Five Channels on 60M?
George J. Schnepf (KE2IV)
on
June 6, 2003
View comments about this article!
RE FCC actions:
I received this info via e-mail from the ARRL.
"The FCC has declined to grant amateurs a sliver-band allocation at 136 kHz ''at this time.'' Also, in a compromise with government
users, the Commission decided to give amateurs five discrete 2.8-kHz-wide channels in the vicinity of 5 MHz instead of the
150-kHz band ARRL had requested."
Now, I have zero interest in anyone's "League bashing" comments. Please give it a rest and go away if that's all you want to comment on.
My gripe is simply this: What is the FCC doing by introducing "channels" to ham radio?
We have never, ever been "channelized" on any of our frequencies! We have voluntarily accepted "channelization" for FM repeaters because it is the only effective way to coordinate such a mode - but we have never had to accept "channels" as an FCC mandate!
I live in NYC and go to NY Yankee baseball games. A new "tradition" at the ballpark is for fans to throw back the homerun balls hit by opposing players. A kind of "thanks, but no thanks" reaction!
I suggest that we hams, through the ARRL and the other forums of organized ham radio do the same with this allocation!
NO WAY -- FCC -- IF WE CANNOT HAVE A "BAND" THEN WE DON'T WANT DISCRETE "CHANNELS"!!!
Channels are for TV and CB - NOT HAM RADIO!!!
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by KC0LPV on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The way I read the issue, these channels may be a stepping stone to a full band allocation.
Since we have radios capable of using these channels, why don't we demonstrate to the FCC that we find this band useful and important, and give them a reason to believe that we need and deserve a full band allocation?
Jim
(I'll use 60m as soon as I upgrade and build or buy a radio that can handle it!)
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by W8MW on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Oh, it's not so bad George. See, we're being tested. Not as individuals this time, but as an entire radio service. The amateur service is going to use these channels with much prudence and thoughtful consideration, not toward our own hobby amusement, but toward the betterment of America's communications infrastructure and homeland defense. As we share these channels on a secondary basis, the primary users will marvel at our disciplined and effective radio techniques, asking why do they call these people amateurs when they are so professional? They will be glad we're there! The good word will spread and we will be rewarded with more channels in the future!
|
| |
|
5MHz Are You Ready? YES!
|
|
|
by KQ6XA on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ARE YOU PREPARED FOR 5MHZ?
Are you ready to go on the air with other operators on 5MHz?
Do you have an antenna for 5MHz?
Will your radio transmit on 5MHz?
Can your radio be modified?
If these are interesting questions, read on...
5MHZ: SHOULD WE BE OPERATING THERE?
Of course. What a wonderful opportunity for us!
5MHz (60metres) promises to be one of the most valuable bands for low power SSB and HF portable operation. The propagation is very good, and
the 50Watt rule gives everyone a good chance of being heard. Get ready for the 3rd of July celebration!
BUT IS IT LEGAL TO MODIFY A TRANSMITTER?
It is perfectly legal to modify a transceiver to get on 5MHz. It is part of a long tradition of amateur radio to build and use modified transmitters.
5MHz CHANNELS USA
You can enter the following channels into memory for USA operation.
(Keep in mind that it is a good idea to use the memory mode with the
VFO locked for operation on the 5Mhz channels).
5330.5 kHz USB
5346.5 kHz USB
5366.5 kHz USB
5371.5 kHz USB
5403.5 kHz USB
5MHZ PORTABLE ANTENNAS
Here are the approximate lengths for some 5.37MHz portable wire antennas:
HIGH DIPOLE
High dipole total length 87ft [26.5m].
Each leg of high dipole 43.5ft [13.25m].
A high dipole is at least 40ft [12m] above ground.
LOW DIPOLE
Low dipole total length 85ft [25.9m].
Each leg of low dipole is 42.5ft [12.95m].
A low dipole should be at least 10ft [3m] above ground.
PORTABLE INVERTED-V DIPOLE
Portable Inverted-V dipole total length 83ft [25.3m].
Each leg of the Inverted-V dipole is 41.5ft [12.65m]
A portable Inverted V dipole's support pole may be 14ft high [4.25m] or more, with the ends at least 3ft [1m] high.
RANDOM WIRE
Quarter-wave random wire length 41.5ft [12.65m].
A wire plugged into the transceiver antenna jack, extended in random fashion, elevated about 10ft [3m] above ground.
HORIZONTAL LOOP
Full-Wave horizontal loop total length 185ft [56.4m].
A horizontally arranged Full-Wave square-shaped or equilateral-triangle loop, fed at one corner, about 14ft high [4.25m]. The zenith gain of this antenna is approximately +1dBD, so a maximum of 40W transmitter output complies with USA regulations.
MODIFICATION INFORMATION FOR TRANSCEIVERS
In fact it is possible to modify most ham transceivers for transmitting on the 5MHz channels. Some are very easy to modify, but many modern transceivers require soldering of small surface mount
components, and microprocessor reset procedures.
Instructions, drawings, and photos are available on the web for modification of most transceivers. There are different market versions of many transceivers, requiring different mods. Make sure you match the correct general coverage transmit mod information with your transceiver.
International radio mods website:
http://www.mods.dk/
73---Bonnie KQ6XA
http://hfpack.com
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by M0AFJ on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
60M has been in use in the UK for the last few months. It has proved to be a very good band for inter G working with very low fade rates day and night. It has been possible to work across the pond into VE when permitted and G stations have been heard in ZL. It has the makings of being a very interesting band as more countries get allocations.
Why gripe...., If you don't want it you don't have to use it!.
Regards
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by KC5LVW on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I disagree with KE2IV in part. My thought is that the FCC had backed off giving us anything due external concerns & now through lobbying efforts is "trying" to do something "for us" where we had nothing. IF "we" can show we can operate by the rules & not cause interfence, then maybe the opposition's arguement doesn't hold much water & the FCC can proceed at "expanding" 60M for us. If "we" show we can't play by the rules then yes, kiss it good-bye.
73's
Jon, KC5LVW
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by KD7EFQ on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Unfortunately, I think you are seeing what will become the future of Amateur Radio if the service doesn't die out completely. With the Greedy Corporations grabbing all the spectrum they can get for things like Broadband over powerlines, Point to Point communictions
etc. It would be easier to notch filter a few frequencies rather than blocks of spectrum. Also, consider the increasing amount of Undiciplined LID operators you hear on the bands. I would not be suprised if in 10 years, Amateur Radio is reduced to a few channels on each band for operation of Antique radio collectors with their vintage radios only. Their is a major mindset in the Corporate world that Amateur Radio is obsolete and the spectrum should be used for profit-motive oriented services. And our defense of the service so far is losing ground. 73's
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by N3ZKP on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Geez,
Yet ANOTHER ham who didn't bother to read the original request from the League and is now running off at the keyboard because he really doesn't know what he is talking about!
We asked for an allocation smack in the middle of existing government/military allocations and we got them - on NTIA's terms.
People, you are reading entirely TOO much into the 'channelization' thing. ALL frequencies in this range are 'channels'. You want to play in NTIA's back yard, you gotta play by THEIR rules.
Get over it.
