FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
Steve Hajducek (N2CKH)
on
November 19, 2002
View comments about this article!
The future of the Amateur Radio Service and our assigned Radio Frequency Allocations is now clearly more uncertain than ever before.
The "FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents Recommendations" , although not providing any details, this document in my opinion is the first step on the part of the FCC toward changing the entire landscape of the Amateur Radio Service regarding our frequency allocations.
In my opinion it puts the Amateur Radio Service on notice to USE or LOOSE our frequency allocations, as they currently exist, more than likely it is already to late.
This first step on the part of the FCC opens to door in very broad language to increased sharing of our frequency allocations, increased levels of interference due to more sharing and relaxed RF power levels of unlicensed devices.
We that part take in the Amateur Radio Service have what has become very a valuable resource, "Prime Radio Spectrum Allocations". There has been for a long time now, those with "Commercial" interests in taking away some of our radio spectrum allocations.
The FCC Task Force mentions intentions of adopting a so-called "Interference temperature" to quantify and manage interference. This up front assertion makes if pretty clear in my opinion that the Amateur Radio Service is being looked at to take a beating in the form of interference for the betterment of the consumer marketed devices that would be the source of our interference woes. Already the Amateur Radio Service has been subject to such on our UHF bands, in addition we are now being subjected to new sources of such on our HF bands, such as cable television modem repeaters in some parts of the country such as in New Jersey where the lower part of 40 meters has been trashed when the local cable company has been testing them.
This already occurred with 220-222Mhz and although the 220 MHz ACSB market has for the most part been a failure (look at all the new, unused 220Mhz ACSB on the market, see eBay) in my opinion, I can see the Amateur Radio Service easily loosing the 33cm (902-928Mhz) band and the 23cm bands and higher allocations, in part or in whole.
The FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force has drafted a very broad report in a relatively short period of time that will in my opinion have very broad and long lasting and possibly devastating effects on the Amateur Radio Service.
For more information see:
http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stories/2002/11/07/103/?nc=1
And the document DOC-228242A1.pdf at or about:
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2002/db1108/index3.html
Sincerely,
Steve Hajducek, N2CKH
http://www.qsl.net/n2ckh
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by WG7X on November 19, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Steve,
Nice piece for the most part, but allow me one peeve
if you will.
Reading your article, the word "loose" keeps appearing
where it should be lose.
We lose something if it is misplaced.
Something that is loose should be tightened.
Proofreading is a lost art, but E-ham should consider using one.
In the main your article has some good points but the sloppy use of English detracts from the debate, don't you think?
Gary WG7X
|
| |
|
FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by KD7EFQ on November 19, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Once again, Money talks & B.S. walks...It's more
imperative now than ever that we support our ARRL
frequency defense fund and write our congressmen.
The fact is that it that with the introduction of
Cell Phones and Internet, It is going to be increasingly difficult to convince the modern
generations that there's any advantage to getting
a license. People today would rather throw money at
something rather than work hard for a license. Our
society has become too spoiled.
We need to convince our representatives that giving
our bands to corporations is akin to say..Building
a nuclear powerplant in the middle of a Wilderness
area. Our bands need to be protected just the same
as our public lands, and we need to be able to mount
a defense as serious as the NRA defends Gun rights.
Amateur radio has a value unmeasurable by $$ and it's
going to take a lot of work to convince the powers that
be of this! Every Amateur must do their part not only
by using the spectrum but getting the message to Capital Hill. 73's KD7EFQ
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by W5HTW on November 19, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Comments, but no solution!
Undoubtedly, many amateur radio operators are not 'writers' and simply choose to get a point across. Faulty English is the norm today, on this and other forums, and in all walks of life. We are having to accept and, in some cases, interpolate, what the writer means to say, most especially in the use of "your" for "you're", wrong forms of "to", or "and" for "an", and probably a dozen more.
However, that should not detract from the message, and in this case the message is clear. The FCC is apparently revising its view of the frequency spectrum in general, and we hams can be negatively affected if we are not alert to the changes. Many hams, for example, vigorously, if not almost violently, opposed the December, 1999 Restructuring, yet few of them were alert to the upcoming changes, until it was far too late. This left them with one route; griping about what had taken place, as they could no longer take action to prevent it. We tend to be complacent with the way it is, then suddenly awaken to the fact it isn't that way anymore and maybe, had we opened our eyes, we could have prevented the changes.
In the case of Restructuring, that is doubtful. Too much momey was on the pro side, and too little push on the con side. This may be the same situation, especially in the VHF/UHF arena. Money talks, and with only 700,000 hams, and some percentage of them inactive or disinterested, we are a very small financial drop in the bucket. As the man says, it may already be too late.
Sadly, it may already be too late to salvage much of this hobby of ham radio anyway, and, though some political changes have contributed to the fall, it is generally simply that times change. We have been replaced by technology available to every kid with a pager or cell phone, and with the internet. It may be the FCC sees that handwriting on the wall, and knows we are a dying breed. Therefore it could be in the best interests to start parceling out our allocations to those with the bucks, which will include dozens of business interests in the V/U spectrum, and even military and broadcasting in the HF spectrum.
We talk of our public service contribution, and that is valuable, such as in the recent tornadios in the Southeast. But that kind of activity, critical when needed, is an extremely tiny piece of the ham radio pie. If you know 100 hams, you probably know only five of them in public service, at best. Public service alone is not likely to justify our existence today, and will be less likely to do so tomorrow. It does, briefly, during those storms, but we are quickly replaced by the pros from state and federal agencies.
I'm with the original poster; it is probably too late. The FCC has been unable to enforce regulations in the Citizens Radio Service, and finally "threw in the towel" and said, with the exception of amplifiers, "Do what you want." They would hesitate to do that with us hams, I think, I hope, as we have too high power already, and we occupy too much HF space where we can be harmful to those outside our borders, far more so than can CB. So they may be faced with the dilemna of wanting to give us allocation sharing, yet being aware we would be almost as hard to control as the CB crowd.
The FCC has made it fairly clear in recent years it wishes to wash its hands of the unproductive ham community. It wants to simply things, in licensing, in enforcement, in structure, and I would not blink an eye if I were told the FCC planned a one-class ham license that was nothing more than a 10-question test on safety and rules, and planned to let "allocation sharing" take care of the problem of amateur radio.
73 to all, and to all a good night
Ed
|
| |
|
FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by KU4QD on November 19, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with most of the comments so far. I want to stress one thing that's already been said: support the ARRL. No, they aren't perfect. Yes, they've done some incredibly stupid things in the past. No, I don't agree with all of their policies. They are still the only effective national voice we have to lobby in Washington and that makes them invaluable. If you aren't an ARRL member then become one. You even get a decent ham magazine when you do.
Two other things I highly recommend:
1. Taking the time to write the FCC with your comments every time there is an NPRM which could adversely affect the ham community. Write even if it's about a band you aren't presently using. Too many HF/2m only hams ignore threats to the bands at 219 MHz and above. Once the precedent of taking from us is set *all* of our allocations become that much more vulnerable. For example, even if you never plan on operating on the 13cm band (2.4 GHz), the next time it's threatened send a message expressing your concern. A whole bunch of satellite ops, weak signal ops, ATV enthusiasts, and experimenters will be in your debt and may be there for you when one of your favorite bands is threatened.
2. Pick a new band and/or mode and try it. I agree 100% with "use it or lose it". At a local hamfest this weekend I bought a nice, used Icom IC-2330A 2m/1.35m dual band mobile. I had no 222MHz capability recently. Now I do, and I monitor those repeaters in addition to the 2m repeaters in our area. If I can increase the activity level I've done something to help keep that band. A new 23cm repeater is also in the works in my area (our first), and I am part of making it happen. You could try satellites or weak signal work on a new band. Anything at all to add activity helps.
Thanks for writing this article. Wrong word and all (an yes, "loose" instead of "lose" does bother me) it is much appreciated and the message needs to get out.
73 de Caity, KU4QD
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by KD4AMG on November 19, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
if we do NOT make use of our frequencies, some one else will find a way...in simple terms we need to USE it or LOSE it.
|
| |
|
FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by K0EX on November 19, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I see several times in these posts, "support the ARRL". An observation...
I have no use for another magazine coming to my mailbox, so I asked the ARRL about a subscription at a reduced price (kinda on the lines of the 2nd-family-member rate) that fore-goes QST. The response was essentially, "we depend so much on revenue from our QST advertisers that if we dropped QST (and, hence, lost that advertisement money), we couldn't operate."
So, even though the ARRL states that half of one's dues go toward QST, they won't offer a half-price non-QST subscription. Apparently, they're afraid waaaaay too many HAMs feel the same way I do???
I guess I'll keep joining every few years, for a year at a time, so that I can purge my pile of outgoing DX QSLs.
