|[AMRadio] 1900-2000 Upgrade|
k4kyv at charter.net
Wed Apr 29 04:23:16 EDT 2015
FCC Proposes to Permit Amateur Access to 2200 and 630 Meters
From: Geoff <ars.w5omr at gmail.com>
> I mostly *yawn* over VLF activity, especially with a 5w IERP limit
Actually, with practical antennas most amateurs can erect, the efficiency is
so low that this still means several hundred watts DC input or even RF
output on 2200m. 630m is a little better, but still probably represents at
least 100 watts even with the best antennas most of us can put up.
> addition, the FCC has raised the secondary Amateur Service allocation at
> 1900 to 2000 kHz to primary, while providing for continued use by
> currently unlicensed commercial fishing vessels of radio buoys on the
> "open sea."
Although this won't likely have much immediate effect on our daily
operation on the band, it strengthens our hold on the top end since we in
the USA are now primary and nobody else can easily displace amateurs with
some new technology that could fall into the category of "radiolocation".
An unlikely threat? Recall the so-called "washing machine", the Canadian OTH
radar signal that almost completely wiped out 1900-1930 for several days
last winter, and which still occasionally appears on the frequency.
This is a clear example of how it is wise to pay close attention to FCC
issues, consider all possible consequences and submit comments. The 160m
proposal was only a small sub-section of what was a large, omnibus
rulemaking proceeding issued a couple of years ago, involving numerous other
services besides amateur radio, so the 160m issue might have gained little
attention. I attempted to drum up interest amongst AMers and other 160m
operators, but the response was disappointing at best. Posting information
on the Top Band Reflector drew only scant interest and generated only one or
two replies while everybody else was pre-occupied with what DX stations were
being heard and upcoming contests. Granted that CW, DX and contest
enthusiasts who largely inhabit the Reflector pretty much stay at the bottom
end of the band below 1840 kHz, but were we ever to lose all or part of
1900-2000 to some new form of radiolocation, many if not most of those who
presently populate the high end would have to move below 1900, making
1800-1900 more congested, which would indeed affect weak signal, DX and CW
Even more incredibly, my efforts were derided on another message board by
several AM operators! A read-only announcement of the FCC's proposal was so
poorly worded that some hams interpreted it to mean that the FCC was
"reallocating" 1900-2000 and taking it away from amateurs. When I attempted
to clarify the issue, one op responded this was of little interest to him
because he found 160m so boring that the QSOs on the band put him to sleep.
Another chimed in to add that amateur radio would be just as well off if the
FCC took away 160m altogether.
A total of only 34 hams submitted comments to the 160m proposal, however, it
appears that our efforts paid off. To see the pertinent section of the
FCC's R & O, go to
fLT5JS9B5bG5Q9wb1pWsphb4Lc!9955362!-1420975216?id=60001030136 (beware of a
line break that will probably disable the link; it might be best to manually
copy and paste the URL directly into your browser; make sure to include the
entire website address which may be split up onto two or more lines). Scroll
down to Paragraph 30 on Page 15, and continue through Paragraph 44 on page
>From footnotes in the R & O:
... amateur service licensees that submitted comments and/or
reply comments include... the following 34 parties: Robert L. Atkinson,
Nathan Bargmann (Bargmann), Lloyd Berg, Robert Bethman (Bethman), Todd
Carpenter (Carpenter), Donald B.
Chester (Chester), Roger Cooper (Cooper), Steve Courts (Courts), Danny
Douglas (Douglas), George Dubovsky,
Richard Duccini (Duccini), Brad Farrell (Farrell), Benjamin A. Governale
(Governale), James T. Hanlon, Michael
M. Harang (Harang), Hamilton Hicks, Robert G. Hoffman, Brian Holloway, John
R. Holmes, Patrick Jankowiak,
Richard W. Jensen, Jerry Klemm (Klemm), Michael R. Kincaid, James Michener,
Anthony Muttillo, Robert E.
Naumann, David C. Olean (Olean), Richard L. Pettit (Pettit), Glen Reid, Ken
Reid, Greg Schultz (Schultz), Peter G.
Smith, Owen Wormser (Wormser), and William C. Wright III. We note that
Wormser filed on behalf of "The 1865
Morning Group," which consists of "almost 400 Amateur Radio operators who
use 160 [meters] daily for regional,
nighttime long-haul, and emergency communications."
...97 These commenters also state that the 2 MHz range lends itself
particularly well to certain forms of technical
investigation and self-instruction in the radio art. For example, in the
realm of antennas, amateur experimentation
could lead to the development or improvement of efficient, physically low
profile medium-wave transmitting
antennas, anti-skywave transmitting antennas that provide local ground wave
coverage while generating minimal
interference at distant points, as well as effective noise cancelling and
weak-signal receiving antennas. See Chester
Comments at 5-6, Courts Comments at 2, Duccini Comments at 3, and Governale
Comments at 3-4.
... 103 See Chester Comments at 5, Courts Comments at 2, Duccini Comments
at 3, and Governale Comments at 3.
See also Olean Comments at 1. See also Peak Comments at 1 and Pettit
Comments at 1 (asserting that amateur
licensees should enjoy the long term security of primary status across the
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 24 Nov 2017.