The AM Forum

Some good news from the FCC.

The FCC is proposing to change (http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-seeks-to-assign-entire-amateur-portion-of-160-meter-band-to-primary-status-to-amateur-radio-serv) the Amateur Radio Service allocation to the 160 meter band (1800-2000 kHz), reallocating the 1900-2000 kHz segment to the Amateur Radio Service on a primary basis.

The FCC is proposing to amend the US Table of Allocations and remove the federal and non-federal Radiolocation Service allocations from the 1900-2000 kHz band and the raise the secondary Amateur Radio Service allocation to primary status because “there appear to be few (if any) Radiolocation Service stations operating in this band,” it said. “In addition, we note [from WARC-79] that ‘this [Radiolocation Service] allocation was made for reaccommodation purposes and not to provide additional spectrum for radiolocations needs,’ that the Commission has concluded its AM Expanded Band proceeding that would have prompted non-federal RLS licensees to relocate to the 1900-2000 kHz band and that this band was historically allocated to the Amateur Service on an exclusive basis.”

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1119/FCC-12-140A1.pdf

                                                    OR

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022061247

Save and open the PDF, then scroll down to page 11, paragraph 20.

That has a nice sound to it: "AM Expanded Band proceeding"

Late to the game Don. This was posted in Announcements at 12:53 PM, 11/21/12: http://amfone.net/Amforum/index.php?topic=32687.0 Actually, the 160 stuff is miniscule in respect to the other proposed items.

It's easy to say that, but you need to read a little history. You likely weren't actively involved in the proceeding in the 1980s when radiolocation interests were lobbying hard to have the FCC boot amateurs off 1900-2000 entirely and turn the whole segment over to radiolocation on an exclusive basis.  They claimed that 1800-1900 was sufficient for amateurs, and that amateur radio allocations that existed before WWII were irrelevant to the spectrum needs of the day. It was only because of a persistent letter-writing campaign by individual amateurs that resulted in some well thought-out comments to the FCC, along with lobbying efforts by ARRL, that we ended up retaining that little slice of spectrum at least on a secondary basis.

While we held on to access to the whole band, more and more radiolocation beacons immediately began to pop up in the top half, and for a while there was a real threat that they would gradually crowd us off those frequencies. I suspect the development of the GPS system and the eventual relaxation of deliberate muddling of the resolution for civilian users, is the only thing that saved the day for amateurs, as GPS quickly rendered 160m radiolocation obsolete.

Veterans of that battle will not see anything "minuscule" about this proposal. Besides, upgrading from our secondary status would make it a lot harder for radiolocation interests to decide, on whatever whim, to plop some new form of garbage in our band.

It will be interesting to see if any remaining radiolocation lobbyists will file comments in opposition to this proposed change.

Don,

I assume that by "radiolocation", you mean Loran, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I was surprised to see you mention dates like "1980s": I though Loran was dead and burried long before then. I'm pretty sure that the cumbersome special-purpose charts needed for Loran were gone, although they might have been obviated by computer-driven Loran receivers.

Please elaborate on the players and the timeline.

TIA.

73,

Bill, W1AC

I don't have much to offer except that I know off-hand that there were different kinds of LORAN depending on the frequencies.  While this has nothing to do with 160, I know the Kure Is. LORAN station did not deactivate until the early 1990s, but it operated down below the AM broadcast band.  So LORAN in some form was in operation later than the 1980s. 

You can read more here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN

It turns out (if the wikipedia entry is to be followed) the 160 m. LORAN was LORAN-A and it did indeed end in 1980.  But surprisingly, LORAN in other forms was in use up to 2010.  More important, there are attempts to revive it as a GPS backup system so for that reason I interpret the FCC protection of 160 as good news.  I've heard the GPS satellites are not getting replaced as much as necessary, so there may be moves to go back to LORAN or at least have it ready to go if needed.

rob

The differences are Loran A and C.  A started operation during WW2 and continued into the early 80s  on the 160 meter band however even though it was discontinued, the companies looked for ways to stay operational.  One thing that you still hear on the 160 meter band is drift nets.  I hear them here from time to time even today.