Regardless of the stupid choices they've supported over the years since I became a HAM (that have contributed to the demise of HAM radio), I'm still willing to support them because of the legal lobbying clout they have in protecting our spectrum... but not while being forced to pay for QST.
-Mark K0EX
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by KD7KGX on November 19, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What's the big deal about getting a copy of QST?
Let's compare ARRL dues to other special-interest organizations like Ducks Unlimited or the NRA, or the AARP.
Each organization gives you a magazine, lobbies on your behalf (IF... you agree with the aims of the organization), and offers some benefits.
AARP is the cheapest, since it also acts as a marketing arm for corporate America to senior citizens and thus a large amount of revenue is generated by advertising.
DU, NRA, and ARRL are very close when it comes to dues, and very close organizationally, all being narrow special-interest groups that cater to specific avocations. The dues are similar... within $5 or so.
All four organizations give you a magazine. All four give you some sort of financial benefits (savings, discounts from vendors, etc.).
Of the four groups, the ARRL's magazine (QST) is BY FAR the best in terms of content AND advertising. QST is by far the best magazine devoted to topics of interest to the general amateur radio community. It is well worth the cover price at the newstand.
So... why does any ham who wants the benefits of ARRL membership hesitate to join because he doesn't want to 'pay' for the magazine? Perhaps they should think of ARRL membership being a certain price... and the magazine is FREE.
Folks, no organization can represent us in Washington without members and money. The reason NRA is so successful (whether you like them or not) is because their 4,000,000+ members are vocal, committed, write a lot more letters, vote the NRA ticket, and give a lot more money than the 50,000 or so active members of Handgun Control.
If we want to protect our spectrum, then EVERY licensed ham should be an ARRL member. ARRL needs to identify pro-amateur politicians and urge members in their areas to support them. ARRL has to be healthy financially so that politicians take them seriously. They can't do it without us.
|
| |
|
FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by G3SEA on November 19, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's just a logical inevitability of insufficient
ham activity to occupy all the frequencies currently
allocated.
This might end up as a kind of ' Battle of the Alamo '
where what remains of the future ham fraternity is left
to defend it's ' core ' HF bands ' long after the VHF-
SHF bands have gone to commercial interests.
KD7EFQ hits the nail on the head regarding enlisting
new hams.Their ' why bother ' rationale is that for the few hundred dollars one pays for say an HF rig one can buy a computer with all it's usual applications PLUS the ability to allow them to play ' ham radio ' through
IRLP or Echolink ( without the considerable expense of beams, rotators,linear power amps,RFI and irate HOA's )into VHF repeaters across the world.They can also
listen to just about any National,
International Broadcast Station on the Internet.
No it's not pure radio but THEY don't care.It's just
an evolutionary change of thinking.
IRLP and Echolink may well be the saviours of a
significant part of our communications hobby.
|
| |
|
FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by K0RGR on November 19, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, I am an ARRL member and I have contributed extra this year to their "Big Project" and "Defense of Frequencies Fund". In retrospect, the pittance I threw in the pot is so tiny in comparison to what I get from the ARRL in return and from Ham Radio in general that I feel like a piker for not sending a lot more!
I'm wondering if you can designate the ARRL to receive part of your United Way contributions? We discovered a bit late last year that we could specify our 501c(3)-qualified local ham radio club as a beneficiary, and that got the club an extra $60. I'm anxious to see how much they get this year, I know they'e getting quite a bit from my family. I think United Way only works with local organizations, so ARRL might not qualify.
Yes, I don't always agree with "A-Double-Cross-L". I would really like to see more democracy in the organization - along the lines of what Director Gmelin (W6ZRJ) did years ago in the Pacific Division, with annual roundtables of representatives from all the ARRL-affiliated clubs in the Division, to find out what the 'rank and file' really want.
But, I think QST should be required reading for all licensees. Not everyone agrees. Some people won't pay for anything unless they can get a special discount. Life is too short. Donate your magazines to a local doctor's office or school library!
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Grab
|
|
|
by AB0TA on November 19, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This doesn't surprise me one bit.
We all knew they had huge corporate intrests when we voted for them, right ???
Well I've got news, Congress is headed for a fiscal disaster and it is desperately looking for a revenue source, like RF spectrum. Just a few examples, 250 billion to invade Iraq, 50 billion to rebuild it, a tax base (the economy) in shambles, promises of senior drug benefits, (we'll just see) , millions to private stock brokerages from Social Security that won't be financing the gub'ment via T-Bills anymore, and loads of tax cuts that are soon to kick in. (where's mine?)
We'll I didn't give the majority my vote, and now we all get to watch as the corporate money intrests squash this hobby into an unrecognizable grease spot. Apparently this administration (the FCC, after all)
can't put a monetary value on what we do as hams, so everythings up for auction.
The Supreme court has equated money to free speech so it's only those with the money that are going to be heard. I recommend giving to the ARRL spectrum fund like me, and if not the ARRL , who else, the GOP???
The freedom lovers have just passed a bill in congress which will allow your employer to require you to take a vaccine when the gub'ment gives the word, and giving the vaccine maker liability immunity at the same time.
(read the paper)
Oh well, at least we get to keep the 2nd ammendment.....AND THE RADIO AS A DOORSTOP!!
|
| |
|
FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by K5MAR on November 19, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As others have stated, support the ARRL's efforts and use the allocations. If we don't establish a presence, on the bands, and in the rule-making meetings, we will lose.
And for the ham that doesn't want the QST, why not see if you can get it mailed to your local Jr./Sr. High School library. It just might help recruit more new hams, another thing we need to keep ALL our allocations.
73 de K5MAR
Mark
|
| |
|
FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by K0RS on November 20, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Like most amateurs, I am categorically opposed to losing any of our frequencies. At the risk of being pilloried, tarred and feathered by my fellow hams, I would submit that is very difficult to justify our extensive frequency allocations at V/UHF. These allocations were made at a time when this part of the spectrum was essentially useless to commercial interests. The hope was that amateurs would develop technologies that allowed exploitation of these bands, not unlike when we were moved below 200 meters after the frequency wars of the 1920's. Now all this has changed, and commercial users covet our (mostly unused) frequencies.
It's fine to shout "use it or lose it!" But the reality is that there really isn't enough of us to populate these assignments if we all moved there enmasse. It appears disingenuous to the FCC and commercial users alike when the ARRL cries its crocodile tears that we need every last kHz assigned to the amateur service at these frequencies. These folks know that these frequencies are underutilized by hams.
I am not a member of the ARRL, at least not any longer. One reason (among several)is that I am not sure it is in my best interest when the League spends huge amounts of money defending a sliver of UHF band used only by a tiny fraction of hams in this country. I might feel differently, of course, it that was "my" sliver of band. And there is a case to be made that we shouldn't allow a precedent to be set by giving up anything.
I don't agree with Ed, W5HTW that we have "too much power and too much HF spectrum." Ed, you of all people should know better. There's a prevailing myth that HF is the lion's share of our bands. Even though these bands probably support about 80% of all ham traffic, HF only represents a minute part of our total frequency assignments. Consider: all HF frequencies from 160 meters to 15 meters total only about 2 mHz. Add 10 meters and the total is 3.35 mHz. Less than 6 meters alone. Less than 2 meters alone. That's our TOTAL HF assignment. Considering the amount of traffic HF supports, it's used amazingly efficiently. In any case, I believe that HF isn't what's at issue here. Most commercial users don't want to install a 130 foot dipole for a wireless LAN.
I also must disagree wtih G3SEA that modes like Echolink and IRLP will hold anyone's long term interest. For the same reasons that communications devices like the telephone didn't supercede ham radio, neither will these. While technically interesting, they simply are too sterile to be appealing for long. While there may be a brief challenge in getting a system like this up and running, it soon becomes obvious that this stuff is too appliance-like to be much fun over the long haul. Know of any cell phone user groups or clubs? No, because aside from their practicality, they are about as cool as a toaster. In my opinion, this syndrome is what caused the decline in 2 meter repeater operation. After the novelty wore off, it was too much like another appliance. I think it's really a shame that nowdays we start off our new hams by handing them an HT. No wonder we have so many inactive tickets. Can you say bored to tears? Say what you want about CW, but the novice days with 75 watts on 40 meters were FUN! You never knew who or where you could contact next. Now, with an HT and the aid of a reapeater you can talk to the other side of town. Be still my heart!
Is it really good amateur practice that we populate 2 meters with hundreds of frequency intensive, but largely unused repeaters that demand a clear frequncy 24 hours a day? I've heard people complain about DX pileups using too much spectrum. At least a pileup ends. A repeater sits on a frequency 'round the clock, demanding 6 kHz on the input and 6 kHz on the output whether anyone is using it or not.
