The AM Forum
March 29, 2024, 10:50:11 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Links Staff List Gallery Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: De-Reg Proposed Rule Making  (Read 37558 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Glenn K2KL
Guest
« Reply #25 on: June 22, 2005, 03:28:20 PM »

I too would like to believe we could agree to at least keep the first 25kc for CW ops, however I'm not as optimistic as I use to be  :?  and I don't think turning the ham bands into a free-for-all is the answer either.

It's a mystery as to why the gentleman's agreement works on 160 meters. I have a bad feeling that if the lower 25kc or 50kc of 80 or 40 meters were legal for phone operation, that some slopbucket candystore net would set up shop there..... or worse, some clown who's name escapes me, would start broadcasting there.  :evil:

Judging from past proposals and FCC actions, when all is said and done, I have a strong feeling things will remain exactly as they are right now



Quote from: Art
Don't worry . . 'left my .44 in the filing cabinet . . .

you make a good point and the end product may well provide for just such a slot for CW in the regs.
I would like to think we could agree as amateur ops to keep that bottom 25Kc for CW . . .  'a gentlemans agreement . . .

-ap
Logged
W3SLK
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2651

Just another member member.


« Reply #26 on: June 22, 2005, 06:59:40 PM »

Glen said:
Quote
It's a mystery as to why the gentleman's agreement works on 160 meters

I had thought  about this too. The only reason I could come up with is that making an antenna needs alot of land (to have any efficiency). Most people don't go thru all the trouble to put up a large cumbersome array just to jam others. Please note that I said MOST.
Logged

Mike(y)/W3SLK
Invisible airwaves crackle with life, bright antenna bristle with the energy. Emotional feedback, on timeless wavelength, bearing a gift beyond lights, almost free.... Spirit of Radio/Rush
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #27 on: June 22, 2005, 09:13:33 PM »

You are correct Don, and that is what I meant. When we have a chance to comment, we need to be heard - for, against, don't  care - but speak up. As Buddly noted, this is one good way to show the FCC there are other 'voices' besides the ARRL.



Quote from: k4kyv
Quote from: Steve - WB3HUZ
If this proposal makes it to the NPRM stage, individual responses/comments will make or break it. Don't sit back and let others do it - ARRL or otherwise.


I doubt it will make it to the NPRM stage on its own.  But it likely will be assigned an RM- number, which will open the petition to public comment.  
Logged
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #28 on: June 22, 2005, 09:34:34 PM »

From a previous post I made on the subject.

Quote
I don't think it's as much about more gentlemen on 160 as it is about the band being less populated, in general, and the propagation keeping QSOs in different geographic parts of the country from butting heads as much.





Quote from: W3SLK
Glen said:
Quote
It's a mystery as to why the gentleman's agreement works on 160 meters

I had thought  about this too. The only reason I could come up with is that making an antenna needs alot of land (to have any efficiency). Most people don't go thru all the trouble to put up a large cumbersome array just to jam others. Please note that I said MOST.
Logged
Jack-KA3ZLR-
Guest
« Reply #29 on: June 23, 2005, 05:55:39 AM »

Welp, just like the insurance debacle, Why do I Need an all consuming out of control bureauacy to be the only representative of my interests. Why can't I go straight to the caregiver with my money and my interests and make a deal Directly, think of what it would do for industry to deal directly with the caregiver.

The premise is the same be good for the hospital, be good for me and mine and be less hasstle all the way around.

If the Though today is what "I" have to do, then "I" should have and assume all control, and voice my matters directly.
Logged
WD8BIL
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4409


« Reply #30 on: June 23, 2005, 11:36:59 AM »

Quote
Having a SMALL segment of the band (is 25khz too much to ask for crying out loud?) dedicated for CW use makes the most sense.


OK.... as long as we're reserving spectrum for our little pet modes;

I want 50 Khz on every band to operate AM with 6 KW so I can run 1500 watts PEP on USB like the slopbuckets do !! (is 50khz too much to ask for crying out loud?)

Now everybody put your request in and let Riley sort it all out !!