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by KF4LVC on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I have read with great interest the comments here. I have to agree with the fact that this band has always been "channelized" for military/government use. I think this was for convienence at the time. I believe we must look at this as being very much a trial period and not a full-fledged grant from the FCC on 60m for us. We must be willing to show that we can act responsibly before the band is fully opened. There may be a plan to de-allocate or at least reduce the old government channels, but this may be a gradual process. Let's be patient for now and see how this pans out before we get too excited. How often does the FCC grant us new bands in the HF range anyway?!
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by W4MGY on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
KE2IV, gimme a friggin break! If you don't like the idea of using the 5 60 meter frequencies as channels, then don't use them. The FCC and NTIA has been generious enough to give us an allocation here. It is given to us on a secondary basis. If we screw this one up, it wouldn't suprize me if the powers to be took a long hard look at ham radio and the possibility of loss of valued HF frequencies. BTW, I don't see a damn thing wrong with 'channelized' operations; the pros have done it this way for years. Maybe it's time to abandon the lazy shoddy practices amateurs have held onto since day one.
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by WB8ROL on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If they gave us 1 "channel" on CW I would still accept it. It still adds up to a PLUS anyway you cut it.
We are, after all, Amateur Radio operators. Not professional radio operators, not government, not commercial, and not JUST hobby radio. Our ability to maintain "possession" of our current allocations and to get new ones is entirely dependent on what the F.C.C. decides -- and our actions and the actions of those who lobby for us hopefully influence the F.C.C. in a positive way. Commercial and government interest must come first in most cases and it should not be any other way.
I wish we could have gotten a 60 mtr "band" allocated for us BUT I am really glad to see we got something -- bottom line.
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by KG4OOA on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This sounds like complaining because you can't play however you want play. Be grateful we got a chance to use this band.
Now we just have to hone both operating techniques and technical abilities to use it. If it is beyond anyones technicial abilities stay off. I don't think the 60 meter band will become a band for general use for a while. It was requested to enhance emergency communications not general fun and games. Maybe we will get a bigger hunk if and when we if and when we prove we can play with the big guys.
So what if we just can't plunk down wherever we feel. Now we have to use our brains rather than our amps.
What we are really facing are just some of the questions that used to be on both the technician and general tests. Simply stated it is knowing where in the band or channel can you safely transmit and still stay in the band. We also have to watch our radiated power and signal width.
We are now asked if we are up to the challenge or just appliance operators.
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by W3JXP on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's nice to get a new "band" but with the restricions I see it as of very limited use. Maybe some ARES groups can use it, what for I don't know, but it's so limited I can't see myself puting much effort into using it. I guess, I will just wait and see if it becomes of use.
John, W3JXP
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by CASPER669 on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm forced to agree with W8MW... Based on the last few months worth of FCC warning letters that I've seen go out, it doesn't surprise me that we are being tested. Not to mention the possibility of accidental/incidental interference. Sometimes, the only way to prove somebody wrong is to go along with them or their idea and watch in awe as their arguments go down the drain. As with any other radio/tv, if you don't want to use it - for whatever your reasons - you can simply push a button or turn a dial. I've tried to keep abreast of this very interesting topic through the ARRL website and did notice a bit of an 'about-face' on the FCC's side. Originally, they implied to the ARRL that we would get a 'chunk' or a 'good portion' of that band. At the last minute, it was finally decided that we would only get the frequencies listed in the previous posts. I'm not too disappointed, but I think it is imperative to show them that we can handle ourselves as professionally as the military/government. If not, more so. My suggestion would be to at least try the allocated 60 meter frequencies. What have you got to lose? If we behave exactly the opposite of what they might be expecting (in a very professional manner), they'll probably give us more. At least we've gained a little. So, it's 'channelized'. Don't be too stubborn. It is possible for them to take away too! Just my 2 cents!
Thank you all for reading. Take care and 73!
Chris KC2KFW
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by AETHERBURNER on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It is amazing how the commentary is more on-the-button than the original posting. We have been given this "gift" courtesy of the NTIA (Primary Assignee) and the blessings of the FCC. Other commenters are correct on channelized operation - we are on the Fed's playground and we have to play by THEIR rules: 2.8 kHz bandwidth, 50 watts ERP, USB operation, and tight frequency stability. Also we are there on a Secondary basis - they will still be listening in. If the NTIA or FCC gets complaints from the Primary Assignees of the band that the Secondary assignees can't play by the rules, the FCC or NTIA can pull the authorization in a heartbeat. Then, if I was the NTIA with the information that the Ham operators can't behave on these channels, it would be possible for the NTIA to use this information in an attempt to sway the FCC in future proceedings that the Ham community can't behave and they do have weight with the FCC.
On another thought, with the channelized operations and the added profile of this offering, the OO's will be busy listening. OO reports make their way to the FCC eventually.
Yes, the phrase usually is use it or lose it but in this case it is "Use it WISELY, or lose it." This may be a stepping stone to a better future at 60 meters but our fate lies in our hands. BTW, my radio is ready and I know what power to use. See you on the channels wearing "ties and tails".
- Richard, N6NKO
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by W1PPJ on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The whole setup Stinks! Not even CW can be used just SSB. Here We Go Again! "Breaker By Channel 5"
Forget About it! Not worth the trouble to put up an antenna! Talk about a Crowed Band!
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by W9WHE on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Typical New York attitude!
The FCC gives us something new (without taking anything away) and people bitch, moan and complain. Why? Because they were not given enough.
Ever wonder why the FCC all but ignors hams? This is a good example. Give hams a new allocation and all they do is complain and threaten a boycott because they did not get more.
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by OBSERVER on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
WOW! or should I say wow. Guess I'll listen in for a while. For now I'll keep the cover on the radio and the tools in the tool box.
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by KJ7XJ on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I agree with those of you who say, "if you dont like the rules, you've got a power button" answer. Come on folks, we are being given a gift here. After years of hearing nothing but negitive things about how we are losing our spectrum, were now being handed a new band. Sure it has rules and regulations, but hams are experimenters. We have radios that can easily be modified, and antennas that can easily be built ( I like the reply with the dipole diagrams. thanks! I will possibly be using those). I am very excited to get out there! I look foward to working you with 50 watts or less!! Horray for 60m!! DE KJ7XJ - Eric Tacoma,WA.
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by AG4HY on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
well,well, 5 channels on 60 meters.
all i can say is: even .0333% of something, is a whole lot better than 100% of nothing,,,flame away. what i have written, i have written;
willie
ag4hy
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by KD3V on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Clearly, you should have taken time to understand why they defined 'channels' in the first place!
How is this band currently being used?!!
There are exising services already using a channelized method on this HF range so the one (ONLY!) way to give hams any room at all is to give us a few 'channels' and not by giving us a range!
You should not complain until you do your homework and understand the basis for their decision!
It is a very positive move to give us some channels!
BUT there is a problem! This limited bandwidth is narrower than most current radios use for TX.
If you have a radio that can be made to transmit in this range then you will need to be careful to limit your TX bandwidth since most off the shelf radio these days have about a 3Kc bandwidth at the -6db points.
So don't just put any radio on the frequency and transmit until you know you can meet the TX spec!
Have fun!
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by K5OO on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
What?? No splattering. No computer. No linears. No beam arrays. No equilizers for hi-fi. Operating exclusively beside our nation's government communicatons. Man, what's ham radio coming to? It looks to me like the ARRL got what they asked for...kinda.
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by N8AUC on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't find this something to get excited about.