I must reject they notion that the FCC can write us off simply because we don't generate a sufficient revenue stream. (Though they may try!) Government is tasked to provide services at many levels, county, state, and federal, that are not self supporting. Like fire protection or police, these services are subsidized. Here is an area where the ARRL could really help us out. We may have to force the FCC to keep their eye on the ball (or band, as it were). Legislative assistance would be welcome to compel the FCC to do its job.
Sorry if some of this strayed off topic. I really find all this hand wringing depressing. I do believe we are our own worst enemy. We bemoan the lack of growth (not true) and at every turn provide our enemies with ammunition to use against us. Our negativity will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I strongly suspect that our continued existance will require some kind of compromise involving our frequency assignments.
|
| |
|
FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by NEWBIE2 on November 20, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Having just completed the exam for my Tech license I was disappointed to read this brief. I'm still waiting for my first call sign and now I'm hearing this news.
Why not pick an email address and post it on the first page of this site. It could be the FCC or some other pertinent body. The goal would be to send emails to that address to show our support for this hobby and the concern we have for losing it. At least it might be worth a try to get the word out beyond this group.
I work in a profession where we're getting slammed by the government on a regular basis. We've used this tactic with some favorable results. Phone calls can also be made requesting a call-back from some particular individual in charge to diplomatically discuss our concerns.
Just my 2 cents.
Doug
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by KU4QD on November 20, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In response to K0RS:
2m may be filled with empty repeaters where you are, but if I try to scan my memories here in the Raleigh/Durham area during drive time the rig will stop on almost every channel. We have an active ATV club in this area, which means 420MHz and 1240MHz activity. We have very active 6m SSB nets almost every day, some with as many as 40 checking in, not to mention regular ragchewing. 75m doesn't appeal to a lot of folks around here, and frequencies like 50.200 and 50.135 have become very popular alternatives in this part of the country.
We have active and friendly 70cm repeaters, VHF weak signal ops on 432MHz, satellite ops above 435MHz and on the 23cm and 13cm bands. We have a new, wide area 222 MHz repeater that has inspired a lot of people (including me) to get on the band and use it.
The VHF/UHF bands in this area *are* populated, and we are a very long way from California or South Florida or the northeast. You may not care if we lose the bands, but they are the backbone of emergency communication, the main justification for our band allocations.
I applaud the ARRL for trying to protect a "sliver of a UHF band". You may not use that sliver, but puh-lease do not assume that the rest of the ham community does not. I find your post myopic in the extreme. No, it's not your ox being gored, but for a lot of hams it is theirs.
We will lose some frequencies. 902-928 MHz and 3.3GHz and above are hardly populated. Everything else, though, has a definite and sizeable user community. 2m is a lot more than repeaters. Tune to 144.200 and the surrounding frequencies with a mulimode rig during a band opening if you don't believe me.
No, the VHF/UHF/SHF bands are not populated everywhere in the country, but they are in a whole lot of places. Look beyond your own backyard.
IRLP and EchoLink may not be to your taste or mine, but they are here to stay. One of our formerly underutilized repeaters is now permanently tied to IRLP. It gets plenty of use from locals all of a sudden, especially at odd hours.
Finally, shouting "use it or lose it" is totally appropriate. I can say it because I am now on a number of threatened bands where I previously was inactive and I know how much fun they are. I know how surprising propogation can be on those bands. I've made new friends by expanding my ham radio horizons. I suspect anyone who tries a new band or two as I advocate will be in for some pleasant surprises of their own.
73,
Caity
KU4QD
(160m - 70cm, 23cm, and I hope 13cm in the next year)
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by K9PO on November 20, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To K0EX:
Why don't you join as a blind member for $8/year (no QST)?
Scott
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by K5DVW on November 20, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with the post, use it or lose it, whether it's loose or not.
I've operated on 900 Mhz, 23 cm and 10 Ghz. Finding activity on 900 Mhz and 23cm is rare indeed. Even if you are lucky enough to have a local repeater, it's rarely used. In most of the country with regional exceptions, you can say the same about 50, 222, and 440 Mhz.
The bands that seem to get the most use on average are 80m, 40m, 20m, and 2m. I think if the FCC went after those, we'd make a lot of noise. Otherwise, we seem complacent.
However, before the FCC starts carving into the ham spectrum, I'd like to see them charge rent to AM/FM/TV broadcasters. Especially the TV guys since they chew up the lions share of the band below 1 Ghz.
|
| |
|
FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by K3ZD on November 20, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Is it not somewhat selfish to cling to frequencies that very few people are using? If cell phone companies and other commerical ventures need more frequencies, why not let them have them? They're going to get them anyway because billions of dollars are involved. And don't we also need cell phones and the jobs that commercial industries provide? No one wants the HF bands because the antennas are too big. HF is the backbone of ham radio so why worry about it? Be reasonable and accept reality.
|
| |
|
FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by W2WO on November 20, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Personally, I am astonished how far the ARRL makes their modest revenues go. More organizations (like governments) should be so efficient!
Hams are notorious and often unreasonable nit-pickers -- more so than the general population, in my opinion. It burns me to see hams start an anti-ARRL spiel because they did not like the way license restructuring went, or they did not like the QST size change, or ....
The phrase "cut off your nose to spite your face" is too mild for this thinking.
Congress will not save anything for hams, nor will the courts. Unfortunately, the only thing that seems to work is consistent lobbying and representation with the FCC and at international conferences. The keyword here is "consistent." An occasional outburst by some well-known personality has practically no long-term benefit. The ARRL is the only effective player in this area and it is simply *stupid* for so many hams to belittle and not support them. (Yes, I contribute to the frequency defense fund.)
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by KD7EFQ on November 20, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just because K3ZD doesn't seem interested in the
Vhf/Uhf bands and thinks we should just give them
away, He is being selfish by not thinking about
the hams that already DO use these bands and enjoy them.
Besides, The FCC has set aside an ADDITIONAL
8 MHZ IN OTHER AREAS for commercial use. They should
use those allocations first before looking at ours.
73's KD7EFQ
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by KE2SO on November 20, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
To Gary,WG7X- Bad spellers should be drawn and quartered.People who write sentences like "Proofreading is a lost art,but E-ham should consider using one." should be boiled in oil. What you sent is not what you meant.He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.73,DE Kal,KE2SO
|
| |
|
FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by KA1EZE on November 20, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What the arrl hasn't done in my opinion is attack from more than one front.
They try to fight for frequencies by proving our use, and that's it.
It's my opinion that the arrl could also work on declaring what rights we have to spectrum in the first place. Not just as amateur radio, but a right for citizens to have personal use of the spectrum (representative chunks).
It's really a view that "cb" should really be "cs" , citizen's spectrum, but the difference being licensing requirements for minumally operating procedures.
Rick
|
| |
|
FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by N2CKH on November 21, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello All,
For a perspective from the commercial telcom industry
with some additional insight into what the FCC sees
as the technological future visit:
http://www.americasnetwork.com/americasnetwork/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=38781
In addition, regarding the allocations to the Amateur Radio Service that are above 70cm, what I would like everyone to take into consideration is that although at present those wavelenghts are not heavily utilized, it is most likely that those bands hold a huge future potential for Amateur Radio.
It will liekly be the use of wide band Spread Spectrum and digital techniques, Satellite and Space Communications and other technology yet to be developed that will drive the use of those bands. There may yet even be more technological advances to be made by experimenters within the Amateur Radio community that will necessitate the use of those waylenghts.
As I see the Science Fiction dream of transducer and transmitter/receiver to send and receive objects and living organisms between two locations will necessitate the use of wavelenghts and bandwidths that are little used today. It may be far fetched by today's standards to even think of such possibilites, but most of what we take for granted in 2002 was far fetched only 50 years ago! There was even a time when operation above 200 meters was considered worthless !
It is my opinion that we the members of the Amateur Radio Service seek to protect and utilize the valuable spectrum resources that we currently have allocated to our pursuits in unity.
In addition we need to continue efforts to identify and lobby the FCC to fill voids in our spectrum allocations (e.g. allocations at VLF, 5Mhz etc.) to fulfill the basis of existance of the Amateur Radio Service.
We also need to lobby the FCC for more freedom to experiment with existing and developing techniques and technology without the prior technical approval of the FCC due to their technical inability to monitor our communications when utilizing new developments as has historically been the case.
There is an awful lot of surplus communications equipments that could be put into full use by the Amateur community at and above UHF if it were not for many of the FCC Rules and Regulations that are in 2002 obsolete. For instance, used UHF trunking repeater equipments that are being displaced by newer APCO-25 equipments like the wonderful Motorola MSF-5000 which we can only use in non-trunking and non-encryption configurations. Furhtermore, what with off the shelf FPGA devices and FREE student level development CAD tools for the same, those Amateurs that enjoy experiementation could probably do an admirable job of emulating or surpassing APCO-25 standards for the Amateur budget.
