Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What to do with the Advanced Class  (Read 26377 times)
KD6KWZ
Member

Posts: 276




Ignore
« on: June 19, 2010, 08:59:22 PM »

On 80, 20, & 15 meters, phone is allowed for Advanced & Extra Class hams. The Advanced Class is going away.

Why not assign those bandwidths to General Class? Go ahead & keep the current spaces for Extras only as an incentive to upgrade our licenses. 20 meters jams up pretty bad in the General Phone spectrum.

While I'm at it:

1. Why not open all of 60 meters between 5330 kHz & 5403 KHz to SSB, RTTY, & CW? No AM, SSTV, MCW, with the same preface for 30 meters of "Avoid interference to fixed services outside the US". I think most of would listen for other services before talking, and using narrow bandwidth modes would be fine. And, make it an even 50 watts limit, without the ERP calculating.

2. Move the phone lower limits on 40 & 20 meters down 25kHz. There's a good amount of SSB traffic in those sections, but all we can do is listen, and not talk in the US.

73, Mike
Logged
WX7G
Member

Posts: 5920




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2010, 10:00:01 PM »

I had not heard that the Advanced class was being phased out. As far as I know although the Advanced class is no longer issued it is renewed as an Advanced along with 275 kHz of additional HF spectrum. The number of Extra class is growing fast and they need the spectum that you propose to give to Generals. It is, as you say, an incentive to upgrade.

The ARRL is working on getting a CW segment on 60 meters. The 50 watt ERP limit is to limit amateur interference to other services in the band. It is a shared band. To allow a 50 watt transmitter without regard to the antenna invites interference (think 3 element Yagi-Uda at 150').

On 40 meters the CW subband is becoming more and more crowded. Digital modes are pushing down as low as 7035 kHz leaving only 10 kHz for Generals to work CW. So, there isn't 25 kHz to give to SSB. That 25 kHz that can support 50 CW and digital stations would support only 5 SSB stations.

Upgrade to Extra and you will have all the spectrum you need.










« Last Edit: June 19, 2010, 10:16:09 PM by DAVE CUTHBERT » Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3842




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2010, 10:02:42 PM »

On 80, 20, & 15 meters, phone is allowed for Advanced & Extra Class hams. The Advanced Class is going away.

The Advanced class has been closed to new entries for over 10 years. It now stands at about 60% of what it was back in 2000.

At the rate of attrition we've seen in the past 10 years, it will be a long time before the last Advanced is gone.

However, the important point is that it doesn't cost FCC much, if anything, to just keep the Advanced (and Novice) license classes on the books. Their numbers will continue to drop until there aren't any more.


Why not assign those bandwidths to General Class? Go ahead & keep the current spaces for Extras only as an incentive to upgrade our licenses. 20 meters jams up pretty bad in the General Phone spectrum.


If someone wants more room, they can just get an Extra. All it takes for a General to upgrade to Extra is passing a 50 question exam whose questions and answers are available  free-for-the-download.

The youngest Extra I know of was 7 years old when the licenses was earned.

There have been all kinds of proposals to give various license classes free upgrades. In every case FCC has, in effect, said 'just get an Extra; it's not that hard'.

Reducing the difference in privileges between classes reduces the incentive to upgrade.


While I'm at it:

1. Why not open all of 60 meters between 5330 kHz & 5403 KHz to SSB, RTTY, & CW? No AM, SSTV, MCW, with the same preface for 30 meters of "Avoid interference to fixed services outside the US". I think most of would listen for other services before talking, and using narrow bandwidth modes would be fine. And, make it an even 50 watts limit, without the ERP calculating.

The problem is that the primary users don't want us using modes they don't.


2. Move the phone lower limits on 40 & 20 meters down 25kHz. There's a good amount of SSB traffic in those sections, but all we can do is listen, and not talk in the US.


Not a good idea. Here's why:

What you hear down there are DX stations who want to avoid QRM from US hams. So they go just below the US 'phone band limit.

