Allocation Changes to 160 Meter Band

[WU2D]

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!

[k4kyv]

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

Rulemaking proposal ET-Docket 12-338 may be viewed in its entirety at  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  or downloaded in PDF form at 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/  

For detailed instructions on how to file comments using ECFS, go to  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

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

[WA3VJB]

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

[KL7OF]

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...  

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...

[k4kyv]

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"

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). 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.

Adopted: November 15, 2012                                                                         Released: November 19, 2012

Comment Date:  [60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register]
Reply Comment Date:  [90 days after date of publication in the Federal Register]

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, 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

[Tom W2ILA]

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
   

[k4kyv]

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?

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

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

[K5UJ]

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

[k4kyv]

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

Proceeding Number: 12-338
Name of Filer: Office of Engineering and Technology
Lawfirm Name: FCC
View Filing: WRC-07 Implementation Clear Image
Type of Filing: NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Exparte: No
Reg. Flex Analysis: No
Small Business Impact: No
Date Received: 11/15/2012
Date Posted: 12/27/2012
Date Comment Period: 02/25/2013
Date Reply Comment: 03/27/2013
DA/FCC Number: FCC-12-140
FCC Record: 27 FCC Rcd 14598
Federal Register: 77 FR 76250
Federal Register: 77 FR 76234
Address:
445 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20554

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

[k4kyv]

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.

January 17, 2012
Federal Communications Commission
OET 12-338
Amendment of Parts 1, 2, 15, 74, 78, 87, 90 and 97 of the Rules

To the Commission,

As a licensee in the Amateur Radio Service, I am writing in support of the Commission's proposal to
amend its rules to reallocate the segment of 1900 to 2000 kHz to the Amateur Radio Service on a
primary basis as detailed in paragraphs 20-24.

With solar flux values predicted to decline a few years from now as Cycle 24 transitions into Cycle 25,
the 160 meter band will likely provide much of the local (within 300 to 500 miles) communications for
radio amateurs particularly during the winter night time hours. With a very low solar flux as that
experienced from 2007 through 2009 and into 2010, the 80 meter allocation often was unable to
support local communications using Near Incident Vertical Skywave (NVIS) techniques after sundown
until just before sunrise during the winter months. When the F2 Critical Frequency drops below 4
MHz the 160 meter band can be used for NVIS techniques. Promoting the Amateur Radio Service to
primary status in the 1900 to 2000 kHz band as proposed will assist local emergency groups in
planning to use 160 meters for local emergency communications support. As it is expected that
radiolocation use of this band will continue to decline, action on this proposal now will give radio
amateurs time to incorporate 160 meters in their communications plans.

Amateur radio use of 160 meters continues to increase in my experience. Experimentation with
compromise antennas (low height above ground and/or limited space as well as mobile) is of high
interest among operators using 160 meters. Radio amateurs have devised a variety of antennas to meet
these challenges as well as enhance local or long distance communications. The reallocation of 1900 to
2000 kHz to the Amateur Radio service on a primary basis will encourage more operators to try the 160
meter band as modern transceivers include the band.

Respectfully submitted,
Nathan Bargmann, N0NB

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

[k4kyv]

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

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...

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