In closing, what I offer should be read and re-read by the FCC itself:
"§97.1 Basis and purpose.
The rules and regulations in this Part are designed to provide an amateur radio service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the following principles:
(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications.
(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.
(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communications and technical phases of the art.
(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.
(e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to enhance international goodwill."
Sincerely,
Steve Hajducek, N2CKH
n2ckh@arrl.net
http://www.qsl.net/n2ckh
|
| |
|
FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by K1XT on November 21, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I tend to agree with WG7X. When someone sends me a letter or an e-mail, the first thing I look at is the grammar. If the letter is poorly written, it tells me that the writer is probably a poor reader. It goes hand in hand. Thus, it gives me some kind of idea about their level of education. In short, can I take this person and their attempt at discourse seriously if their level of education reflects that of a third grader?
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by KA1EZE on November 21, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wow, "thus." You must be wicked smaaat. Don't let that content distract you from parsing grammer!
A good article.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by N2KEJ on November 21, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Trying to preserve the spectrum is a good thing, but all I keep reading about is the activity in some areas on 222, 902, 1.2, 440, 2 meters, and 6 ssb nets and that is great! However I have not yet seen a posting in reference to anyone using 6 meter FM.
As soon as I hear a conversation about 6 meters, it is always centered around ssb. Now I don't mind ssb, however lets not forget 6 meter FM. That is another part of the spectrum that gets neglected. I'm doing my part in Southern New Jersey to keep it alive with Echolink, and I've seen the activity increase locally as a result.
Now let's use them or lose them!!!
Thanks and 73,
Steve N2KEJ
53.710/R
|
| |
|
FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by N2CKH on November 22, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello All,
Below are links to the final reports of the FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force -
1. Report of the Spectrum Rights and Responsibilities Working Group:
http://www.fcc.gov/sptf/files/SRRWGFinalReport.pdf
2. Report of the Spectrum Efficiency Working Group:
http://www.fcc.gov/sptf/files/SEWGFinalReport_1.pdf
It is the SEWG report that provides details into the so called "Interference Temperature".
There is NO mention of the Amateur Radio Service made in either report.
Sincerely,
Steve Hajducek, N2CKH
n2ckh@arrl.net
http://www.qsl.net/n2ckh
|
| |
|
FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by KE1BO on November 22, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As one person said, they wouldn't be surprised if the FCC reduced the qualifications for a license down to a 10 question saftey & regulations exam.
Well... the real question is, what is it worth to save the hobby? I'm a young ham (24), though unfortuantely I was inactive throughout college, but now I'm trying to get back into it. I have an electrical engineering degree, though electronics is my weakness (protocols, dsp, and comm systems is my forte.
I've been fairly disappointed in a few things lately... firstly, there are very few young hams. We're probably at 1% of the amateur population (just a guess)! What would be so long with three tests, the first being only operation regulations, laws, and saftey - but also with extra limitations that would force the operator into a student role (such as low power only - limiting them to FM and QRP).
I've also been slightly disappointed in the experimentation. I'd love to see a project like "sourceforge" (an open source Computer coding organization). Why are there so few innovations in radio? Because none of you are actively innovating! Anyone with their extra exam SHOULD have at least an entry level RF engineer or tech's perspective. Why are there so few innovations in DSP, Data, cellular, or other interesting projects? I agree, there have been some - the repeater linking project, 56k packet (which seems to be just on the starting phases). These are the things that can be used to hype up interest in younger people, but they lay on the sidelines.
If you're not already involved in emergency communications, if you have some sort of electrical or data background, you should be an active member trying to take part in projects such as these. Make them an open source, open data, learning experience on the web - give projects that can be built at home or examples that can be viewed online. -- This is the one way amateur radio can possibly stay alive in the modern world.
|
| |
|
FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by K2WH on November 22, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm tired of these "Chicken Little" stories/articles that appear from time to time on this site and others. Then there are the posting that the ham bands are dying. Hogwash. The ham bands are healthy and heavily populated. As a matter of fact, for me, too populated. Just look at the activity of the HF bands this weekend.
The wasteland of frequencies called "Microwaves" are difficult for the average ham to operate on due to lack of equipment and lack of parts. What would the writer like to do about this?
One thing not mentioned in the article is the fact that many HF broadcasters are moving to the internet for live broadcasts thus freeing up frequencies not otherwise available.
The phrase "Use it or Lose it" has lost it's meaning over the years. We are using it/them more than ever.
K2WH
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by KD7EFQ on November 23, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KW2H's above response applies to HF ONLY and Mentions
nothing of 2 meters, 1.25 meters and 70 CM which ARE
IN REAL DANGER! The Commercial Telecom industry
is constantly lobbying the FCC to reallocate 222-225
and 420-440 mhz for Public Safety use , as well
as for RFID tagging services and wireless services
related to the Computer industry. READ THE ARTICLES
ON THE ARRL WEBSITES AND IN QST. The ARRL is having
to protest these proposals ALL THE TIME! So Far,
not much interest is being shown to reallocate 2
meters for anything I am aware of, but you can bet it's coming. What gets me is most public safety
and law enforcement is moving to the new secure
800 MHZ systems that no scanners can pick up, so
what about their OLD ALLOCATIONS? The commercial
boys can use them first. I feel this is a subtle
corporate attack on free use of spectrum. The
telecom industry can't stand free usage of RF
when they can take it over and CHARGE FEES for
airtime. We do need to assert our rights for free
public use of spectrum as was mentioned in an
previous article. 73's KD7EFQ
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by W5HTW on November 23, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K0RS -- You quoted out of context, twisting it to mean I was saying we hams have too much HF space and too much power. That isn't at all what I said. What I did say was we have too much HF spectrum space and too much power for the FCC to let us run rampant, without enforcement, on the HF bands, as they did with CB.
The CB mess they let go because much of the time CB radio, when propagation is poor, is harmless outside our borders, and relatively harmless even during good propagation. Not so ham radio, for we have HF spectrum space that is good under all conditions, and with our approved high power levels we can be damaging to those outside our borders.
It does not seem very likely right now that we will lose HF spectrum, nor are we likely to lose very much, if any, VHF/UHF spectrum. While the fears of "use it or lose it" have been promoted by the organizations that make their income from ham radio, we have gained the three WARC bands, have found expanded phone privileges on 10, 15, 20, 40 and 80 meters, have gained full privileges on 160 meters, (instead of sharing with navigation) and may be on the way to gaining a 5 MHZ band. So while the faces of fear try to frighten us, we have actually gained quite a bit.
In balance, we have lost some of the 220 MHZ band, and we share a bit more of the 430 MHZ band now than we did a number of years ago.
I do not subscribe to the tactic of "use it or lose it," for two reasons. One, the above - we have actually been gaining, not losing. And, two, as a small body of users, amateurs are not going to have a major influence on the communications industry if it launches a full scale drive to acquire UHF, or even VHF, allocations. (Re: UPS and 220 MHZ) My contention is that money talks, and it does, it always has, and it always will.
What I do fear is increasing deregulation of amateurs. As that occurs, we become less and less an asset and more and more a liability, due to our access to international frequencies. Yet the FCC is disengaging itself from ham radio in a steady trend. At some point, deregulation can make us too much of a liability.
We are poised to see more changes in amateur radio in the very near future. Whether or not you like Morse Code, the fact is the World Radio Conference of 2003 will just about certainly remove it as an international requirement for testing. That will open the way to immediately grant HF privileges, here in the US, to about another 360,000 Technicians who do not now have that access. Not all of them will be interested, and not all of them are even active at all. But many are, and the majority of the ones who are not the "spousal cell phone users" are waiting in the wings to join 20 meters DX chasing. It is highly likely Novices will be upgraded to General, as will Technicians, and granted full phone privileges. In fact, I see no reason that should not take place. In general, Novices are better qualified on HF than Technicians, or even Extras.
This paves the way for more expanded phone privileges, and that can only come by reducing the CW/data bands. If these predictions come to pass, the FCC will be forced to take a new look at ham radio throughout our spectrum, and see just what we really "do" and how well we "do" it. And what we do we shouldn't!
Bad news for ham radio? Not necessarily. That depends upon the FCC and their continued trend of becoming uninvolved. Will they enforce the rules, when and if the population of the phone bands potentially doubles? Or will they lean toward even less enforcement? If they choose the later, I would venture they are giving us enough rope to hang ourselves, though that may not be their intent. If they choose the former, they are going to run out of budget money for enforcement very quickly.
The future of ham radio is just around the corner. I doubt we as hams have enough clout, and even less as a disorganized and divided body, to make much difference. We may be in the position of having to stand by and just take what is offered.
