[AMRadio] I get the last laugh after all. (So do a few others!)


rbethman rbethman at comcast.net
Mon Jul 20 21:54:37 EDT 2015


Don,

I agree that there was much more detail.  Getting what we did get as 
Primary, is good.

I'll have to bone up and submit a more formal comment as you did. That 
was an excellent done comment!

I haven't done formal documents or papers since 2002.  I've gotten a bit 
rusty and perhaps lazy.

The fishing beacons are an issue that is disturbing to a degree.

Loran went the way of the DoDo bird!  I imagine that the fishing beacons 
will also over time.

I really should have looked further into the MW regions that are in the 
second half of the ruling.  Especially since I've taken an interest there.

I'd have to get some serious height with a dish and feed horn to really 
participate.

There always seems to be something else to try out.

Regards, Bob - N0DGN


On 7/20/2015 9:10 PM, Donald Chester wrote:

> Just to clarify, the new MF and LF segments proposal was included in the
> same rulemaking proceeding as the 160M proposal.  These were only a small
> part of an omnibus FCC proposal that included a long list of items, most of
> which were unrelated to amateur radio.
>
> The 160m decision doesn't affect our current use of the band in any way.  We
> already had access to the full 1800-2000 segment and all the known
> radiolocation beacons went silent years ago. Primary status across the
> entire band merely reduces the likelihood that some future radiolocation
> service might be assigned to frequencies in the band. With the added
> security that our frequency assignment on 160m will remain intact, more hams
> might consider putting up antennas and setting up stations to operate in the
> band.
>
> One unfortunate change the FCC included was to  make the renegade fishnet
> beacons operating in international waters inside the 160m band totally
> legal. For the most part, their interference to 160m amateur operation has
> been minimal, but I have heard complaints that they indeed do sometimes
> cause harmful interference to hams in coastal areas.  There is no reason why
> they couldn't simply be moved to the remaining radiolocation segment 1710 -
> 1800 kHz, between the expanded AM broadcast band and the ham band, since the
> beacons that once packed that segment have likewise all gone dark, and now
> no beacon signals, or signals of any kind for that matter, are normally
> heard anywhere in that segment of  frequencies.  The fishnet beacon
> transmitters are controlled by frequency synthesis, so their operating
> frequencies could easily be re-set and output tuning slightly tweaked,
> probably in just a few minutes.
>
>
> Don k4kyv
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net
> AMRadio mailing list
> Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/
> List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html
> List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
> To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with
> the word unsubscribe in the message body.
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to rbethman at comcast.net
>



More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 21 Nov 2017.