service
technical innovation
education
the future of CW
Amateur Radio
Only we can eliminate or maintain the above items through our actions.
To those of you who think ham radio is over, for you it probably is. I suggest you go away and not bring down the rest of ham radio with negativity.
In the early days of radio, our predecessors had no test. Your "test" was building a rig and that's how you got on the air. Our forefathers might scoff at the fact that you and I don't have to build a rig to get on the air, and look upon us unfavorably. Or they might be impressed with the state of the art with commercial rigs and be very happy that people like us continue to build rigs and have continued the homebrewing tradition, despite not having it as a test or entry requirement. Our actions in the coming weeks and months will determine if we can look at the current state of ham radio in 50 years and be proud CW has continued and is alive as it is today.
Think of how many folks learned CW just enough to pass the test, only to never use it again after getting their tickets due to their distaste for CW from being forced to learn it. Now these people can learn it at their leisure at a speed that is reasonable and learn it with the idea of using it and not just passing a test. That is where the sense of accomplishment will come from, not a mandatory test. We just have to be there for these folks when they come in.
I don't think many people realize it, but for once the FCC has put *us* in control of something. We can replace the test with complaining, disrespect and barriers, or we can show our new hams the way and grow ham radio and CW interest. This is not a victory or loss for anyone, yet. Anyone here claiming this ruling is a loss or victory for their side is wrong. This is an opportunity. Do you want to be remembered as the one who blew it and killed the spirit of ham radio with cynisism, jabs, and ill will, or the one who took advantage of it and brought new, quality operators into the amateur service who contributed to making things better and ensuring the existence of ham radio into the future? The choice is yours.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on December 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The above is well said.
Also please count me in with respect to the following:
"Exactly. All we have to do is get these new hams coming in interested in CW after they get licensed. In my experience you don't have to do much, they just naturally become interested and want to learn it. We just have to be there to show them how to do it."
.-- .- .-. --
.-- .. ... .... . ...
-.. .
-.- -.-. ---.. ...- .-- --
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The FCC eliminated the code test today. They did not eliminate:
CW............................not yet
the CW bands .................just a big chunk of them
CW operators .................not all of them, yet
the fun of CW ................true, kinda
the reliability of CW ........true
the magic of CW ..............but seriously damaged it
CW history ...................obviously
new hams becoming interested in CW .actually, they probably have
old and new hams who love CW..not old
quality ham radio operators ..but reduced the percentage
CW demonstrations at Field Day..yet
the CW mode button on your rig .yet
copying an S1 CW signal ........yet
elmering .......................but many newcomers have
CW contests.....................yet
CW DXing .......................yet
etc.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K1CJS on December 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Then there are the HF operators who currently do not hold a license. These are the hams we much Elmer."
We must elmer bootleggers? Are you out of your cotton-pickin' mind, Oldfart? Yes, I suppose you are. Those bootleggers must be caught and put away like the guy down in southern California was.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KF5KWO on December 17, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would hope that with all the new SSB operators to be expected, that some/many will learn CW in order to escape the crowds. Explaining it mathematically may help - how many CW conversations can fit into the bandwidth of one SSB conversation? Anyone dealing with computers and bandwidth (most of us!) should be able to quickly grasp the point.
Welcome to the newcomers; let's show them how to be good hams (mentor and befriend), not how to be bad ones (criticize and alienate).
73 de Jeff, KF5KWO
Helotes, TX
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by WO0Z on December 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>the magic of CW ..............but seriously damaged it
I disagree. The opposite is now true. Before the change, CW was an "eat your spinach" kind of deal -- a shibboleth we all paid homage to and which we had to flog to an increasingly uninterested public.
When I look at my various operating award certificate numbers (the ones that identify by number, at least), it told me that many hams ran from code the minute the ink dried on their General ticket. That was upwards of ten years ago, too, when I finally cashed most of my stuff in.
Go ahead, look at your own. See how much lower your CW certificate numbers are than your SSB certificates. I'll bet if they came in the late 80s and after, CW is well behind SSB, just like mine.
And yet, we all know CW has better propagation. The answer is obvious -- code hasn't really been promoted, it has merely been required with the (false) assumption that CW operations would follow requiring it in all cases. Just not so.