No.... the "here's your frequencies and this is your power limit" approach is the only equitable structure. It gives all modes equal access. If someone chooses to use qrp cw that's HIS choice. But why shud I put up with overcrowded conditions nite after nite while the vast majority of the cw spectrum goes un-used ?
Logged
Glenn K2KL
Guest
« Reply #31 on: June 23, 2005, 11:48:51 AM »

That's why I suggested REDUCING the cw band and INCREASING the phone band.... There's your answer to overcrowding.. not your knee-jerk reation of take it away completely!


Quote from: WD8BIL
Quote
Having a SMALL segment of the band (is 25khz too much to ask for crying out loud?) dedicated for CW use makes the most sense.


OK.... as long as we're reserving spectrum for our little pet modes;

I want 50 Khz on every band to operate AM with 6 KW so I can run 1500 watts PEP on USB like the slopbuckets do !! (is 50khz too much to ask for crying out loud?)

Now everybody put your request in and let Riley sort it all out !!

No.... the "here's your frequencies and this is your power limit" approach is the only equitable structure. It gives all modes equal access. If someone chooses to use qrp cw that's HIS choice. But why shud I put up with overcrowded conditions nite after nite while the vast majority of the cw spectrum goes un-used ?
Logged
WD8BIL
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4409


« Reply #32 on: June 23, 2005, 12:17:10 PM »

Oh... I understand now Glen.

Expand the phone portions to qrm the novices, rtty ops, PSK ops, SS ops, DX split ops, packet ops ect ect .....
but leave my cw alone !!!

There's an Equitable solution !
Logged
Glenn K2KL
Guest
« Reply #33 on: June 23, 2005, 12:38:32 PM »

Re-read my comment from previous post...

"3.50mhz - 3.525 = CW only, 3.525 - 3.550 = digital modes... everything else "The phone band"

YES! that is a very equatible solution! Since Phone ops consume the most band space and since phone operation is the most popular mode, without question the phone band should be expanded and the CW band reduced... NOT forced out...

Fortunately, there are very many active CW operators thet feel the same way.





Quote from: WD8BIL
Oh... I understand now Glen.

Expand the phone portions to qrm the novices, rtty ops, PSK ops, SS ops, DX split ops, packet ops ect ect .....
but leave my cw alone !!!

There's an Equitable solution !
Logged
Glenn K2KL
Guest
« Reply #34 on: June 23, 2005, 01:20:26 PM »

Very well put Mark!

Quote from: K3MSB
Consider the stuff that goes on nightly on 75M;  if all band segments were removed, and the animals were left out of their cages,  do you believe the animals would turn into courteous respectful gentlemen, or stay animals with a larger hunting area?
Logged
Art
Guest
« Reply #35 on: June 23, 2005, 01:39:31 PM »

As always, good observations. There will be huge resistance from those who believe their ox is being gored or insufficiently fed. . . there always is. Such views seldom include the betterment of the service.

As for the absence of regulation making gentleops of those who are not . . . well, if the regulation which exists doesn't create those changes why would you expect this proposal to perform such a miracle? Do you think the ARRL proposal/band plan/rumored change/someday thing will? Well, if more regulation won't change the behavior, and less regulation won't change the behavior, at least let's provide more room to tune off . . .

'a magic potion or regulation that will solve personal interference  problems and/or provide exclusive use of the amateur band for any particular use?. . . . . news flash, this proposal ain't it . . . it allows for more efficient utilization of the resources we have. . . and probably  reduce some operational problems due to overcrowding.
 

-ap
Logged
WD8BIL
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4409


« Reply #36 on: June 23, 2005, 03:00:01 PM »

On a psycho level... people living in overcrowded cities tend to be more irritable and violent.

Are there violent people inthe country? Sure !
But, in general, people in the wide open spaces tend to be more .......
neighborly !!!

Quote
To understand human aggression from a biological perspective- scientists study human behavior from its primate origins. They say that aggression has evolved as a behavioral norm in humans because it facilitates survival and adaptation. For example, inter-male fighting may be an adaptive form of aggression because it assures the most desirable spacing of animals within a given territory.