There appears to be (at least to me) a purpose behind the five discrete channels. That purpose is probably not general purpose hamming like DXing, ragchewing, contesting or experimentation.
Might be fun to listen to. To see what kind of activity presents itself on those channels. But I'm not going to go out of my way to setup things to actually operate there. Not yet, anyway.
Besides, with my luck, I'd call CQ down there, and get run out of dodge by some wannabee with an amber light bar on his vehicle.
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by W4CNG on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Lemme see here. 30 meters all CW. I did not complain about that then, or now. So why the large amount of CW complaints about all SSB 60 meters. Channels in a Channelized band, nothing wrong here. This is not an FCC ruled and regulated band, gotta play by the owners rules, most of which are NOT in print, just comments, other than 50 watts, USB, 2.8khz BW. Too many folks taking pot shots, comments not backed up by facts, ect.
I'm going to be there with my Modified and Software upgraded radio's, hope to see you on one of the Channels. There is an on off switch on every radio out there.
Steve W4CNG
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by WN3VAW on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gee George,
Since when did Yankee fans start copying what the Bleacher Bums in Wrigley have been doing to Cubs opponents for years? (And since when do YOU speak for all of US Yankee fans? Sheesh.)
It is unfortunate that the NTIA only released five channels. That this is not the way Amateurs usually operate on HF (VHF FM being a different matter), at least not since the LORAN-A restrictions on 160 meters were removed. It is further unfortunate that they have restricted us to USB only, no other modes, and even though standard Amateur practice is LSB below 10 MHz.
However: We have our proverbial camel's nose inside the proverbial tent. We have a foothold in a new band. And when the bureaucrats finally getting around to freeing up more space on 60 Meters, be it a year from now or 10 years from now, when they finally acknowledge that they really DON'T have a use for that spectrum, then we'll be in a position (I hope) to show that we deserve further spectrum, mode, and power allocations.
In the meantime, deal with it as it is. Should you choose not to, fine, but don't spoil it for the rest of us.
One should not cut off one's frequency allocation to spite the federal agencies!
73, ron wn3vaw
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by N3ZKP on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<< It is further unfortunate that they have restricted us to USB only, no other modes, and even though standard Amateur practice is LSB below 10 MHz. >>
Yea, BUT - every other user in this frequency range is USB! We should be able to fly in the face of the convention of this frequency range just because we are hams?
Gimme a break!
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let's see: We say to the FCC, allowing BPL/PLC will destroy the HF bands. They say, Hey, didn't we give you those five channels on 60M?
I feel a reaming coming on here!
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by KE4SKY on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is a shared allocation which has the potential of offering great benefits if properly used. The ARRL should consider suggested regional channel assignments to be used for contacting resources during declared disasters, and which could be used at other times for scheduled ARES, RACES or NTS nets, drills, and tests. One channel could be reserved for DX calling and would do no harm. (Ducking as I dodge the flames sure to follow!)
These 60m channels should provide a useful means to enable functional interoperability of all regional disaster service groups, something which is difficult to accomplish now with the crowded band conditions on 40 and 75 meters.
If ARES, RACES and NTS can co-exist in a professional manner, demonstrating disiplined, adult operating practices, we may someday see a larger piece of the pie becoming available. I would certainly hope so.
I see the 5 channels and 50w limitation as no handicap. In a quieter band not as affected by the crowded conditions you have on 40 and 75 meters you shouldn't need to run a "gallon" to be heard.
But if the new limited 60m allocations are to be occupied by a bunch of lids and whiners who have long forgotten the reason that FCC actually grants us that spectrum in the first place, it won't last long, and we'll see no more of it.
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by KG4OOA on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
After reading many of the posts, I have to add one thing to my earlier post. Do the hams realize that we are the only service, with the exception of some military operations, that are even allowed the use of a VFO?
Quit complaining! If you can't hack it -- don't use it.
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by W4UDX on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I sort of agree with you. I have no plans to use these "channels". I don't have a radio that would do it anyway, but that's beside the point.
Hey, how about more activity on 15 meters? It's a no man's land lately.
Anymore it seems in the eyes of the FCC, amateur radio and CB are one and the same. (And on some bands you can hardly tell the difference). The other day I heard a ham on 2 meter FM using a cranked-up power mic with echo and "roger beep" on it. What a bummer. The FCC is only interested in selling radio spectrum. That's it.
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by W0JOG on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Somemone in this thread of rationalle wrote; "People, you are reading entirely TOO much into the 'channelization' thing. ALL frequencies in this range are 'channels'. You want to play in NTIA's back yard, you gotta play by THEIR rules.
What do you read into the following from today's news? Particularly the last paragraph here.
WASHINGTON (AP) President Bush ordered a broad review Thursday of how government and industry can better use radio airwaves, which are growing congested by signals from cell phones, wireless gadgets and the military.
Bush directed the Commerce Department to lead the yearlong initiative and produce recommendations for legislation and other policy changes to promote more efficient use of airwaves.
The radio spectrum is a ''vital and limited national resource'' needed for economic growth, scientific research and homeland security, Bush said.
''The existing legal and policy framework for spectrum management has not kept pace with the dramatic changes in technology,'' Bush said in a memo to federal agencies. ''We must unlock the economic value and entrepreneurial potential of U.S. spectrum assets while ensuring that sufficient spectrum is available to support critical government functions.''
Bush said the way government now reviews every change in airwaves use is ''a process that is often slow and inflexible and can discourage the introduction of new technology.''
The Commerce Department is to hold a series of public meetings to develop recommendations for airwaves use by local governments and industry. To study federal spectrum use, that department will guide a task force that includes representatives from more than a dozen executive branch departments and agencies.
The cell phone and wireless industries, in need of increasing amounts of airwaves space, welcomed the announcement.
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by N2MWE on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Sorry, I disagree. With all this gloom and doom of private industry looking at our bands and trying their best to take spectrum away from us, I think this is a giant winner. Better half a loaf than none at all, don't you think?
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here we go again!
For some strange reason, I get the feeling I’ve read this exact rant/whine before on eHam? How many times does eHam have run the same thing?
We have someone who doesn’t like what has been done (new frequencies for ham usage); because he doesn’t like it, believes all hams/ARRL?FCC should “throw the baseball” back to the “visiting team”!
What next? Antennas for 160 are to BIG for you? Close down 160!
80 meters to crowded for you? Close down the phone portion of 80!
We don’t have exclusive use of 40 meters! Give that band back to BC stations?
Don’t like CW? Get rid of 30 meters!
New hams on 2 meters sound like CBers to you? Get rid of two meters! (sorry; that was a different post)
Try to have some FUN, and enjoy what we’ve got.
Bob
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by KD7EFQ on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
After reading W0JOG's news article, I think all hams need be VERY afraid! And the new 60M channels will be useless when the rest of Amateur Radio is Taken over
By Corrporate Greed. There will be no one left with an interest in Amateur Radio to use 60 meter frequencies when we dont have 160-70cm + to use anymore. 73's
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M.. Yes please to GO!
|
|
|
by M0DRH on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello,
I have been active on the U.K 60M "channels".
(when time permits)
I have also tried to do some studies using some
existing stations in the vicinity of our Channels.
I use my 516 and a dipole at @ 6M above the ground.
You can see my results & stuff @:
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~fabh/0350Prop-VOLMET1.html
If you find the concept of channels being alien,
Remember that very very first transmission, i.e.