Tomorrow, CW will be something we can _promote_ to all kinds of folks that _actually have a license_ who would have walked away from us before. All the while they're enjoying the magic of radio.
Do that promotion well and we could actually see an increase in code.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
">the magic of CW ..............but seriously damaged it
I disagree. The opposite is now true."
You are welcome to disagree. However, the vitriol expressed in this (and other) threads is proof of my premise.
In my other hobbies, (sailing and old cars) those who have a special skill are held in respect and asked for their help by those of us (me included) with lesser skills. In this hobby, those with more skills are attacked for having the skills and called "elitist". I find that very strange.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
On another note. Anybody know where PSK31 is going on 80m?
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on December 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
80meter PSK will be at the bottom of the digital band which is now 3.570Mc.
On another note the ARRL really keeps screwing up: They put the CW bulletin and code practice at 3.5815Mc, right in the middle of the digital portion of th band. Brilliant.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"80meter PSK will be at the bottom of the digital band which is now 3.570Mc."
That's not much change. After all the reduction in digital from fone moving down, they are only going to move down (into CW) by 0.010? Hmmmm.....
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by N4QA on December 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As of today, PSK31 stations remain on 3580-3581 Kcs.
Wonder when (if) the move to 3570 will take place...
Also, W1AW continues to broadcast on 3581.5
Maybe if everyone just stays put...?
|
| |
|
2400 Warbleers can't be wrong...can they?
|
|
|
by N4QA on December 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
According to a very reliable source, there are currently 2400 80 meter Warbler transceivers out there being used on PSK31. Each one uses six 3579.545 KHz crystals which allow operation in the 3580-3581 KHz PSK31 subband.
That's 14,400 crystals to replace, should the PSK31 subband move down 10 KHz. The economy of scale of a group buy might be acceptable, but, done on an individual basis, the expensive would be prohibitive.
The entire radio costs only $49 excluding an enclosure.
|
| |
|
RE: 2400 Warbleers can't be wrong...can they?
|
|
|
by AD6WL on December 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I'm sure there would be no problem with PSK31 staying at 3.580Mhz. It is still perfectly legal and acceptable to operate there. However, during RTTY contest you will find the PSK31 ops will be heavily QRMed by all the contest activity. Especially since the RTTY/Digital band has been greatly reduced. The problem is further compounded by the FCC decision to allow the automatically controlled digital station to operate from 3.585-3.600. And you have the ARRL CW bulletin there also.
|
| |
|
RE: 2400 Warbleers can't be wrong...can they?
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 19, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
From the above it looks like to me (an occasional PSK31 user) that the digital community is taking the brunt of the fone expansion on 75. Not much effect on CW that I see.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K3XF on December 20, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
""The FCC eliminated the code test today. They did not eliminate:
CW............................not yet
the CW bands .................just a big chunk of them
CW operators .................not all of them, yet
the fun of CW ................true, kinda
the reliability of CW ........true
the magic of CW ..............but seriously damaged it
CW history ...................obviously
new hams becoming interested in CW .actually, they probably have
old and new hams who love CW..not old
quality ham radio operators ..but reduced the percentage
CW demonstrations at Field Day..yet
the CW mode button on your rig .yet
copying an S1 CW signal ........yet
elmering .......................but many newcomers have
CW contests.....................yet
CW DXing .......................yet""
Incentive licensing didn't kill CW. This band change to allow SSB in previously mode exclusive sections of the band will not kill CW. Not even your dire predictions will kill CW.
There was an exclusive CW (OK, narrowband) segment for many years and, oh yeah, also shared the phone sections. Now there's still an exclusive segment of the band, yet you begrudge the majority (phone) operators an expansion in proportion to utilization and projections.
Then you have the gaul to complain that you are accused of being an eletist. Well OM, you *are* a half empty attitude eletist. 'whining that they took your exclusive toy away to share with the rest of the class(es). . . . and apparently unwilling to play with the toy if others can too.
P&Ming the world is ending because the band has been reallocated will not accomplish a darn thing. Heck, there are ops still grousing about incentive licensing, (Who made the same types of predictions as you.)who didn't/aren't accomplishing a thing.