Loran A is long gone now and this is probably just a rule change to facilitate the change.  Lucky for us companies do not have a technology that utilizes the 160 meter band or they would be fighting this rule.  Loran C which operated in the 100 KC band by the Coast Guard for boats and waterways has now been decomissioned finally.  There were efforts in the late 80s to use it in aircraft, leading the the construction of the chain in the middle of the US.  The FCC was pretty protective of that part of the spectrum and since Loran C has been decomissioned you see the allocation in the 136 Kc part. 

Jerry Proc has a nice write up about Loran on his website.

GPS rapidly replaced it because of reliability and accuracy starting in the 80 for private and commercial aircraft and, similtanously on water craft followed by auto and hiking units. 

Buried in the PDF is a footnote that explains the difference between radiolocation and radionavigation.  LORAN was a radionavigation system.

Radiodetermination is defined as the determination of the position, velocity, and/or other characteristics of an
object, or the obtaining of information relating to these parameters, by means of the propagation properties of radio
waves.  There are two main fields within radiodetermination: 1) radionavigation, which is radiodetermination used
for the purposes of navigation, including obstruction warning; and 2) radiolocation, which is radiodetermination
used for purposes other than those of radionavigation.  The RLS is defined as a radiodetermination service for the
purpose of radiolocation.  The most common use of the RLS allocation is radar (which is a radiodetermination
system based on the comparison of reference signals with radio signals reflected, or retransmitted, from the position
to be determined).  47 C.F.R. § 2.1(c).

Translated to English, radionavigation is used to aid in determining the route a plane or ship will take to get from point A to point B.  Radiolocation is used to help spot the precise  location of point B as the destination.  Reportedly, one of the primary uses of 160m radiolocation was to pinpoint the locations of oil rigs in the gulf of Mexico.

GPS can serve both as radiolocation and radionavigation, using a small handheld unit that eliminates the expense  of erecting fixed transmitting stations, that include tall towers similar to the ones used for AM broadcasting, along with transmitters of considerable power.

The sounds of the radiolocation beacons changed over time.  Originally, they had a steady tone-modulated "drone" sound.  I believe that was what was known as a DECCA system.  Then they  changed to what sounded more like a data stream, similar to what one heard when a dial-up internet connection was first fired up.  At that time, for security reasons, the resolution of GPS was limited for civilian users, by partially encrypting the GPS signal.  It was  reported that the revised 160m radiolocation signals that sounded like digital data bursts were transmitting a continuously updated decryption key that restored full resolution to authorised GPS users.


LORAN A was phased out per WARC-79, although its use was already diminishing before then.  But it didn't completely disappear immediately. It took weeks to shut down the transmitters on 1800-1900, in about 1980, and then it still required a petition to the FCC by ARRL to fully restore amateur privileges in that segment.  1900-2000 remained off limits to amateurs for many more months, reportedly while awaiting the closing of a LORAN chain off the east coast of Canada.  During that time, the proposal to "reaccommodate" radiolocation stations displaced by the expanded broadcast band popped up, and it was doubtful whether or not we would ever get back the 1900-2000 segment.

One of the legacies of the phased-in bit-by-bit return of 1800-2000 is that there are no sub-bands on 160.  A few years ago a petition was submitted to establish phone and cw portions on the band, but the FCC wasn't interested.

We should be glad the FCC's WARC-79 proposals didn't go through verbatim as first planned.  They were interested in expanding the AM BC band to further accommodate "minority" broadcasting, and first proposed to extend it all the way to 1840 kc/s.  If that had gone through, along with the reaccommodation of radiolocation, we might have been left with only a tiny segment on 160, similar to what we had when LORAN was in the band.

Interestingly, it took about a decade before the AM BC band was finally extended to 1700 kc/s. By then the FCC had abandoned its quest for the expansion of "minority broadcasting" and switched policy, to justify the expanded band as a means of reducing congestion in the rest of the AM band.