In the near future I really don't think we will lose anything at all, except, as noted, perhaps some CW space, to provide more phone space. That has, in fact, already happened when we were granted phone privileges below 3800, 7200, 14200, and others, at the expense of CW space. With Novices gone (upgraded?) we can easily expand voice privileges down to, for example, 7100, or 3700, and lower if the FCC chooses.
But these do not constitute 'losses.' They are only changes within our current allocations.
I do not, though, advocate adopting a fatalistic attitude and just kicking back and waiting for the end! We have a voice, if not much clout, and it is wise that we use it.
73
ED
|
| |
|
FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by K0CBA on November 23, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, at any given time the various V/UHF frequencies in an area might be under utilized but with the exception of police/fire frequencies, so are many commercial channels during the evenings, nights, week ends and other none business times. Their ratio of use time to idle time may suprise you. Like ham repeaters, that does not mean they should be fair game for someone else.
I don't subscribe completely to the "use it or lose it" theory .....we can use the fur off a band and if someone with the bucks wants it bad enough, they have a decent chance of getting it regardless of what a minority group of non-paying hams may say. Probably the main things saving our bacon (no pun intended) on several higher bands is that we are secondary to goverment and military and NOBODY has the money or steam to bump them off!
As I understand it, once upon a time 20 meters went to 14.5 and if true, we lost that. The bottom 2 megs of 222??? GONE!...sold, actually. Was it because of light usage? Maybe; maybe not. The cash changed hands and it was a done deal.
We just have to reconcile ourselves to the sad but true fact that strictly from a 'dollars and cents' point of view we aren't worth much to anyone for anything while camped on such valuable spectrum.
|
| |
|
FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by W3ULS on November 23, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Yes, the reports of the FCC spectrum utilization task forces do have an ominous undertone, like the opening bars of "Das Rheingold." What it all comes down to is that we live in a nation with a pervasive government presence (who doesn't?), so the future of our little hobby, including our spectrum fate, will hinge on actions taken in the Nation's Capital. We either hang together or separately.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by K9GLN on November 24, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Steve N2CKH posted some interesting links and made some good points as did others.
I must echo the point made by KD7EFQ. I oversee the operation of a police division which includes the 911/dispatch center. We have grown so dramatically that our officers can barely get onto the radio which presents an officer safety issue. Attempts to find additional frequency allocations within the VHF (150 MHz) band are nearly impossible.The 800 frequencies have been gobbled up and we are not alone in competing for new frequencies. As a member of APCO,I try to stay abreast of the changes affecting my department and my hobby. Any HAM that idly sits by and does nothing to protect the current Amateur allocations will certainly be lamenting the loss and demise of the 220, 440 and 902 Ham bands in the future.
The TV Channels in the 700 MHz are now being taken away from the current users which is causing a great debate and argument from those currently broadcasting in the Channel 60-66 range. Don't think for a minute that commercial interests are not vying desperately to lobby these HAM frequencies away from us to use for public safety and commercial use. The resources of the ARRL pale in comparison to the lobby efforts from the likes of Motorola, Ericsson,Nextel. The 900 MHz band alone equates to millions in revenue to commercial interests.
Glenn, K9GLN
|
| |
|
FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by N5LGV on November 25, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The ARRL is our only effective voice in Washington.
If you don't like them for whatever reason; join anyway. Your support just might save our spectrum.
73
|
| |
|
FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by NJ6F on November 26, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just a side note.
NASA is focusing on meteor and astoroids possibly hitting earth in the future. A new excuse to invest in space.
This is also an argument for keeping the Amateur frequency allocations we have and against the cell phones and internet that could be trashed by such a threat. We need to think outside the box.
This is not as unlikely as you might think but I trust the ARRL will also use this as a justification in the future.
|
| |
|
FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by N2CKH on November 26, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello All,
The focus here in my opinion, should not be any one particular part of the RF Spectrum that is allocated to the Amateur Radio Service, but rather all of our allocations.
However, that said, I bet it would be fair to state that those among us that make it appear that our allocations below 30Mhz are the most important do not even know the history involved as to what has been given and later taken away as the U.S. and foreign governments seen fit in accordance with various commercial interests.
Lets take a brief look at the history of Amateur Radio.
I bet its fair to state that most Amateurs active
in 2002, myself included, were likely not licensed
in July of 1924 when the U.S. Department of Commerce allocated frequies above 200 meters for the new mode of CW in liu of Spark which was later banned in 1927. Those allocations, with the exception of 75-80M have changed over time, but were:
150-200M at 1.5-2.0Mhz
75-80M at 3.5-4.0Mhz
40-43M at 7.0-7.5Mhz
20-22M at 13.6-15.0Mhz
4-5M at 60-75Mhz
Then, with the Radio Act of 1927 and and the establisment of the Federal Radio Commission, the U.S. Senate ratified a treaty developed at the International Radiotelegraph Conference on March 21, 1928 that reduced Amateur allocations by 37%, while adding 10 meters. It also established the existance Amateur Radio under international law. This resulted in the Amateur band allocations of:
160m at 1.715-2.0Mhz
75-80m at 3.5-4.0Mhz
40m at 7.0-7.3Mhz
20m at 14.0-14.4Mhz
10m at 28.0-30.0Mhz
4-5m at 56.0-60.0Mhz
Later in the 1930's additional allocations were
made of:
2.5m at 112-116Mhz
1.25m at 224-230Mhz
In 1938, Amateurs lose the exclusive use of 40 meters, when it was to be shared with Short Wave Broadcasters !
Then World War II came along and Amateur Radio was basically put on hold except for VHF war related
civil defense. The post World War II changes that
took place removed a fair amount of HF spectrum and severely damaged the 40 and 160 meter bands.
A few more changes were made higher in the bands
aftrer the war to include:
10m became 28-29.7Mhz
11m at 26.96-27.23Mhz was born ! This is TRUE !
4-5m at 56.0-60.0Mhz was removed
6m at 50.0-54.0Mhz came into being, a good thing!
2.5m at 112-116Mhz was removed
2m at 144-148Mhz came into being.
1.25m at 224-230Mhz was removed
1.25m at 220-225Mhz came into being.
New UHF allocations of 420-450Mhz,1.215-1.295Ghz,2.300-2.450Ghz,5250-5650Ghz,10.000-10.500Ghz,21.000-22.200Ghz
were made.
If it were not for the ARRL the changes in the
VHF spectrum would have been worst, especially regarding the Sporatic E wonderland known as
6 meters.
In the early 1950's the FCC allowed phone operation for the first time on 40 meters and 20m was reduced to 14.0-14.350Mhz. The 15m band at 21-21.45Mhz which had
been authorized years earlier finally was opened up
for use. Later we lost the 11 meter band, boy
what a mistake that one was, the FCC got it right
some 10 years ealier with CB at UHF ! In the Late 1950's an allocation of 30Ghz and above was made.
In the 1990's we loss 220-222Mhz of the 1.25m band.
We have recovered on 160m due to the demise of LORAN and may yet recover on 40m if the International Broadcast issue is properly addressed and we can align allocations outside of Region 2.
Regarding 1.25m, as most know, due to the efforts of the ARRL and others we later were granted additional spectrum at 219Mhz, however it did NOT properly address our losses at 220-222Mhz in my opinion.
In addition, thanks to the efforts of the ARRL and many other organizations and individuals we have since the late 1970's received additional allocations at 10, 18 and 24Mhz and may also receive allocations at 5Mhz and eventually LF and VLF as well.
Now, what will the future hold ?
Sincerely,
Steve Hajducek, N2CKH
n2ckh@arrl.net
http://www.qsl.net/n2ckh
|
| |
|
FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by WB4FUR on November 26, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
All: In addition to being a ham for 35 years this year, I also work for one of the commercial interests. I deal with spectrum issues.
The FCC has made an important point that up to now I am not certain anyone has addressed or thought much about. That's that idea surrounding INTERFERENCE TEMPERATURE. What that basically says is that EVERY SERVICE is going to have to deal with signals outside its allocation (adjacent or nearby channels). It also says that EVERY SERVICE will have to deal in one way or another with co-channel (on-frequency) interference up to some level.
What does this mean to us?
Primarily what it means is that we will NOT be able to assume that the limiting factor for operation (particularly at VHF and even more so at UHF) will be internal receiver thermal noise. We will be in a situation where our operations will be (at least to some extent) limited by external interference. Other operations will be limited by interference caused by US. What that primarily affects is system design. We will have to have a LOT more smarts in the way we modulate and demodulate our signals. It almost certainly means that we will switch to some form of digital modulation (even for voice) on the VHF and UHF bands at least, if not also on HF, in order to enable receivers that are better able to recover intelligence on a noisy channel.