A single frequency.. was that not a kind of channel?
Then look what happened later.. more channels,
then spectrum allocations.
Lets walk before we try to run, lets show them we
can be disciplined, and act like professional amateurs.
Who knows.. we may get a full allocation one day.
Best 73's..
Maybe I will speak to some of you on 5.403 kHz
David - M0DRH
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M-Big Deal!
|
|
|
by WD8MGO on June 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't see why some people are upset by the word
"channels" used with Amateur Radio. In the commercial arena channels have been in use for years(such as Marine and Military).
I think "Channelized" operation will place Amateur Radio on its toes. We already have channelized VHF and UHF repeater operations and it hasn't destroyed the service. Besides I hear already on some of the more active two meter repeaters operators saying "monitoring the channel".
Something to think about.
I will have four radios for the new band from a marine radios to Military Surplus set(base and PRC).
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M-Big Deal!
|
|
|
by VE2DC on June 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's 5 channels more than we have in Canada...
It will be useful for domestic traffic in emergencies and such... and just by listening will we will learn something about propagation on these frequencies... sounds like fun to me!
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M-Big Deal!
|
|
|
by KE2IV on June 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am confused about the reaction my post has gotten.
Then as I read each reply, I realized that few of the respondents have ever built a HF rig.
Now, I haven't done it in many years but I did as a kid.
I knew I had to make sure of a few things:
1) Make sure your transmitting "in the band".
2) Supress your harmonics.
3) If you are xmitting phone, make sure you are in the phone sub-band.
Some of you older OT's can add more to this, I'm sure.
Other than that, unless you were a legally "rock-bound" Novice (like it was when I started in HR), you were okay.
FOLKS...READ THE RULES FOR 60M...PLEASE.
You MUST comply with very strict measures of center "carrier" and "intelligence" frequency! Deviations will be measured to well under a kilohertz!
So.....YOU CANNOT DEVIATE A TEENSY, TINY BIT IN ORDER TO "AVOID" ADJACENT QRM!
I have never "worked" CB....but can imagine what "chanellization" is like. Remember, folks, this will mean if we "real hams" react in a "real" way and start to "tweak" the VFO to "find" a "clear frequency" we will be "out of band"!
Oh, another thought....
Do we really want to now have to answer to an ADDITIONAL government agency (the NTIA) besides the FCC? How much "oversight" is too much?
Finally, yes, I will try to get on the 60M band (or at least listen) on July 3rd. Too bad they didn't make it available a week earlier. Could have been another "refuge" from FD. You know, that EC exercise where this year, some groups, using Category "F", will seek to provide communications by exercising their ability to communicate by "adapting" to QRM/QRN conditions on the most immediately available spot on the band by QSY'ing to an available open frequency. [WARNING: This last paragraphical thought was an IRONIC statement. Please review the concept of "IRONY" before responding!]
73,
George
KE2IV
P.S. To the Cubbie fan, touche, nice tradition glad we NY'ers picked it up! Oh and we beat you 5-3 tonight (6/6) so there!
And to the clown who thought this was some kind of a NY thing - my other home is in AZ - - you know that state don't you? It where Barry G. was from! Wonder what HE would have thought?
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M-Big Deal!
|
|
|
by KE2IV on June 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE7G:
You are so sad.
Barry was for less, not more, government.
You have disgraced his name.
ESAD
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by K3BU on June 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wasn't the purpose of 60m band to be used for emergency communications (good local coverage)? If so, the channelization is a benefit. Spread the channels accross geographical regions and we have a means of communicating emergency traffic and coopeation with other agencies.
If you don't like it, stay put where you are.
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by N4VNV on June 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Expanding our frequencies on 17M would have made a lot more sense to me. The "ARRL" said it would be expanded in about five or ten years, back when it was allocated to us.
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by KC8JZO on June 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just some food for thought . . .
Imagine a 5 frequency (channel) grab-and go packset for REAL emergencies! If the s*** would hit the fan, then you'd have a basic unit that could be simpler to use than your everyday HF set. I've seen channelized military packsets that utilize a basic internal antenna tuner, whip antenna, battery, handset, and was waterproof (even submersable to limited depths). Realistically, how usable would your average radio be in true emergency conditions? If you were out in harsh weather and needed to get help quick, do you think there would be time to tune around on the HF bands to find help?
I look at the 5 channels this way . . . the less, the better! Look at the aviation distress frequency (121.5 MHz). If an aircraft goes down any place in the world, there's satellites and multipules of ground stations listening for the distress call. It would be better to look at these 5 freq's as national emergency net channels more than just frequencies to rag-chew on. At least you could potentually find someone right away if the frequencies would be limited and monitored on a regular basis.
But what do I know . . . I'm only a Technician (for now).
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by W2PM on June 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We all must face the realities of spectrum management in the 21st century. RF spectrum is a valuable economic and public safety resource providing BILLIONS of dollars into our economy whether any one person likes it or not. And after 9/11 the military gang wants (and deserves) more shortwave spectrum so our bands are becoming far more precious by the month.
Re channelization so what? Yes, it would be great to have unbridled spectrum in a nice big band allocation but it ain't gonna happen. And what with the state of art with rigs channelization will be easy.
Finally re ARRL, this is a great example of why ALL ACTIVE HAMS MUST BECOME LEAGUE MEMBERS! We need the power via this lobby organization and despite the fact they are not perfect they are only as good (or bad) as we the ham community make them. So JOIN and participate.
That said I am disspointed that ARRL has not yet offered any leadership or ideas as to the practical use of this band given the channelization thing. CW only channels? QRP only? And what about a no contest proviso like WARC bands? WHERES THE IDEAS BOYS?
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by K1OU on June 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
My only bone about channelization is that we could very well hear purse swinging that would make 75 sound like a quilting bee. The Barney Fife Emergency Net will ruffle the feathers of the Podunk Valley Ridge Runners. Then that will get beat to death on this site.
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M-Big Deal!
|
|
|
by M0DRH on June 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To: KE2V
>I am confused about the reaction my post has gotten<
What did you expect with statements like:
>What is the FCC doing by introducing "channels" to ham radio?<
>NO WAY -- FCC -- IF WE CANNOT HAVE A "BAND"<
>THEN WE DON'T WANT DISCRETE "CHANNELS"!!!<
It only takes a minority(read few) to make this fail
It will take majority(read all) to make this a success.
In the spirit of amateur radio, use your skills and
knowledge to make this work, If not, Then nobody
is forcing you to use the channels. So why incite people.?
Prove to those that may need convincing that
we are capable of working under constraints.
Start looking at how to utilise the channels.
e.g
Time slots by Call areas & time zones? Net controls
Get creative.. Get Positive.. Get 5 Channels
I know this is a US thing..
But we are all Amateurs lets help each other.
Best Regards - David - M0DRH
ps,
I'm an ARRL member
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M-Big Deal!
|
|
|
by M0DRH on June 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Appologies..
I missed the "I" out of the KE2IV
Regards - David - M0DRH
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by WB9YCJ on June 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I sometime wonder if this channelization is a "set-up". A calculated gamble on the FCC/corporate part to have us embaress ourselves creating ammuntion for future amateur dislodgment/denial.