My use of 160 has not been impacted by any of these other services in 20 or more years. This change doesn't seem like a very big deal to me.

Yes Don, I was around back then and yes, I was aware of the activities and the perceived lobbying. However, for the most part, the band back then was a vast wasteland, with the possible exception of the DX'ers and the occasional contest activities which made it fun. Losing 1900-2000 would not have made a big impact in the amateur world. Back then, the perception for 160 operating was that you needed a receiver, transmitter, and a rocking chair, and you would get on once a week to report that you were alive and still kicking. The band brought new meaning to sleep-induced coma.

Apart from those of us who suffer from fondness of AM broadcast, 160 meters seems to be the band that best separates hams with space for antennas from those that don't. 

The band's only real problem is high Summertime noise levels for the Southern latitudes.

And mobile operation is pretty tough.

Chris

You would be surprised what you can do on 160 with moderately low power and a mediocre antenna. I had pretty good luck on AM running 25 watts into a half wavelength wire that was barely 10 feet high, and this was during daylight too. Worked W3FJJ with that setup.

Well, I'd be more likely to say that radionavigation is used to determine how far off the route a plane or ship is while travelling ... but that's just me.  ;)

Anyway, it seems to be a difference with no difference, but maybe I'm being thick. If the signals are gone from 160, then I don't need to take up any more of your daylight.

Thanks for taking time to explain the technology. I appreciate it.

Bill, W1AC

With practically all the radiolocation beacons already gone, this proposed change would not have any practical effect on our day-to-day operations as they exist right now.  But it would solidify our status on the band.  Radiolocation interests would have to re-petition the FCC and go through the entire rulemaking procedure all over again in order to change the allocation back, before they could return beacons to our band with primary status, for whatever reason.  For example, the GPS system could undergo a major failure or deliberate sabotage.  Or the gov't could re-impose partial (or total) encryption on GPS to limit the resolution or block the service for "security" reasons in case of a major international or domestic event. Just look at the myriad of things that went down in response to "nine-eleven", including the FCC/NTIA reneging on their initial proposal to accord us a new 60m band and instead tossing us those crumbs in the form of the five highly restricted SSB "channels".

Notice I said "primary status".  As I read the NPRM, radiolocation beacons would still be able to share the band, but they would no longer have priority over amateurs for transmitting on a frequency.

And Pete, is/was the 160m band any more of a "vast wasteland" than the 3870-90 AM Ghetto Window, or 75m in general? Now you are beginning to sound a lot like Burt.

No! Back in the 70's and 80's, 160 was a vast wasteland of QSO dullness when you could find one. It was also, from my perspective , "rocking chair city".

A pot that is not stirred burns from the bottom up.... :o

Go KYV!

73DG

I don't want to veer far away from the topic but I think it is important to respond to these two comments.

I think it is a quasi-myth that vast tracts of land or even a sizable lot are needed to satisfactorily operate 160.  All that is needed at a minimum in my opinion is an inverted L with at least ~ 50 feet vertical and 70 feet horizontal.  The horizontal part can be bent around (so long as it doesn't bend back on itself) to squeeze it into a lot.  With a simple L network tuner and a lot of radials (that part is key) covering as much of the property as possible, you can have a signal that can be copied provided you run some power.  It is the band to run your most strapping maul on and of course a separate receive antenna is important since the tx antenna is not too great on receive.  The killer is more likely to be HOA or XYL restrictions; not property size.  

Low power and low antennas may be FB in the daytime close in, but I have learned at night any extremely low horizontal antenna (30 feet or lower especially) produces very deep fades on skywave.  I don't know why, but I have observed that repeatedly.  In fact, I have concluded any horizontal wire antenna is a no-show on 160 because hams just don't have the resources to erect a long span at a height that is wavelength equivalent to a hot performer on the high bands.  (But don't take down the low dipole for it is likely a great rx antenna.)  For this reason I always tell people to not even bother with dipoles etc. and skip straight to some kind of base fed vertical, usually a T or L or shunt fed tower over a ground system.  Okay  sorry for the digression, back to the FCC....