Some folks have commented about the huge number of 2m repeaters and such that sit idle for hours or days at a time, and yet require a clear channel for miles and miles. That represents a HUGE, HUGE waste of otherwise useful spectrum. Commercial operators went to trunked systems to obtain additional capacity on limited spectrum a long time ago; there's absolutely no reason why hams couldn't implement LTR or some other trunking format except that nobody has focused the radio mfrs. on the need to be able to do that. If we determined a standard (and for sure it should be something that exists today...no reason for a new one) they could have it available in 6 months or less. Twenty-five years ago a European ham said in an article in either QST or 73 (I can't remember which) that we could probably do without 50% of the repeaters we had in service at that time. I'd estimate that now that number is probably closer to 75%.
Some folks commented about "our" frequencies. I respectfully disagree. They are assets that belong to the American people, or to the entire world (in the case of HF). In this country, the people's elected representatives are faced with a populace that wants (a) lower taxes, (b) more services, and (c) no increase in deficit. Telling that populace the truth (that they can have any two of those three) guarantees destruction of a career. The only choice left is to try to find new sources of revenue. Spectrum in the hands of providers of new services creates new economic opportunity, new jobs, and new revenue in Federal, state, and local coffers. It's just about that simple.
I have enjoyed this hobby immensely for 35 years, yet I see the absolute need for it to either change or die. It will NOT remain static (no pun intended). I am an optimist, though. There's absolutely no reason why we can't begin doing different things. It will take some commitment on the part of some folks like you and me to (a) learn some new things and (b) take a risk and apply them, but it can be done.
My comments only, of course, and all replies are welcome.
Dave WB4FUR
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by K0RS on November 28, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In response to KU4QD:
I suspected someone would attack me for posting what I feel is the position of the FCC and and commercial interests that covet our frequencies. At no time time advocate voluntarily relinquishing any amateur band. In fact you conveniently chose to overlook my first sentence where I stated that I am "categorically against" losing any bands. But we ain't gonna save our frequencies with specious arguements. Claiming as fact things that just aren't true, no matter how badly we wish them to be, isn't going to win us any points with the FCC. The problem with disengenuous arguements is they hurt our credibility.
I'm glad V/UHF operators are active in your area. They are here too, in the front range of Colorado. In fact I would guess that the ratio of weak signal ops, ping jockeys, ATV'ers, EME'ers and satellite operators compared to the number to the total licensees in this area is one of the highest in the nation. Nevertheless, many repeaters here sit idle, and I know this is true around the nation. I see myriad posts bemoaning the difficulty of making 2m FM contacts while traveling around the country, regardless of location.
You said I "may not care" if we lose bands. That's incorrect, even if I don't operate those bands. What I said was, it isn't realistic to assume that we won't lose frequencies given the level of activity on most V/UHF bands. Hey, don't kill the messenger. These bands may be busy where you are and where I am, but does the level of activity nationally justify the extensive assignments? You and I may think so, but I'm afraid there's others with clout that don't see it the same way.
You say 50.2 and 50.135 are busy in your area. That's nice. How does activity on two discreet frequencies justify 4 mHz of band at 6m? Hey, I operate 6m. I know how often it's open, and it's closed 99.9% of the time to sky wave propagtion. Yeah, I know, there're a few lonely repeaters stuck further up in the band. You accuse me of being insensitive because "it's not my ox being gored," but you don't know that. In fact I operate not only 6 but 2m weak signal. I have VUCC on LEO satellites. That doesn't change my opinion that, in the main, VHF and UHF are underused. Part of the problem is that, in the real world, people must make choices. Not everyone can or wants to operate DC to daylite. It's enough of a challenge for operators in the typical urban setting just to get up an effective antenna for one favorite band, so "use it or lose it" isn't a realistic option for most modern hams.
You think IRLP and Echolink are here to stay. We'll see. I remember when packet was here to stay too. In fact AES touted the TNC "the accessory of the year" on the cover of their catalog only a few years back. PSK31 is the latest darling of the HF digital crowd. These modes are fine modes d'jour. But over the long run they appeal to only a small and ultimately diminishing cadre. I'm not knocking these modes, but we have had fad modes before. They just don't have a lot of staying power.
You believe my post is myopic in the extreme. Hmmmm. Myopia arises from the inability to put oneself in another's shoes and see a problem from a different perspective. You perceive this situation from the point of view of an enthusiastic ham. Bully for your enthusiasm, but unfortunately that has led to denial on your part. All of us better look at this issue from the perspective of the FCC and some of its well-heeled constituents to gain some real perspective on the nature of the beast. It's ironic that you are accusing me of myopia...(Maybe I should condescendingly say "puh-lease" don't accuse me of myopia?)
There is a limited amount of energy and money available to address the numerous issues that face ham radio. We will have to make some hard choices about where those resources are directed. Many legitimate arguements will be made for various amateur special interests, but compromises will have to be made. If it came down to (for sake of example only) the constructive realignment of 40 meters or saving 903 mHz, I know which would benefit the largest number of hams. Losing frequencies is a drag. But if we are politically astute, it doesn't have to be a total loss situation. We could conceivably trade frequencies used by perhaps .001% of the ham population for guarantees of inviolability for bands actually used by a significant number of us. This is politcal compromise. Or we could just lose the bands. Lose/lose or win/lose? Ya pays your money and takes your choice. Perhaps my assessment is too pessimistic...I hope so. But I think we need to be not only realistic but flexible.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on November 28, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<The FCC is apparently revising its view of the frequency spectrum in general, and we hams can be negatively affected if we are not alert to the changes. Many hams, for example, vigorously, if not almost violently, opposed the December, 1999 Restructuring, yet few of them were alert to the upcoming changes, until it was far too late. >
I can hardly imagine anything in recent amateur radio history that received more publicity than the FCC's restructuring rulemaking. ARRL filed and reported a letter outlining the League's views on restructuring before the FCC had come out with its rulemaking. Every single step along the way was reported by all the major amateur news sources and discussed endlessly on newsgroups and mailing lists.
If someone missed that, I don't think much else could have been done to make them aware of what was going on. :-)
73,
Ed, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on November 28, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<Sadly, it may already be too late to salvage much of this hobby of ham radio anyway, and, though some political changes have contributed to the fall, it is generally simply that times change. We have been replaced by technology available to every kid with a pager or cell phone, and with the internet. It may be the FCC sees that handwriting on the wall, and knows we are a dying breed. >
Fortunately, ham radio is far from dying. We have more active hams now than at any time in amateur radio history. Hams have been studying and taking tests to upgrade in record numbers. There are exciting things to do with radio that would have popped my eyes out as a teen-age ham. Ask any DXer what the internet has done for DXing. Ask any ham here what the internet has done for their ability to get information about amateur radio.
Every single generation of hams has had the doom-and-gloom contingent saying how each change in amateur radio spelled its end -- and each has been wrong. The conversion from spark to CW, the proliferation of SSB and the increasing availability of the telephone have all been forecast to end amateur radio.
But the same few who have always been attracted to the lure of doing it themselves (from putting together a station to designing a new rig) have been attracted to ham radio. When I was a kid, telephones were old hat. I could pick up the phone and call the kid next door any time. What did we do? We got those tin cans and tight wire and built our own telephone. Why? Did the availability of the telephone stifle our desire to experiment on our own? To the contrary -- if there were no telephones, we may not have though of doing it.
Newcomers? We have more now than ever before. Big non-ham corporations are kicking in tens of tens of thousands of dollars to reach out to new hams. Dying? Hardly.
Ham radio faces some daunting challenges today, and we do need to pay attention to the need to get fresh blood to replace us as we leave, but it is far from dying on the vine, IMHO.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on November 28, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<I agree with most of the comments so far. I want to stress one thing that's already been said: support the ARRL. No, they aren't perfect. Yes, they've done some incredibly stupid things in the past. No, I don't agree with all of their policies. They are still the only effective national voice we have to lobby in Washington and that makes them invaluable. If you aren't an ARRL member then become one. You even get a decent ham magazine when you do. >
As an ARRL HQ staffer, I think that this just about sums up my view, too. Even the "not agree" part. :-) But every year, I can list at least a dozen things, any one of which justfied my dues dollars for the next year. (Yes, I pony up the dues every year just as you do.)
Thanks for an insightful post.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Lab
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on November 28, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<Regardless of the stupid choices they've supported over the years since I became a HAM (that have contributed to the demise of HAM radio), I'm still willing to support them because of the legal lobbying clout they have in protecting our spectrum... but not while being forced to pay for QST. >
What the League essentially told you is that without QST, membership could not be made any cheaper. The advertising revenues just about cover the cost of the magazine, so the money from dues is used to fund a very long list of benefits and activities that benefit amateur radio. And, without QST, a far larger number of members would not join, so your dues would go up to match -- or the things that ARRL can do would go down to match -- with the same end effect; members would no longer have a reason to support ARRL.