If you move the US 'phone band lower edge down 25 kHz, the DX will simply move down too, and the situation for 'phone ops will not really change. However the CW and data ops will be squeezed even more than they are now.

73 de Jim, N2EY
« Last Edit: June 21, 2010, 03:38:21 AM by James Miccolis » Logged
KD6KWZ
Member

Posts: 276




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: June 19, 2010, 10:12:14 PM »

Quote
Upgrade to Extra and you will have all the spectrum you need.

The addition spectrum has me interested in upgrading.
Logged
W7ETA
Member

Posts: 2528




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2010, 11:40:09 PM »

"Why not assign those bandwidths to General Class?"

FCC went thru their rational for not doing that--it would be demoting Advanced class ops.  Advanced ops weren't upgraded to extra cause they can upgrade to Extra.

You might enjoy learning more about your hobby as you study to upgrade.

73
Bob
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3842




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: June 20, 2010, 07:42:41 AM »

1. Why not open all of 60 meters between 5330 kHz & 5403 KHz to SSB, RTTY, & CW? No AM, SSTV, MCW, with the same preface for 30 meters of "Avoid interference to fixed services outside the US". I think most of would listen for other services before talking, and using narrow bandwidth modes would be fine. And, make it an even 50 watts limit, without the ERP calculating.

Here's a more detailed history of 60 meters:

In the 1990s the idea was promoted that many historic users of HF, such as governments, didn't really need so many HF allocations any more. One idea that came out of this was to have a new amateur band in the 5 MHz region. This new band would be about 250 kHz wide. IIRC, the proposed limits were 5.15 to 5.4 or something like that.

NTIA, the agency that regulates and coordinates government radio was approached, and accepted the idea. FCC agreed. It seemed a done deal. It got so far that there were surveys conducted as to how the new band should be used (subbands-by-mode? subbands by license class? etc.).

Then came September 11, 2001.

One of the first longer-term decisions made after that terrible day was to put a hold on releasing any government assets that could be of any possible use against terrorism. This included HF radio allocations, because while they are not used much by US governement any more, they were backups and could be essential in an uncertain future.

So the band at 60 meters was reduced to a token 5 channels, with mode and power restrictions.

What could ARRL or anybody else do? Insist that the original proposal be followed, regardless of events? That wouldn't have gone over as being very patriotic, and its chances for success were nil.

The 50 watt ERP restriction actually works in favor of hams because it lets us make up for antenna system inefficiency by increased power. Not everyone can or will put up a high-efficiency 60 meter antenna for 5 channels of USB.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
Logged
W3LK
Member

Posts: 5644




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: June 21, 2010, 06:55:38 PM »


1. Why not open all of 60 meters between 5330 kHz & 5403 KHz to SSB, RTTY, & CW? No AM, SSTV, MCW, with the same preface for 30 meters of "Avoid interference to fixed services outside the US". I think most of would listen for other services before talking, and using narrow bandwidth modes would be fine. And, make it an even 50 watts limit, without the ERP calculating.

Because the FCC doesn't "own" the 5-mHz frequencies, NTIA does. NTIA controls all the frequencies allocated to federal agencies and dictate the modes of transmission and power for each one. Since federal agencies  are the PRIMARY users of the so-called 60m allocations, hams have to comply with the same rules as the federal agencies - USB only and the 50w ERP is to prevent interference to those primary users.

As for the bolded statement, that is a totally invalid assumption. Smiley
Logged

A smoking section in a restaurant makes as much sense as a peeing section in a swimming pool.
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3842




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: June 24, 2010, 09:48:20 AM »

Because the FCC doesn't "own" the 5-mHz frequencies, NTIA does. NTIA controls all the frequencies allocated to federal agencies and dictate the modes of transmission and power for each one.

Very good point!

Also, FCC doesn't "own" all the frequencies they control, in the sense that they won't just violate the ITU-R treaty because Americans want them to.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
KI4SDY
Member

Posts: 1452




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: June 24, 2010, 06:30:54 PM »

I believe the FCC figured nature would take its course and end the Advanced Class on its own over a period of time, without any official action or any public outcry. Smart move, really.Wink
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3842




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: June 25, 2010, 10:09:29 AM »

I believe the FCC figured nature would take its course and end the Advanced Class on its own over a period of time, without any official action or any public outcry.