Rob

p.s.  Almost forgot:  Back in the 70s and earlier when I was not even licensed  :D we had a club called the "Chi-Burban Radio Mobiliers" (I think they are still around actually) in the south suburbs of Chicago and the point of the club was 160 m. AM mobile operation.  They used Gonset rigs, and AM broadcast rx converters and huge loading coils on the bumpers of their cars.  This was before FM repeaters on VHF.  It was really something, and they were my first ham radio listening experience when I got a 9 v. transistor AM receiver and used a golden screwdriver to move it up into the ham band.  I had no idea what I was doing and suddenly I was hearing these guys talking to each other.   

Except for when the guy with the KW rig would call CQ right on top of W2KTU and friends  ::)

A couple of nights ago I called CQ on 1885.  A 2-lander now located in PA came back to me.  There was a lot of fading on his signal; he was readable about 50% of the time on the upswing of the fades, but on the downswing he disappeared into the background noise.  He said he was running 100 watts to an extended double zepp, 18' high. I was running about 200 watts and he said I was "solid copy".  I replied that with all that real estate (room for a 160m extended double zepp), I would suggest that he raise the wire up higher, maybe to 50 ft. or more.  With that he went into a tirade; got his panties all in a twist because I was such a "know-it-all", that I dared to "tell him how to make his antennas". I'm sure he heard me pretty well on his low-noise, low to the ground horizontal wire, but it just didn't cut it for transmitting.  My indoor loop often makes an excellent  receiving antenna but it would suck big time as a transmitting antenna, whereas my quarter wave vertical straps on transmit but is often useless for receiving. After his rant I ended the conversation with the note that the proof is in the pudding; my 200 watts were being copied 100% at his QTH, while his 100w were readable only about half the time at mine. I don't think a 3 dB difference in transmitting power alone would make that much difference.



Back in the 50s and 60s 160m mobile was popular in a lot of the larger mid-west cities like Chicago and Cleveland.  Much of the activity took place during commute time.  They didn't  have VHF FM and repeaters then, but relatively low-power 160m AM mobile served about the same function.  According to the old ARRL Mobile Handbook, 160m is actually superior to 75 for local mobile work.  Propagation is predominately ground wave, and ground wave attenuation rapidly increases with frequency.  For a given length of mobile whip antenna, the increase in groundwave attenuation on 75 compared to 160 is substantially greater than the reduction in field strength due to the lower efficiency of the same antenna on 160m, compared to 75.

For those who might think hearing Loran on 160m again is nostalgic:http://amfone.net/index.php?ind=media&op=file_view&iden=124 (http://amfone.net/index.php?ind=media&op=file_view&iden=124)
I recorded this on reel to reel back when I lived in Hartford using a neat little crystal rx for am broadcast that was tweaked a bit to tune 160. Forget the brand, Millen maybe, I wish I still had it. The antenna was a 200 foot dipole up about 50 ft.

Doesn't generally work well with a crank up tower especially if you typically crank it up and down (storms, high winds, etc.)

Radiolocation is alive and well on 160 and getting worse. The offenders are fishing net beacons which send a CW ID on a timer and can be anywhere from about 1750 and up. The ones in the CW DX window are most annoying as 5W to a short whip in salt water travels a long way.

They are basically unlicensed using import gear and the boats are US and foreign. Frequencies are programable.

Carl

How far out in the ocean do you think they are? I can hear them at my camp near Lake Placid NY loud & clear. I used to hear fishing boats on 75 near 3.875 on LSB cursing away as they talked about their bad luck at fishing.

Terry, all the fishing boats I've heard on 75/80 were on Upper Side Band...
 
That's the default output selection on the mariners commercial HF radios.
I hear them quite often down around 3510/15...

Not sure but I don't think the commercial  radios even have LSB or AM
switchable any more on them in the last 25 or 30 years... However there are
"on the cheap" commercial fishermen that buy Amateur gear, have it opened
up frequency wise (in the case of the older stuff that was restricted to the
ham bands, most all the newer gear comes opened) so you could hear them
on LSB. 