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M-Big Deal!
|
|
|
by KG4PTZ on June 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W4UDX, I'm surprised you can't appreciate a good echo on a radio. After all, that could just be from the fact that he could be operating a base station, since the echo effect was designed to make mobiles sound like bases. Heck, I'd like to know how he got that effect on 2m. (After all, I have never heard any law against echo and roger-beep on radios). As for the roger-beep, this has a practical use on simplex, to substitute (partially) for saying 'over' at the end of transmissions to avoid confusion. Heck, even the state police here in VA use it on their rigs. Laying all CB jokes aside, echo does make any decently clear transmission sound MUCH better, and it can usually be turned off if need be. Now then, back to 60m. I agree that it is a good thing that we will have it come July, but we should be careful with it, and if we behave, the FCC might toss a few more frequencies out for us, and (gasp) maybe even a real band!!
73,
Kenny Lewis, Jr.
KG4PTZ
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by K0RGR on June 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think we'd all have liked to see a more 'typical' ham band here, but instead of looking at this as a glass half empty consider the possibilities it opens if it is successful. Perhaps FCC/NTIA can be persuaded to make other channels available in other bands that are NOT assigned to us by ITU. FCC/NTIA was under no obligation to give us anything on this band.
My latest HF rig has a 'band' for the 5 Mhz. Alaska emergency channel. It will only operate on that one spot frequency. It won't be hard for the manufacturers to add this on the added 5 channels, provided that the radios are operated within the limits of the rules, otherwise.
As for frequency control, those of us who were Novices back before dirt are well acquainted with something called 'crystals'. How hard will it be to build a simple crystal-controlled transceiver for the 5 Mhz. band? No VFO to tame, no PLL's to program, not even an RIT control - you should never need one if everyone is on frequency.
Meanwhile, enjoy the freedom of our other ham bands, and hope that someday we see a full International assignment for amateurs at 5 Mhz..
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by WN3VAW on June 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Cubbie fan???" "CUBBIE FAN??????"
George, you'd better read a little more carefully than that. And THAT is NOT something you say to someone who owns (buried somewhere in my parents house) a Jim Bouton autograph... long before Ball Four et al!
Recognizing & referencing the origin of the "tradition" is FAR from making me a "Cubbie fan."
One more crack like that & I'm confiscating your bootleg K2ORS recordings from WOR!
|
| |
|
Channel Aversion & Grousing
|
|
|
by WD4HXG on June 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well my guess on the reason for aversion to channels is this channel scheme is imposed by the regulatory powers rather then self imposed by agreement of the amatuer community. Also only the FM ops on 2 meters really use the channel scheme and even then the actual frequency is the metric used rather than "Channel 1" etc. Who called them channels anyway, they are merely multiple sub-bands! We still use VFOs. It is quite surprising, given the stability and bandwidth limitations, that the FCC allowed anything short of an "APPROVED" rockbound referenced PLL microcontroller operated fixed frequency rig.
Would it not be better at this point to turn our attention to getting info out on how to properly operate, properly modify equipment, and how to make the measurements needed to comply?
Chuck
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by KD7KGX on June 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I was dismayed when I initially read the FCC Order authorizing amateur use of the 60m band.
Then a few other hams clued me in to the following:
- current military/government users on this band run USB only
- NTIA and the FCC wanted these users to easily be able to communicate with hams if hams were causing interference OR if the channel needed to be used. This would be more difficult if the hams were running CW or one of the HF digital modes.
I can live with the limitations. I do hope that eventually one channel will be authorized for HF digital mode comms, and perhaps another channel for CW.
To the complainers... as others have pointed out we have something where previously we had nothing. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth... if you don't like the gift then don't use it.
- jgc
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by AA8RF on June 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Makes a lot of sense if we are secondary on these frequencies to line up with the primary users. The next thing we should push for is to be primary and unchannelized, but I'll take any form of adding spectrum I can get.
-Jim
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by K8DIT on June 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Both the military and other govt agencies have technology so advanced that the hf spectrum in its current use is no longer needed. By reserving it for Amateur radio use it becomes a kind of Federal Reservation like our National Forests and Parks.
If they sold it, licensed it or otherwise made it economically viable it would be harder to recoup if there was a need. So we will get the whole band in due course to do with as we have all the others, but initially the resources currently allocated to the 60 meter band have not phased their use of it sufficiently to allow general use. They cannot tell us this because of its classified nature. They are gifting us with a new band and all we can do is complain its not enough, soon enough. Enough already!
I do not work for the Federal Govt. either in real life or on TV. I have served in the military as a radioman when vacuum tubes were still in vogue. Anyone not convinced that the USA is the greatest manifestation that ever was, is or gonna be, may voluntarily suffer the negative propoganda herewith.
|
| |
|
60 Meters-A Model for the Future
|
|
|
by K8LQ on June 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gentleman,
All I can say is.. Thank you FCC and ARRL for looking out for the best interest of Ham Radio. Why...I don't know where we would be without this new forward looking vision toward the 22nd century! This indeed is a milestone that we all can be proud of.
This is an exciting day for Ham Radio and by God... I'm excited to be a part of it!
See the new model: www.eham.net/articles/5676
73 K8LQ
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by WL7CMG on June 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Yes, I too was a bit bummed when I heard of the very small bandwidth they gave us. But I had to tell myself....Hey something is better than nothing, it's a start. It's more than we had a year ago......hi. 73's
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on June 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While it is true that the US has
developed some whiz bnag technology, I think
it will be many moons before the US
does away with HF capability.
It makes a good back up and there are some
comms that HF just is better for.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on June 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Gimme a break! Why cry and whine about it? If you dont like the new allocation....simple...dont use it!!!
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M-Big Deal!
|
|
|
by WB8ROL on June 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hmmmm. You realized how few of the respondents have ever built a HF rig .... whew! I read the same responses and couldn't glean anything that told me that so I am NOT sure what you mean and why it is relevant anyway. It's been years since I built one also and I still don't have a problem with channels as opposed to NOTHING ...
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by NT4I on June 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Keep it!
It looks like it will be more trouble than what's it's worth.
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by W4UDX on June 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Wow, I can't believe there are defenders of the over-driven, echo mic with "roger beep" out there. Now I am really bummed out. Yep, I guess there's nothing like a distorted audio that sound like it's coming through a 50 foot drain pipe with a NASA beep at the end. Sorry, but the truth is, those kind of signals sound aweful, not awesome. Getting away from such bad sounding signals and channelization was the whole reason I became a ham to begin with. If people use those CB-like channels, what's to stop the FCC from channelizing all the HF bands?
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by NE0P on June 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Now I have heard everything. The FCC gives us a new band, and some hams want to give it back. With attitudes like that, how soon do you think we will see another new band? If you don't like the setup for 60 meters, then don't use it. Saves you the effort of having to modify your rig.
I am excited about the new band. I will be on trying to be one of the first to get a 60 meter WAS, just have to modify the FT100D first to transmit there. Wonder when the first QRP 60 meter kit will come out.
Look on the bright side, it will be easy to find activity, as you know the 5 places they will be hanging out. Put 1 frequency in each memory, and turn the memory dial. Great for mobile operations. When will hamstick come out with a 60 meter version?
Look how simplex activity is channelized on 2 meters. people go to .52 or .55. Ever hear of someone running simplex on 146.51? Heck, better tell the FCC that we don't want 2 meters anymore, because it is channelized (giving back 2 meters in some areas would raise the average intelligence level of QSO greatly).