If you don't want to clog up your mailbox, set your mailing address with QST to a local library, Scout troop or anywhere else you think the QST will do some good. Or decide that the support you say you want to give ARRL can be extended to 3 seconds a month to throw the QST into to the recycle bin. :-)
If you sign up every year, I can guarantee that at least one of the things ARRL will do with your money will be worth it to you. Last week, I gave two presentations on amateur radio and RFI issues to two major industry standards committees, and was appointed to chair a working group to study power-line communications devices as a result. Does that do it for you for this year? :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Lab
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on November 28, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<It's just a logical inevitability of insufficient
ham activity to occupy all the frequencies currently
allocated.
This might end up as a kind of ' Battle of the Alamo '
where what remains of the future ham fraternity is left
to defend it's ' core ' HF bands ' long after the VHF-
SHF bands have gone to commercial interests. >
Maybe, but not necessarily inevitable. What will happen, IMHO, is that we will see more sharing and different kinds of sharing. Right now, every single Hz of amateur spectrum is shared with someone, with Part 15 being the biggest. Intentional emitters can operate on any ham frequency.
Is this all bad? Maybe not. Right now, many of our microwave allocations are in the Industrial, Scientific and Medical bands. These serve important functions and they have to operate somewhere. Other users are also permitted to use ISM spectrum, from amateur to gov't to Part 15. None of these are offered any protection from ISM devices. This is NOT prime real estate and it is quite likely that amateur radio will continue to have access to this spectrum in some form.
And even the Part 15 operation offers us a cone of protection. No major spectrum grab by other services is apt to occur on the high-powered Part 15 frequencies. And the Part 15 is secondary to us, giving us in some ways the best of both worlds.
The Task Force, btw, is an advisory committee to the FCC. This is their report, not an FCC decision about spectrum policy, though the statements of Powell et all do indicate that at least part of the the report are a pretty good mirror of current FCC thinking.
73, Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on November 28, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<The FCC has made an important point that up to now I am not certain anyone has addressed or thought much about. That's that idea surrounding INTERFERENCE TEMPERATURE. What that basically says is that EVERY SERVICE is going to have to deal with signals outside its allocation (adjacent or nearby channels). It also says that EVERY SERVICE will have to deal in one way or another with co-channel (on-frequency) interference up to some level. What does this mean to us? >
Actually, every service already does deal with an inteference temperature. (This is just a high-tech way of saying noise level.) What the report did, by my read, is say that the FCC should quantify what level of other signals and noise a given service should have to accept.
Right now, we have no such level. In the ham bands, the many non-ham emitters (from power lines to motors to computers to cable TV) have an absolute maximum level of emissions. They have a further requirement not to cause harmful interference. That term is very loosely defined in the rules.
If a ham has S9+10 dB power line noise on 3 bands, is that harmful interference. Of course. It repeatedly disrupts almost all of his communications. How about a power-line buzz in the Bronx that can be heard, but doesn't move the S meter? Probably not. Both of these cases are pretty clear, but what about the ham that says he is a QRPer and has a new S3 noise on 40 meters. That ham's QRPing is very much limited. But I am not sure I could persuade Riley that S3 noise warranted an FCC letter.
Although I prefer the present rules, where that S3 noise can still be negotiated with the power company. (ARRL solves about 60% of the power-line cases directly with power companies -- especially ones we have dealt with before), a rules change that set a *reasonable* noise level could be done in a way that is not destructive to radio services.
But what can be read between the lines is the premise that the FCC is looking to think about how it allocates spectrum. Might we see more sharing and other use of "our" spectrum? Most likely yes. The trick, IMHO, is to find good sharing partners.
It may also be possible to do a bit of horse trading. (I have been told by a few FCC staff that amateur radio and its organizations does carry weight with the FCC.) Just as an example, let's look at 5.6-5.9 GHz. Amateur radio does some high-tech things that, IMHO, has advanced the weak-signal state of the art. To do that, we need "virgin" spectrum that does not have a high temperature (noise level). But do we really need 300 MHz of our very own spectrum on 5 GHz?
If it were possible to strike a deal where amateur radio did have 20 MHz in that range where it had only sharing partners compatible with weak signal operation, and didn't fight tooth and nail for every other applicant for the rest of the spectrum, would we be better off? I have seen Dale Hatfield's famous speech, where he essentially chided amateur radio for not being as active in using modern radio technology as it has in years past. Right now, in our bands, are a number of consumer-grade (translate: affordable) devices using that very technology -- various forms of spread spectrum and high-speed digital radio.
These systems are not compatible with our weak signal work, generally. They sound like noise and, if close, can be S9+, even on 2.4 or 5.6 GHz. But they are compatible (more or less) with -- digital and spread spectrum operation. Yes, a horse-trade might let more of this type of operation in "our" band, but it is cheap equipment that operates on our band and hams can take it, modify it if they wish, amplify it and use it on the same part of the band. This would certainly meet the objective of seeing hams making better us of modern radio technology -- and would beat the Part 15 stuff at its own game. :-)
Those who make ARRL's decisions about the League's regulatory stance are well aware of these issues. Paul Rinaldo has oft' told me that the trick to all this is to find compatible sharing partners. Is sharing bad? Well, we are secondary on 30 meters and 70 cm to other users of the band. Do we think sharing is bad? Jim Haynie et al have been negotiating with NTIA to see if is objections to amateur radio's sharing on 5 MHz can be overcome (I bet a lobster dinner with anyone that hams can ultimately get something going on 5 MHz). Is this sharing bad? Well, the commerical users on 30 meters and the government operation on 70 cm does sometimes hear us. How would we feel if they said "We hear hams on our band, so they gotta' get out"?
We do not win every battle by charging head on. I certainly don't as I manage to work cooperatively with industry to solve some RFI problems before they happen on a voluntary basis. As the FCC shifts it policies, we might expect to see changes in the way that amateur radio accesses its spectrum. What we can expect, however, is that our legitimate needs are balanced against the legitimate needs of other services. Fortunately, the value of amateur radio is better known now than ever. I am confident we can all come through this one just fine.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on November 28, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<As one person said, they wouldn't be surprised if the FCC reduced the qualifications for a license down to a 10 question saftey & regulations exam. >
Well, when I studied for my Novice in 1963, there were 20 questions on the exam. There were no questions about antennas, feed lines or propagation. The ARRL study-guide material for the Novice was 4 pages. I read and reread it until I had it -- gasp -- memorized!
The General was a bit harder. It had a 16-page study guide, which is all I read to pass the General.
Nowdays, we hand a newcomer a 200-page Now You're Talking and tell him or her that this is what they need to know to be a beginner in ham radio...
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by KD7EFQ on November 28, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK, so we have to think outside the old box, That's
only normal in a rapidly changing technology. Even
computers are outdated 6 months after being purchased
new these days. So with having to accept the "NEW"
Sharing concepts and "NEW" forms of digital technology
to be able to use our allocations, What about the
Cost in $$ to the average Ham? Research and development
costs money. And of course, the Price of New "Improved"
technology will be passed on to us. In the Good old
days of tubes etc, all one had to do was find an old
TV, Radio etc. and with a little Technical Know-how,
Modifications could be made to update your rig to
reasonably keep up with advances to a point. Not so
today. First of all, with SMD's and IC's etc(Many of
which are NOT available at your local Rat-Shack, one
needs to invest in more expensive test equip and even
almost an electron microscope to see the components
to work on them. Also logic circuitry has advanced in
complexity to a point that you almost need a Phd in
electrical engineering to understand today's radios.
Businesses today no longer understand cost averaging
of developing a new item OVER TIME! They will price
the new stuff at 150-200% mark-up to recover their
R&D costs as immediately as possible. A Commercial
tech friend of mine who recently installed a new
800MHZ secure Motorola system for the local P.D./FIRE
Dept's said one of their HT's cost OVER $3500.00!!
Are we ready for Paying $2000.00 for a 2 Meter HT?
Not I !!!