Perhaps your real hobby is complaining on the internet. If that is the case, have at it. I won't burden you with any further participation.
If, on the other hand, you want to "save" CW, start a class, mentor ops, and positively participate in the mode and the hobby.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 20, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Incentive licensing didn't kill CW. This band change to allow SSB in previously mode exclusive sections of the band will not kill CW."
Actually, as I noted above, there is very little change to the CW portion of 80m. Surprisingly little due to digital taking the brunt of the change.
But again, it is most definitely not "elitist" to be able to operate CW. I really don't know where that comes from.
But the attitude of the anti-CW people has won round one. We don't know how they will do on round two. My guess is that their chances are "pretty good".
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 20, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"There was an exclusive CW (OK, narrowband) segment for many years and, oh yeah, also shared the phone sections. Now there's still an exclusive segment of the band, yet you begrudge the majority (phone) operators an expansion in proportion to utilization and projections. "
Where did that come from? The post you quoted (admittedly off subject) has absolutely nothing to do with the fone expansion. It was about the CW exam. Don't you read before ranting?
|
| |
|
New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K8AI on December 21, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, the "League" finally got what they wanted. Their
next step will be to eliminate the CW/digital subband allocations altogether.
Curt, K8AI
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 21, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Well, the "League" finally got what they wanted. "
Oh, really? I didn't know they kept the CW exam for Extra (that was what the League wanted).
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by N4PF on December 21, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In the future, the League should be careful what it wishes for.
73,
Mike, N4PF
(League member for 43 years)
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by KA2FIR on December 21, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Several days ago I made my first contact on 80 in the new extra phone allocation. Answered a phone CQ which up until now has been a rare occurance.
Last night I was listening to some selfish lids on 3710 complaining about the AM activity from VE land and how "they've been on this freq since Friday." These lids never tuned the band before and were suprised to hear AM this low. I've heard the VE AM'ers many times and now feel embarrassed they'll now be subjected to QRM from the dumb-down rable.
I'll report more dummy sightings as they happen.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by AD6WL on December 21, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The ARRL never stated, proposed or petitioned for the removal of the Morse exam for the Extra class license. It was obvious that the FCC was going to eliminate CW as a testing requirement for HF, but no one knew how far they would go.
The ARRL did what was best in trying to help and preserve CW by recommending that the CW exam be kept for the Extra class license. I agree with the ARRL on this, but they lost and we lost. The ARRL petitioned the FCC to not expand the phone portion of 75m so much. They lost and we lost. If the ARRL had more support from its members we may have done better, but we didn’t.
The best I can say is to get the keyer out and use it. Introduce new hams to CW and encourage them to try it out. Get out there and get some QRS QSOs. We have had NCT for 15 years now. They haven’t learned code in all this time and they aren’t going to learn it now. We have to look to the hams of the future and that is who we should try to elmer.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 21, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The ARRL never stated, proposed or petitioned for the removal of the Morse exam for the Extra class license. It was obvious that the FCC was going to eliminate CW as a testing requirement for HF, but no one knew how far they would go."
Correct. But it is interesting how many of the code-always diehards on here are blaming the ARRL for what the FCC did.
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 24, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"They lost and we lost. If the ARRL had more support from its members we may have done better, but we didn’t."
Amen! And more support from the ham community at large would be even better!
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by NN6EE on December 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm not really blaming the illustrious FCC per/se but they've proved to all that their "IGNORANCE" is bliss!!!
:-)))
ee
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by K4JF on December 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Get over it you bunch of crybabies.
CW is DEAD!!!!!! "
Not yet!
|
| |
|
RE: New 80 Meter Allocation
|
|
|
by IAMAHAM on December 29, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
CW is DEAD!!!!!! "
Not yet!<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Yeah OK, but how long do you really think it has until...?
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other Recent Articles
VK5RJ Still Gracing the Airwaves at Age 101:
rec.radio.amateur.moderated -- 5 Yrs. Old:
Tune-In To The World -- Amateur Radio Gets People Talking:
Student Sends MIT Letter to Space:
Amateur Radio Club Talks to Hams Worldwide on Centennial:
|