See you all on 60 meters. I am going to run it just to show my gratitude for the FCC for getting us a new band.
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by W9WHE on June 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD7EFQ writes:
"With the Greedy Corporations grabbing all the spectrum they can get for things like Broadband over powerlines, Point to Point communictions
etc".
By the way...who pays your sallary/provides your income....could it be a "greedy corporation"?
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by K2CAD on June 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
While I don't agree with the reasoning for the original post. I do think that this allocation is not what it would appear to be. Yes something is better than nothing but in this case the something is on the other end of a mine field. The allocation that has been given has too many restrictions to work in the amateur ranks. While there are many out there that can deal with the limitations there are a lot more that will not be able to operate within them. How many hams out there know how to limit there bandwidth. While I suspect that this allocation was given with the best intentions, I suspect that use of this band by hams not knowing enough about what they are doing will lead to the removal of ham operation in the band. While I do have the RF background to understand what they are asking for, I do not have the equipment to make sure that I am operating legally. So for me this will mean that I can not operate in this band. That is unless someone would like to send me a spectrum analyser. By the way the way I read the allocation it does not stop the use of Morse code. While CW is out, nothing says that you could not send intermittent 600 hz audio. Provided the edges of the audio are not too sharp or overmodulated, this should keep you within the bandwidth requirements.
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by N8IK on June 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Does "USB only" mean "voice only" or can we also use PSK31? A lot of QSOs could fit in 1 channel.
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by W9WHE on June 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What will happen when one of the "Ego-broadcasters" takes up residence on one of the 5 channels?
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by WN3VAW on June 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
All kidding aside ("Cubbie Fan"? Sheesh. Well, at least he didn't call me a Met's Fan...) I think a lot of people aren't "getting" it.
Is the 5 single frequencies (ie channels) a disappointment? Certainly... until the NTIA started getting involved (as they had to be, but I'm less than happy in how they did it) we all thought we would get some traditional spectrum to use in 60 meters.
We're not.
We all thought we'd be able to run multiple modes.
We won't.
We thought we'd be able to have some fun with propagation experiments and antenna design.
We can't... at least not the way we thought we could.
Is being limited to a specific voice mode (2.4 kHz USB) on these 5 frequencies frustrating? Certainly, but even though standard Amateur practice has been LSB below 10 MHz, the government and commercial world standardized on USB throughout (and that we can live with).
Why these five frequencies (ie channels)? Because the NTIA isn't using them much, if at all, right now, but this way they have them if they need them. Why USB and not other modes (and are you really going to play games with the FCC & NTIA by running, thru hoops, PSK or CW as some have suggested? Please...)? Because the NTIA et al can't easily monitor the other modes.
Why the power and antenna restrictions? Officially to avoid interference to the primary user(s)... the real reason, possibly, is to make the spectrum so unpalatable to us that we lightly use it, if at all. And THEN when we ask for more spectrum, some bureaucrat can say "well, you didn't use what we gave you the last time..."
THEREFORE: Don't fall into the trap. If You are truly uninterested in these frequencies, so be it. But to even suggest "throwing them back" is ridiculous, asinine, and most importantly, short-sighted.
Those who can access the spectrum and have interest in it should do so as soon as legally possible. Let's find out if the NTIA & other government users REALLY use the spectrum (and only by using it ourselves will we KNOW.). Let's show them that even with 50 watts ERP, we can effectively use these frequencies. In short, let's beat them at their own procedural game... and THEN build up the data to legitimately ask for more of the spectrum, once the red herring of "National Security Needs" is no more.
73, ron wn3vaw
|
| |
|
60m is SSB voice only...
|
|
|
by KD7KGX on June 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Re the idea of sending CW via a 600 Hz tone while operating in USB... it isn't legal.
The FCC's order calls for a very specific type of emission -- J3E -- that eliminates any type of data communications and requires that only voice be used.
Even though it is possible to send CW and other digital modes (such as PSK31) and stay within the bandwidth requirement, these modes are disallowed due to the J3E spec.
The reason for this is if the channel needs to be utilized by a primary service (military/government), they want to be able to pick up a microphone and tell other users to clear the channel... and they want us to understand them. Also, if a user is straying out of the assigned channel and causing interference to another channel, they want to know who it is, and then be able to talk to them, without having to change their standard operating procedures (USB voice).
In summary, 2K8J3E requires no more than a 2.8k bandwidth while using USB voice. Please, don't screw this up for amateur radio by trying to transmit on a mode that is prohibited.
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by KC9OD on June 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I expect a lot fewer casual hams but most of the races/ares ops will make the effort to be able to operate on these 5 channels.
The power limits are a means of allowing reuse geographically,something that OUGHT to be done better on 75 meters. Instead of every group insisting on "their" net frquency (channel?) signals needing to be 40 over S9 accomplished by the use of full-power linears, what if each local/regional net used JUST the power needed to have good communication at S7 ?
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by N4KZ on June 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sorry, KE2IV, but I don't agree with you. What might be "appropriate" at Yankee Stadium in the name of entertainment -- which is what professional sports is -- is not appropriate here. If the amateur service followed your suggestion, how many other domestic-only bands do you think the government would be willing to allocate us in the future. Try zero.
73, Dave, N4KZ
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by K1MKF on June 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
60m was asked for for emcomm. We got 5 channels, SSB only. That's perfect for emcomm. Just like the single Alaskan emcomm channel. Now, the problem, as I see it is, many HAMs won't put up the antenna or modify the rig fot occasional use of a overcrowded band. Then when the emergency hits far less HAM stations will be 60m capable. The reason HAM radio works for emcomm is because there are so many HAMs setting up stations for ragchewing, contests, DX, etc. When there is an emergency many of those prime stations are on the air.
And for those of you who don't want to use 60m as it has been granted, don't. That is what the poster has suggested and it's a fine idea.
MarkF
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by KZ1M on June 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
First thing that comes to mind is something about looking a gift horse in the mouth...
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by WB4OFT on June 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gotta start somewhere I guess. Way back when 30 meters first became available, there was a gap near the middle of the band where operation was prohibitied.
Eventually we got the whole band. Five "channels" today, maybe a small band segment soon.
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by GM4PLM on June 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Guys Guys Guys!!!!! Slow down! Some heavy comments from people who are putting both feet in their mouths before engaging brain!
we have had the 5 MHz allocation in the UK for sometime and there is a simple reason why its channelised! Its a military freq allocation! Plain simple! And the military don't want you wandering all over the band messing up their links! Take it from someone who was a comms officer in the military! There are lots of channels around that allocation across the world - not all US based so think further afield too. You may not hear the transmitter outputs from whatever link is in use, maybe ground bases, aeronautical or ship borne, but you could have a receiver input around the band somewhere too.
one of you said 'Both the military and other govt agencies have technology so advanced that the hf spectrum in its current use is no longer needed. By reserving it for Amateur radio use it becomes a kind of Federal Reservation like our National Forests and Parks.' .... Well actually your military relies very heavily on short range HF equipment just as most world mil forces do! So thats rather a very short sighted view! And there is plenty of specialised HF equipment that relies heavily on short range links in this range. It is bad planning to rely on satcoms for every single service and I can promise you your mil is the same as many others - you don't!