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by N5JOB on November 30, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Understand this. The F.C.C. has the authority. If they say we have to get completely off a band, we will have to leave or face the penalties.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by KD7EZE on December 1, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Granted, the ARRL has a small voice in the chorus, but the FCC is going to do whatever they want. The major reason for the declination in the ham radio membership falls back to the irrelevant code requirement. You get tired of the VHF/UHF repeater scene after a couple of years, and tend to only use them for emergency traffic. The frequencies above 70cm are for the bazillionaires, the equipment is largely overpriced, and you have to worry about microwaving some poor chap. 6 meters is only open on brief occasions, and usually when one is nowhere near their shack. 10 meters is plagued by the illegal CBers, or anybody, that has ever been to a truck stop, can buy a 10 meter radio. They don't offer any info telling you that you need a license to operate on this band. Although not all, but several truckers are now using 10 meters to get away from all the trash on 11 meters. Now comes the infamous HF frequencies, seemingly the only place to work good DX. The restrictions are beyond my understanding, and the scope of this article. This all boils down to having to pass a morse code test to work in the phone portions of these bands. Hello? Why would one want to know what is being transmitted as a bunch of beeps, if they aren't even going to tune in those band segments. That's what the phone segments are for, voice. How does understanding code help you to key a mike and talk? I've even heard hams go so far as to say that hams that haven't passed a code test aren't as electronically educated as those that have, hogwash! Morse code is in fact, just another form of communicating, like voice, RTTY, packet, etc. If you're so worried about losing parts of the frequency spectrum: A) Don't eliminate the code, just make it an endorsement for those that (enjoy?) it, but eliminate its requirement to operate voice on HF. B) Lower the cost of equipment for HF, and the frequencies above 70cm, not all hams are bazillionaires. C) Support the ARRL, even if QST is not what it once was, or if you don't agree with everything they do. They might only be a small voice, but they have done more good than bad, for the ham radio community. D) Accept the fact that the FCC has the power to do whatever they want, and probably will. E) Life is too short, try to enjoy it, and get along with fellow hams (as well as everybody!)
'73 es tnx de KD7EZE/5
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by N2WSO on December 1, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I read all the time how doing away with the code for HF will bring in a ton of new ham recruits to the hobby. With all due respects, I'm not convinced it will. We already have a "No Code" license and I don't see the public breaking down any doors to get a license. From the last numbers I saw, the number of new hams peaked a few years ago and now are in decline. (Please correct me on this if I'm wrong.)
The bottom line is, ham radio is a hobby for a select and elite group of individuals and let's keep it that way. If someone is really passionate about getting a license and working DX then he will go to the trouble to learn 5 WPM. Anyone can do it.
But I absolutely agree, "Use it or Lose it". Evey ham should make it a point to get on the under-used bands and chat up a storm. Then commercial interests can't tell the FCC that this or that band is a forgotton wasteland.
Happy DXing, Bob (N2WSO)
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on December 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
< I read all the time how doing away with the code for HF will bring in a ton of new ham recruits to the hobby. With all due respects, I'm not convinced it will. We already have a "No Code" license and I don't see the public breaking down any doors to get a license. From the last numbers I saw, the number of new hams peaked a few years ago and now are in decline. (Please correct me on this if I'm wrong.)>
There are more amateurs now than at any time in amateur history, although the increase is slight.
See http://ah0a.org/FCC/Licenses.html
< But I absolutely agree, "Use it or Lose it". Evey ham should make it a point to get on the under-used bands and chat up a storm. Then commercial interests can't tell the FCC that this or that band is a forgotton wasteland.>
Easier said than done, in most cases. 5.6-5.9 GHz is a full 300 MHz of spectrum. If all 650,000 of us got on that band with a 100 Hz wide CW signal, we would not fill the band. A tree leaf can block signals at that frequency, and the capture area of antennas is small enough that very high gain -- and very narrow beamwidth -- antennas are needed to communicate over long distances. A 5.6 GHz repeater would not be very practical, for a number of technological reasons.
IMHO, our best use of those bands would be for hams to get on the bands using broadband spread spectrum, beating them at their own game. :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by W3ULS on December 2, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AH0A's data show growth in U.S. ham radio licensees of .02% per year between 11/97 and 11/02. This rate of growth could easily be interpreted as "flat" over that period, rather than "growth."
KD7EZE has put his finger on a big part of the problem IMHO by citing the limited experiences open to Technician licensees in VHF/UHF territory. Not very impressive, and not even allowing for occasional rude behavior accorded new licensees reported in QST's Letters to the Editor on some repeaters. And, as my earlier posting argued, the experiences open to Novices and Techs with code certificates on HF is not exactly enthralling, either.
Thousands of Novice/Technician licenses are expiring each month, so the hobby has to run fast simply to make up for these expirations. Without finding a way to retain more of the entry-level licensees via upgrades, we face a "flat growth" scenario at best.
The "flat growth" numbers will definitely impact how Washington views the hobby as arguments inevitably arise over spectrum utilization. If I were running the ARRL, increasing the number of licensees and retaining them as active hams would be Job 1. You can't have much lobbying success with an aging cohort--there already is the AARP for that group.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by W1RFI on December 3, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<The "flat growth" numbers will definitely impact how Washington views the hobby as arguments inevitably arise over spectrum utilization. If I were running the ARRL, increasing the number of licensees and retaining them as active hams would be Job 1. You can't have much lobbying success with an aging cohort--there already is the AARP for that group.>
The lobbying success is most effective when based on the accomplishements of ham radio. And, to the Congressfolks, emergency communication and education are probably the number one and number two interests. Amateur radio has always done a good job in the former -- and that has been used to good effect. That is looking up, too, with things like the ARRL on-line emergency communications courses. At this point, that is looking good enough that ARRL's Development Office (translate: fund raising) has secured government and private (non-ham) industry grants to pay for hams to take these courses.
Amateur radio has always done a good job in education, too, with things like ARRL's long-standing program to support educators who want to use ham radio in the classroom and ARRL's support of the Shuttle Amateur Radio EXperiment. But that is looking up, too, with the "Big Project" bringing amateur radio in the classroom in a big way. The Big Project doesn't try to teach kids ham radio. It uses ham radio as an educational tool to teach things like science, geography and political science. The project funds schools with equipment and training materials, paid for by individual contributions by hams and industry. The number of schools that have equipment and an ongoing program has increased past the point where I would even call them "pilot" schools; the program is taking off and picking up steam.
See:
http://www.arrl.org/FandES/tbp/
http://www.arrl.org/cce/
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by N2CKH on December 9, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here is your chance to be heard by the FCC.
It would appear that this request for comments
is the first clear action their part that this
upcoming policy will directly effect the Amateur
Radio Service.
/s/ Steve, N2CKH
From: The ARRL Letter,Vol. 21, No. 47,December 6, 2002
* FCC seeks public comments on Spectrum Policy Task Force report: Public
comments are due January 9, 2003, on the recently released report of the
Spectrum Policy Task Force (ET Docket 02-135) <see
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2002/11/07/103/>. Reply comments are due
February 10. The Task Force released its report to the FCC on November 15.
The FCC notes that the Spectrum Policy Task Force Report was drafted by
FCC staff and was neither voted upon nor approved by the Commission.
"Accordingly, neither the Report nor any of the recommendations contained
therein necessarily reflect the views of the Commission," the FCC added.
The text of the Report and other Task Force documents are available on the
Task Force Web site <http://www.fcc.gov/sptf/>. Parties are encouraged to
file comments using the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS)
<http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>. Commenters should include full
name, US Postal Service mailing address, and the docket number, ET Docket
02-135.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by N2CKH on January 29, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello All,
The ARRL has now submitted their comments to the FCC on the FCC Spectrum
Policy Task Force Report (ET Docket 02-135) released on November 15, 2002
which has a potentially huge impact on the Amateur Radio Service.
The current ARRL story "ARRL Calls Task Force Report "Basis for Future
Planning," Cautions Against "Rush to Judgment" (Jan 28, 2003) is at:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/01/28/100/?nc=1
The ARRL response can be found at:
http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/et02-135/arrl-comments.html
We the Amateur community have until February 10, 2003 to file comments with
the FCC, I encourage everyone to file comments using the FCC's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS) at http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html.
Comments should include your full name, callsign, US Postal Service mailing
address, and the docket number, ET Docket 02-135
Below are the links to the final reports of the FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force -
Report of the Spectrum Rights and Responsibilities Working Group:
http://www.fcc.gov/sptf/files/SRRWGFinalReport.pdf
Report of the Spectrum Efficiency Working Group:
http://www.fcc.gov/sptf/files/SEWGFinalReport_1.pdf
It is the SEWG report that provides details into the so called "Interference Temperature". There is NO mention of the Amateur Radio Service made in either report.
Other documents can be listed at:
http://www.fcc.gov/sptf/files/
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Spectrum Policy Task Force Presents...
|
|
|
by WA6FUL on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I have had a 6m repeater for 25 years in the San Francisco bay area. Now there are 7 more repeaters with their one or two users, but in an emergency like an earthquake the repeaters will be busy. I keep my 6 meter repeater intertied to the 440mhz and 900mhz repeaters to keep the the usage up. Thank you 73's David Price WA6FUL 52.64R
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Spread Spectrum Inventor, Actress Hedy Lamarr Dies
An Opportunity to Gain Co-Sponsors for H.R. 691
FCC Approves Low Power FM Radio Service
Restructuring Petitions Go Public
Hams Subject of RF Exposure Study
Other Opinion Articles
How Social Networking Can Help Ham Radio
Don't Knock It!
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
EMP a Real Threat to Hams and the USA
High Speed Packet?
|