These  guys usually fish international waters so don't worry much about
US regs however they are subject to USCG regs, etc, but seem to be
immune...   

Back in time, 160m was the 2 mtr FM of its day. I ran 160 AM with a Icom 760 with K1VYU during the day and we had a great QSO for at least 40 miles, ended only by time constraints

Now that the bands are getting quiet again for the winter, you can start to hear the fishnet beacons bleeping away. I even hear them on my one tube regen. Set your receiver to CW and tune slowly up from 1720 kHz listening for weak CW carriers. Normally if the carrier is from a beacon, it will send out an ID every 30 seconds or so. They only repeat a few times before going back to sleep. The boat needs to find his net so he activates the beacon with his ships transmitter and then uses RDF to find the beacon. These nets are unattended and may be 50 miles away or more from the ship. It is no wonder the ocean is geting fished out!

FCC PROPOSES TO RESTORE 1900-2000 KHZ IN THE 160M BAND TO PRIMARY STATUS

In ET Docket 12-338 the FCC proposes to raise the secondary amateur service allocation in the 1900-2000 kHz band segment to primary status, providing amateur radio operators nearly exclusive use of the band. At present, amateur use of the top half of the 160m band is on a secondary basis, shared with Radiolocation beacons that have priority over amateurs on any shared frequency.

With the availability of the GPS satellite system for civilian use, radiolocation beacons have virtually disappeared from the 1700-1800 kHz and 1900-2000 kHz bands so that we already have de facto "nearly exclusive" use of the band, but our official "secondary" status on 1900-2000 remains, leaving us vulnerable to the whims of Radiolocation interests in the event that they, for whatever reason, might decide to once again operate beacons in our band.

The FCC is now accepting comments from interested parties. I would encourage everyone who has any interest in 160m to file well thought-out comments of your own. Comments already submitted may be viewed at  http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=12-338 (http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=12-338)

Rulemaking proposal ET-Docket 12-338 may be viewed in its entirety at  http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017137896 (http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017137896)  For specifics on the 160m proposal, scroll down to page 11, beginning at paragraph 20.

ET-Docket 12-338 may be viewed also at  http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022061247 (http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022061247)  or downloaded in PDF form at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1119/FCC-12-140A1.pdf (http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1119/FCC-12-140A1.pdf)

For information on the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System go to  http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ (http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/)  

For detailed instructions on how to file comments using ECFS, go to  http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/userManual/ecfsmanual.jsp (http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/userManual/ecfsmanual.jsp)

The first submitted comment addressing 160m reallocation may be viewed at  http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017141101 (http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017141101)

The International Telecommunications Union frequency allocation chart may be viewed at  http://www.kloth.net/radio/freq-itu.php (http://www.kloth.net/radio/freq-itu.php)

Thanks for the links, Don.

Any idea about the continued function of the California user(s) ?


We request
comment on the status of Federal RLS stations that are authorized to operate in the San Diego area

I welded on Bristol Bay gill net boats for many years and those guys use any and all kinds of radios on any freq that they like whenever they like..... I have never seen the Coast guard care anything about the radios  on these boats except for the required VHF marine band rig and the ELT equipment...Scramblers were/are in use for secret fishing transmissions.....The good news is that they can't usually transmit too far because of really marginal/minimal antennas and too many antennas too close together....I once counted 22 antennas on a 32 ft boat..Bristol bay fishermen don't use radio bouys as they have to drift with the nets...

No idea, Paul.  But I see no reason why they would need to be grandfathered inside our band if the proposed amateur radio status upgrade is approved.  The spectrum from the top end of the expanded AM broadcast band all the way up to our 160m band, 1705-1800 kc/s, is also currently allocated to Radiolocation (see the ITU frequency allocation chart (http://www.kloth.net/radio/freq-itu.php)). Any remaining radiolocation beacons in 1900-2000 could be "reaccommodated" to that segment, which is now virtually devoid of signals of any description. Just a few years ago that segment was packed solid with beacons, but most if not all have gone dark, just like the ones that used to be in the top half of our band. Perhaps this would be a point worth noting in submitted comments.