Think of it as a gift - you have a chance to operate on a new allocation and learn some new techniques. You guys seem mad on homeland defence now - learn about NVIS propagation (go look it up!) mobile whips on 4x4 and short range HF radio, loops and wire antennas. All v v useful.
Above all treat it as a gift - you could have ended up with nothing.
I have had some great fun building whips and loops and operating with my FT817 - if you're into big amps and contesting then guess it wont be for you - but if your into low power and trying something different with some experimentation then you will enjoy!
just think.... you may have ended up with nothing at all! A good UK saying 'never look a gift horse in the mouth' A good moral!
regards
Simon GM4PLM
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by N8ZUX on June 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gee I just passed my General Class License just this past Saturday, I've read all the hub bub of 60 Meter and 5 Channels. OK I think I'll wait to see what happens anyway, I thinks its July 3 when the new rule goes into effect If I am right, but I will not be there anyway for now myself, I just Bought a HTX-10 10 Meter Rig for the Car & Tuned it up. but I think I'll wait and see how the radio manufacturers will come out with a New radio with 60 Meter capability, maybe the Dealers will hold a clearence sale and maybe throw in a deal.
10 Meters anyone ??
Mark Holman
N8ZUX/AG
until my license is back from the FCC or posted officially @ the web site.
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by AA8RF on June 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Simon,
That saying is part of our heritage in the US from our forefathers in the UK. It is still in common usage over here, though we sometimes forget.
Thanks for reminding us.
Best Regards,
-Jim
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on June 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Maybe they want to see if hams can cut the mustard, when forced to work with mil sec like operating and rig performance.
It is ironic in the early days, people would just build their own stations. The FCC was formed, and ham radio was made into a service with strick parameters.
Strict by those days. Spark gap transmitters and the like.
I see it as a double edged sword opportunity.
On one hand the forces to be will see how hams can thrive on the very strick parameters. One the other hand, a few nut jobs may make all hams look bad, when presented with a new operating priviledge.
Maybe those stupid enough to do what they do on other bands, will be caught.
I am sure we will be watched. Watched by agencies,press, and who knows what else.
Lets hope we can put our best hand out.
The channnelisation will make it very easy for agencies and SWLers a like to see what we do with these new parameters.
I would think most hams would want to see it go well.
IT unfortunitly might be a thing of the future.
If the powers to be see we can do it with less power, frequency,bandwidth, and better spectual purity......
They might sell off some spectrum if we do perform too.
well!
We are being tested....for what I do not know!
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by GM4PLM on June 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
most modern ham equipmemt will do 5 Mhz with little or no modification. Most is simply clipping or moving links/diodes - check out www.mods.dk for info. I use an FT847 with a link removed, 80M FS Carolina windom, and a little FC707 ATU. All work very well on 5 MHz so dont get clamed up about the coverage of ham equipment. try it first! So who went and looked up what NVIS stands for?
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by AF4KK on June 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Okay, five channels on 5 mHz. Would you rather have ZERO channels on 5 mHz? I'm no expert (by any terms) but I know enough to come in out of the rain. If we HAMs can show that we can use 60 meters without making idiots of ourselves, we can aim higher in the future. As for now, we can only benefit from another HF allocation!
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by KE0SM on June 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>Re the idea of sending CW via a 600 Hz tone while operating in USB... it isn't legal.
Even though it is possible to send CW and other digital modes (such as PSK31) and stay within the bandwidth requirement, these modes are disallowed due to the J3E spec.
The FCC's order calls for a very specific type of emission -- J3E -- that eliminates any type of data communications and requires that only voice be used. <<
This goes to the issue of people not interested in "radio" being hams.
Every ham should know that injecting a pure audio tone into an SSB transmitter is spectrally equivalent to CW. Every ham should be familiar enough with the defined emission types to understand what they are allowed to do. This is because the ARE allowed to do it.
A CBer cannot legally build or modify his own radio. A ham can. Do you new hams realize this?
Ham radio is the ONLY service where you are LEGALLY allowed to tear apart a TV, string together the resulting parts, and TRANSMIT with the results!
YOU are responsible for understanding what you are doing and ensuring the resultant signal meets FCC requirements. You cannot do this without technical knowlege. Think of the POWER this gives you!
ALL other services must prove in advance to the FCC that the equipment is correct and get a type acceptance certificate.
Therein lies the difference in the Amateur Radio Service.
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by W9WHE on June 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Why all the fuss? After the various "netters" stake their "squatter" claims to one or more of the 5 channels, there will be no room for hamming!
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by G4FSU on June 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey guys, give it a try before knocking it so badly. We've had exactly the same in the UK for nearly a year now - 5 spot frequencies. It works fine. It's a good, interesting allocation. There's nothing new about using spot frequencies on the amateur bands anyway. Do none of you have the QRP / IOTA / beacon / regular net et. al. frequencies programmed into your rigs? If you spot something interesting on the DX cluster, do you 'tune up or down' to it, or punch it in straight in on the keys or keyboard? How many QSOs on any HF band do you hear these days that aren't on an exact 1kHz frequency increment? Some, I'll admit, but not many.
And, if you don't like it, there's still 9 real 'bands' to try which is, let me see now, the same as you had a month ago.
See you on 5403.5kHz on 4th July - that reminds me, when are going to pay us back for all that tea?!
73 Ian G4FSU / KE6KQW
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by W8MIS on June 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Today I think anything we get is better than the loss of freqs. As I have seen there maybe more space to use in the 60Meter band for us in time to come.
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by WB4DX on June 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ever try to have a qso on the weekend when there are nothing but contesters operating every 1 khz apart?
Well, there you have it. We can't even govern ourselves
so that everyone can enjoy the bands, so the FCC is stepping in to tell us how we should be governed so all may enjoy ham radio.
I think it's great and a long time overdue.
|
| |
|
RE: 5MHz Are You Ready? YES!
|
|
|
by K1OU on June 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Wow, the flies are really starting to gather around this horse.
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by K8NQC on June 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Please correct my callsign on the prior post. It is K8NQC and not K9NQC. Sri, Bill
|
| |
|
RE: 5MHz Are You Ready? YES!
|
|
|
by W4CNG on June 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There are not any flies or anything else near this "60 Meter Channelized Allocation" but mostly BS and mis informed/biased posts. There are lots of radio's out there that will meet specifications to use the band, and even more that will not. You have to be on the Right side of the issue, measured and noted. This is a specification issue from the owners of the band (NTIA) not FCC, and you have to play by their rules and specifications. Stay in-line and you are good to go, otherwise you can be in trouble. There is enough information out on the various Ham Web sites, Yahoo, ect. that you can determine if you will be in-line or out-of-line on 60 meters.
Good Luck
Steve W4CNG (On Frequency and Zero Beat)
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by VE7BGP on June 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Like 11 Meters many years ago the new proposed 60 meter band is not a Ham Band. After WW II we were allowed to use 11 meters till it was made a CB band.You guys in USA will be able to use 60 meters. Hams if they do so properly and follow regulations carefully. I understand it is a shared band with Military being primary user. You should be glad these days to get any allotment of more frequencies. You guys are getting more than we will be getting in Canada. There is no word or rumour of Canadians being able to use even 5 channels on 60 meters. We can only enjoy listening to these bands when they open on July 3rd. It looks like this band will be a great band there will be finally a band with a level playing field for all that use 60 meters the 50 watt ERP limit will make it a fun band. I hope it is used properly and very little policing is needed on that band. You guys will be out of that band fast if it is abused. I am looking forward to us Canadians being able to work 60 also. I am sure Industry Canada and our RAC will be watching how 60 is used when it opens on July 3rd. Use it wisely so we can do so in Canada also.