Or any rules changes other than closing off the license class to new issues. Novice got the same treatment.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes for those license classes to disappear. Novice is down to about 16,000 current unexpired licenses from 49,000+ 10 years ago; Advanced is about 60,000 of the ~100,000 in 2000.

It may be decades before the last one of either is gone.

Historic Trivia: At the end of 1952, FCC closed off the Advanced to new issues, same as in April 2000. For the next 15 years there were no new Advanceds, and the numbers naturally declined as other license classes increased dramatically.

But then in 1967 the Advanced class was reopened to new issues and the numbers began to grow again.

You never know; something like that could happen again.

73 de Jim, N2EY

 
Logged
K6LHA
Member

Posts: 349




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: June 25, 2010, 10:46:11 PM »

Here's a more detailed history of 60 meters:

In the 1990s the idea was promoted that many historic users of HF, such as governments, didn't really need so many HF allocations any more. One idea that came out of this was to have a new amateur band in the 5 MHz region. This new band would be about 250 kHz wide. IIRC, the proposed limits were 5.15 to 5.4 or something like that.

That's a mistaken premise.  First, the FCC and NTIA, in conjunction with the ITU-R, had already parcelled out HF allocations (as well as everything from 9 KHz to 300 GHz) for various radio services in the USA.  Both the FCC and NTIA (and its predecessor) had established a constant review of EM spectrum usage.  Appropriate documents are available on-line from the USA government, including DoD, on-line.

According to the 1995 five-volume printed and bound edition of Title 47 C.F.R. the following allocations of the 5 MHz to 6 MHz EM spectrum for the USA were (in KHz):

4995 - 5005 :  Standard Frequency and Time
5005 - 5060 :  International Fixed Public, broadcasting, maritime, private land mobile
5060 - 5250 :  International Fixed Public, maritime, private land mobile, *****
5250 - 5450 :  International Fixed Public, maritime, private land mobile
5450 - 5730 :  Aviation mobile
5730 - 5950 :  Fixed, Mobile (except aeronautical)
5950 - 6200 :  Broadcasting

***** = addition of 5 channels for SSB voice to amateurs by 2008, one channel frequency amended
        in 2010 by FCC MR&O.

There hasn't been any significant change in that allocation in over 15 years.

The premise of the private proposal for a "60m band" was (politically) stated to be for amateur emergency communications in tropical/equatorial areas; i.e., band being "more open" in that geographical belt, thus facilitating better emergency communications in times of hurricanes and other natural disasters.  Between 5060 and 5950 there are a number of fixed-frequency radio service uses for their communications, including aviation over ocean waters and other places not served by ICAO-approved VHF land stations.  [ICAO = International Civil Aviation Organization]

There was no distinct "movement to better utilize HF" other than by amateurs.  Better spectrum utilization by all other radio services was for VHF, UHF, and Microwave spectra.
 
Quote
NTIA, the agency that regulates and coordinates government radio was approached, and accepted the idea. FCC agreed. It seemed a done deal. It got so far that there were surveys conducted as to how the new band should be used (subbands-by-mode? subbands by license class? etc.).
I saw no such "surveys" of the "amateur community" done by NITA.  Please elucidate such survey documents for the benefit of all.  NTIA does not rule on USA civil radio since that is a chartered area for the FCC. 

Quote
Then came September 11, 2001.
One of the first longer-term decisions made after that terrible day was to put a hold on releasing any government assets that could be of any possible use against terrorism. This included HF radio allocations, because while they are not used much by US governement any more, they were backups and could be essential in an uncertain future.