Comments from the public have already started coming in, as noted in the previously posted links. As of yesterday, I could find nothing published in the Federal Register (https://www.federalregister.gov/), and the search feature yields no result, so it appears that the clock has not yet started ticking towards the closing dates of the comment periods.  The FCC has already accepted comments prior to the date of publication, and I see nothing that says one must wait until the publication date before submitting.

The Federal Register index of publication for the FCC, which lists active links to each article, can be viewed at
https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/federal-communications-commission

Into the early 1990's there was a "hyperfix" (mini LORAN) transmitter operating 4 miles from my QTH somewhere between 1900-2000KHz.  The small transmitter  used a 90' tower with radial groundplane.  Two other transmitters occupied points on islands offshore and provided a range for the Navy operating outside Newport harbor.
http://www.ominous-valve.com/hyperfix.html

The noise from that transmitter made 1885 operation almost (really) impossible.
The transmitter was removed, the antenna remains and is used by another enterprising ham on occasion.  It is good to know it will not be put back into operation.

the longline buoys operate about 5 watts and longlining is usually done a few hundred miles offshore.  Check out the KTUS-1
http://www.blueoceantackle.com/longline_reels_and_equipment.htm

Tom
   

It won't be put back into operation for sure, if the FCC follows through and passes the NPRM.  If it fails to pass, who knows?


Lindgren Pittman Inc. is an example of the kind of opposition we may be up against, who may file comments in opposition to the NPRM, since they likely won't want to recall and re-program units they have already sold. This makes it all the more imperative that the amateur community come up with some good well thought out responses to the FCC.

What I wonder is why they didn't program the units sold in the US to operate in 1705-1800 in the first place, since that segment appears to be completely vacant, rather than risk being overpowered by hams who might not even hear them, in a shared band.  

A second comment has come in supporting hams in the NPRM.  Note that this one was simple and to the point, no gobbledygook legalese. He should have included his full name and address, not just a call sign, though.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022074440

This has now been published in the Federal Register, ref. FCC 12-140 and is now in the deadlined comment period:

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/12/27/2012-31052/wrc-07-implementation-order

Rob

The FCC website now lists the comment deadline as 25 Feb 2013, and reply comment deadline as 27 March 2013. Published in Federal Register on 27 December 2012


http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017137896

At long last, another comment regarding the 160m proposal just appeared on the FCC website.  According to his look-up on QRZ.com the writer does not appear to be an AMer, but he makes a couple of good points in support of the proposal. Maybe following the announcement in Feb. QST, more comments will finally begin to trickle in. The deadline for filing comments is 25 Feb 2013.


http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017158596

Sure enough, one of these outfits submitted the only comment in opposition, and they didn't even get it in by the formal deadline.

The company rep completely misinterpreted the FCC proposal, which does not even address the issue of unlicensed fishing buoy beacons; the FCC proposal addresses the issue of FCC-LICENSED stations.  From my best understanding, those buoys are like Part 15 devices - accorded no protection whatever by national regulatory agencies like the FCC, and besides, they operate on the high seas largely by non-US registered vessels, so they are outside the FCC's jurisdiction in any case.  They operate at about 5 watts, and most of the time are so piss weak that they are not a problem, especially on 1900-2000 where most of the activity is domestic ragchewing; the weak-signal DX'ers operate down at the low end of the band.  I sometimes hear the weak cw beacons on the low end of the band too, but some of the east coast guys say they can be a problem there where they are much stronger.  Hopefully the FCC will see right away that this guy doesn't know what he is talking about and won't let that one complaint persuade them to water down or dissuade them from going through with the licensing changes as proposed.

Here is a link to that one submission. The NOAA Fisheries URL he included gave me a 404 Error message.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017166561

The following was submitted as a reply comment to the above, to pretty effectively refute the claims, IMO.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017166592