73 Gerry
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by NW7N on June 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KE2IV> NO WAY -- FCC -- IF WE CANNOT HAVE A "BAND" KE2IV> WE DON'T WANT DISCRETE "CHANNELS"!!!
KE2IV>
KE2IV> Channels are for TV and CB - NOT HAM RADIO!!!
What are repeater pairs? What are bandplans? They're voluntary 'channelization' of radio spectrum to keep us all sane.
Besides, the last time someone gave me something useful for free, I didn't complain. With the HF spectrum being so clogged up, I'd definitely take what I can get.
73 - Phil
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by KD5HIY on June 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey all i can say is, Give it a try and see how it works. Prove to the FCC that it can be done and that might possibly open a couple of more bands to work. When it comes available, try it or forget it, easy as that. If you don't want to modify your radio, Don't.
Chris
KD5HIY
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by KD7KGX on June 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Re paying for all of that tea... I think we paid you back by forcing Cornwallis to surrender in 1783!
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by K2UX on June 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, when everybody's done bitchin' and philosophizing (I'll BET I didn't spell THAT right!)look for me on 5 megs on July 3rd.
73
Joe - K2UX New Jersey
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by WB3FTQ on June 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
well, it's a new band regardless of the "restrictions". Don't intend to modify my transceiver at this point, especially since i am not sure of the audio bandwidth of the input amplifier but i will monitor and see how much activity there is. should be interesting.
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on June 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I will be there on the 3erd. Give it a try. If I do not like it, I will not return. I do intend to listen first for a while. I am not the type that has to be in the first bunch.
It will be interesting what the first QSO's will be like. See what Hams will be able to do with the reduced power, bandwidth,and stability standards.
See ya on the 3erd
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by NN6EE on June 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well as I see it for us this new band will be a "On your Honor band" in that we as Hams as being trusted to use a max. of 50w. ERP!!! Does anybody think that ALL users will adhere to that? I personally doubt it!!! As humans we have a tendency to fudge on everything, so operations on those (5) discrete channels will be NO different than saying working on 2m 146.52, everybody will be stepping over everybody else!!!
It's going to be a royal mess, guys will be jamming each other, calling each other names probably or worse like making inane threats! You guys should know what will happen here in the USA, and I know behavior-wise on the Radio that Euros are'nt any better either as I'm sure everybody has heard them on the higher HF bands when getting into a DX pileups!!!
73 es I hope it goes better then I think it will!
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by K8NQC on June 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't see my original post so I will repeat.
Suggest that we call the five channels S-I-X-T-Y .Then we old goats can remember them.
Suggestion #2 is that we limit transmissions on channel "S" to 58 seconds followed by a two second delay to permit interuption by others using normal interupt words such as "Break" (for emergencies only), "Querrie", "Recheck", "Comment", "Callsign". If longer exchange is needed, we may move to another channel. Emergency traffic is an exception.
Suggestion #3 is a limit (10 Minutes?) on the use of other channels. The number of channels is too limited for "ownership" by a given station or group. If another station does not pick up a channel, it would again be available.
Suggestion #4 If 50 watts ERP has DX opportunity, channel "Y" needs to enable that since it is shared with the U.K.
I was a ham before 11 meters went to CB, so others may have better experience with channelized operation. I toss my thoughts out to get us thinking about process before July 3. 73, Bill
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by KE2IV on June 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K1MKF on June 10, 2003 said: "60m was asked for for emcomm. We got 5 channels, SSB only. That's perfect for emcomm. Just like the single Alaskan emcomm channel."
Sir, my question is: When did we ever have a generally authorized ham allocation that is intended for ecomm only?
Isn't that why we always had MARS and the Alaska channel etc. for?
Think about it.....
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by K1MKF on June 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't know when or even if but that is what the ARRL asked or.
I thought MARS was for the support of the military not emcomm. And one channel for Alaska is not the same as 5 channels for all of the US.
I did think about it before my first post. I'm not sure what your getting at.
We got what the ARRL asked for. Not what everyone wanted. Use it or don't it's personal choice.
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by W9IND on June 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have to say I’m reading this debate with a bit of bemusement. When I first became a ham as a 15-year-old in 1971, “channels” were very much a part of the game -– at least for Novices. Yep, I’m referring to the fact that we could operate only via crystal controlled transmitters. I never knew any different until the FCC dropped the restriction when I was about two years into it.
My point(s)? 1. I wanted to be a ham so badly that I was willing to accept whatever terms I was given in order to join the fraternity. 2. You don’t miss what you never had. 3. I had a great time as a Novice, even if I couldn’t whirl a VFO around the bands. And I probably never had any more than six to eight crystals.
Putting it all in context, the FCC’s 60-meter rules really don’t strike me as something unprecedented. (Just ask anybody who was a “WN” in the early 1970s). So come on, let’s have some fun exploring the propagation characteristics of the new 5 MHz band ... something I’ve always tended to associate with WWV. Let’s make the most of our opportunity and dispel any possibility of non-ham interests saying, “You see what happens when you give hams new frequencies? All you get is bickering, abuse of the rules and interference to other services.” Above all, let’s treat ANY allocation of new frequencies the way elderly people treat each successive birthday — as the saying goes, “It beats the alternative.”
73 to all ... see you on 60.
Brian, W9IND
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by W8KX on June 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've had experience with frequencies in the 5MHz range in both Marine and Government services. I think they add little in propagation potential that isn't present on 40 and 75 meters.
I would have preferred if the efforts expended on obtaining these had been used in trying to expand existing bands at 40, 20 and 17 meters.
W8KX
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by N6KZB on June 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I suppose if they hung you with a new rope, you would gripe.
Read the history and why we have what are allocated at 5 Mhz.
Don't use weak arguments or other radio service history to back the viewpoint.
Be glad we have been given a chance to expand and in time, I am sure we will be given a larger hunk.
(If we play by the rules).
It should be fun to operate with reduced power, limited antenna, and have to be courteous to operate on limited frequencies.
Its called ham radio.
Thank you.
|
| |
|
Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by KB0QVN on July 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Seems to me that those "Five channels" should be handy for emcomm. Here in Iowa we use a requency on 75 Meters for a state wide reporting net for severe weather to coodinate with the local two meter nets. Or rather I should say, we try. If we can all learn to use these channels for what they seem useful for when there is an emergency, and use them responsably when there isn't, who knows, some one may decide that it might be a good thing if we had some channels in a area of the spectrum with different propagation charactoristics, and still have the same limitations, not on "traditional" ham bands. I have been listing on the bands long enough to remember when SSB was the exception, and a lot of discussions were on homebrewing...and did anyone think of the possiblity that someone may want a way to talk to a group like hams during an emergency? Lots of ways to look at this...
|
| |
|
RE: Five Channels on 60M?
|
|
|
by W6WAT on August 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Please!!!! There is no such thing as 73's!
73 means "Best Regards". Best regards is already plural.
Too many hams perpetuate this horrible habit on the air, but to write it is even worse.
|
| |
|
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:
|