Very dramatic attempt to rewrite history that never quite made it to reality.  Note that, except for the token area for amateur "60m" channels, the allocations table was UNCHANGED for over 6 years before the "9-11" attack.  Further, there was NO practical stoppage of FCC activity in regards to HF other than handling the first submitted Petitions for Reconsideration of "Restructuring" of USA amateur radio, not to mention a lot of other regulatory matters.  The USA government, especially the DoD, had already cut over to the DSN for major worldwide communications.  DSN is primarily worldwide through DoD commsats but can link via telephone leased lines, through the civilian telephone infrastructure (!), through civilian commsats, through transcontinental microwave radio relay, through ships and land stations of the USA military.  For the military, their (last-ditch) "backup" was HF radio for long Ionospheric-bounce relay prior to 1980.  The military and civilian use of HF in USA territory is through SHARES and their HF radio equipment now uses ALE (Automatic Link Establishment) which can scan an approved frequency list to find a clear or better frequency for communications.

Quote
What could ARRL or anybody else do? Insist that the original proposal be followed, regardless of events? That wouldn't have gone over as being very patriotic, and its chances for success were nil.
The ARRL and "anybody elese" could have at least looked through the ITU-R table of frequency allocations, the NTIA "Red Book" (essentially the same thing), or the big table in Part 2, Title 47 C.F.R. (it was available through the link at the FCC website).  The OFFICIAL frequency users were right in there all along, using it, had been there for several decades.  Then they could have TRIED to update themselves on the radio services that used 5 to 6 MHz and tried to monitor USE by some receiving station closer to the tropical areas than New England.  Radio amateurs hadn't been allocated anything in the 5 to 6 MHz region since well before WWII began.  There was no question of "patriotism" by the petitioners...but it was clearly evident that the PETITIONERS didn't have their act together in the first place.  If I could see it then, why couldn't "experienced communication-specialist" attorneys see it?

There is NO "band" at 60m for USA amateurs and it isn't primary.  That portion of the HF spectrum has been allocated for users (other than amateur) for over a quarter century.  It was not on the agenda of the ITU-R conferences before the "9-11" attack.  There have been several hurricanes and natural disasters in the tropics since the "60m" channels were alloted to amateurs...yet there isn't much in the news (including, oddly enough, the ARRL Letter) about hams "saving lives" through those 5 little narrow channels at "60m."  <shrug>

K6LHA
Logged
WX7G
Member

Posts: 5920




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: June 26, 2010, 09:45:25 PM »

NITA and the FCC do coordinate on spectrum allocation and have done so since 1940: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2003/moujan31.htm

The NITA, FCC, and ARRL are currently working together on the amateur 5 MHz allocation: http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-proposes-additions-changes-to-amateur-5-mhz-allocation
« Last Edit: June 26, 2010, 09:55:47 PM by DAVE CUTHBERT » Logged
K6LHA
Member

Posts: 349




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2010, 10:47:18 AM »

NITA and the FCC do coordinate on spectrum allocation and have done so since 1940: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2003/moujan31.htm

The NITA, FCC, and ARRL are currently working together on the amateur 5 MHz allocation: http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-proposes-additions-changes-to-amateur-5-mhz-allocation

"Working together" is the PR doubletalk from the ARRL again.

This was just Changing the carrier frequency of ONE CHANNEL.

It is old news even if only a month-plus old.

Did the NTIA exist in 1940?  I think you'd better check USA government organization, senior.

Logged
WD5IJD
Member

Posts: 5




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2010, 04:48:05 PM »

I took a test to be advanced don't take it away from me.  I think it is worth just as much as an extra now without the 20 wpm code test.  I would not feel right being an extra with out that 20 wpm code.  If not for that I would have got that extra on that day years ago.

I am back to ham radio after a 20 year layoff and my code skills are improving and when I can solid copy at 20 wpm I will take the extra.  There is no reason on this earth with all the study material out there that one cannot upgrade with a little study.  Have at it.    Grin WD5IJD
Logged
N3DF
Member

Posts: 251




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: June 28, 2010, 11:13:34 AM »

No, NTIA did not exist in 1940.  However, the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Board(IRAC), which is now chaired by NTIA and is the oldest interdepartmental body in the Federal government, was formed in the 1920s.  It administers the Federal government's use of the radio spectrum.
Logged

Neil N3DF
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!