Nature of Human Behavior
Logged
Jack-KA3ZLR-
Guest
« Reply #37 on: June 24, 2005, 07:58:39 PM »

Good Evening Everyone,


I always like to know how, point being that 99% of the board agrees to this what's being discussed here, that it is said that we're Wrong. That just amazes me. I've seen first hand here some of the Stations that are in the posession of most of you men and then i look on QRZd or Eham or just any old place and weight the difference, and I look at the Some of the license holders of today and the actions of some Extras, and I look at the actions of the powers that be, Some where along the line i keep coming up with head scratching and when i start to do that well they're in trouble, they just haven't convinced me.
Logged
Art
Guest
« Reply #38 on: June 24, 2005, 08:07:13 PM »

ya know something gang. . . if you look deep into yourself . . remove the self interest and think of the good of the service . . . you will know this is the right thing to do . . . lot's of people are fearful they will be strapped on their frequency by someone using an alien mode . . .  well one ops poison is anothers Fosters . . .  use a little nail polish remover on the super glue you have on the VFO and go where you can do what you want to do.
The proposal doesn't change ops or human nature. It provides more ways to go and more efficiently uses the precious resources we have . . .
That is a good thing . . . you know it . . . I know it . . . we all know it. . . .

-ap
Logged
Art
Guest
« Reply #39 on: June 25, 2005, 02:42:25 PM »

Thanks Phil. I have been barraged with the opinion that US amateur radio operators are inferior and cannot behave themselves unless they have the sword hanging over their heads. . . .
I am reassured to know the opposite opinion also exists.

-ap
Logged
W3SLK
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2651

Just another member member.


« Reply #40 on: June 25, 2005, 05:03:22 PM »

Well FWIW I feel this is the most progressive and sensible recommendation to come from ANY organization or person. Cripes! The CW ops have a whole band to theirselves on 30M. Along with the opportunity to operate on all amatuer bands. Forget the cultural notion about animals being holed up together in tight quarters. This just makes sense! Period!! And as previously stated, its not perfect, but its a start!
Logged

Mike(y)/W3SLK
Invisible airwaves crackle with life, bright antenna bristle with the energy. Emotional feedback, on timeless wavelength, bearing a gift beyond lights, almost free.... Spirit of Radio/Rush
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8154


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #41 on: June 25, 2005, 08:41:33 PM »

Quote from: W3SLK
Pete is just upset that this didn't come from the stodgy stuff shirts up in Newington but rather from a group of amateurs who are tired of asking for a giraffe and winding up with a zebra!
Good job!


I'm actually quite happy a proposal like this didn't come from them. The essence of the proposal, "here's your band edges; play like nice people". The terms CB, "wild west", and badlands all come to mind. A proposal with 600,000 (or whatever the number is today) amateurs trying to do self-management of their operating and operating habits on the HF bands is quite a stretch. To believe the FCC, with their current manpower, and OO's(this was good) could manage the probable chaos is even a further stretch.

If the FCC does move to request comments on this proposal, and if the ARRL does file their proposal, and if a third proposal also makes it to the FCC, amateurs will definitely be able to make clear distinctions between them.

Art, I'll assume you're reading this;
error in your(CTT) proposal under 97.301 chart for amateur Extra, ITU Region 1:
40 m 7.0-7.
7.what??
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
Art
Guest
« Reply #42 on: June 25, 2005, 09:20:34 PM »

Thanks Pete. Good eyes. . . my info from the FCC is they want the concept clear and the precise changes to part 97 will be generated during the actual rule making process. 'might mean a work day in DC for me . . don't have that i dotted yet.

As far as being different from the ARRL proposal/band plan/whatever it is today . .  to be sure it is . .  we won't be able to really compare them until the ARRL puts out something coherent. Considering the June issue of QST that may be some time.

Your opinion is definitely shared by many. However, treating US amateurs like they are inconsiderate twits, unable to coexist with their fellow amateur ops, and in need of direction to keep them from degenerating into chaos misses the mark by a long shot. . . . and does not merit US ops having regs different from the rest of the world.

Would you simply plop down in the middle of the beacon section of the band? I don't think so. I wouldn't. Most people wouldn't. There will always be those who do though but I don't think the majority should be burdened with regulation based on the lowest common denominator when the folks who populate the lowlands will ignore the regs anyway.
The result of this kind of regulation is the law abiding citizens like you have to follow the rules based on the misbehavior of a few. . . . I have said it before, that just isn't right.

-ap
Logged
W3SLK
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2651

Just another member member.


« Reply #43 on: June 26, 2005, 10:22:46 AM »

Art and the rest of the CTT,
I just took some time out to review the responses of your proposal on QRZ.com. I thank you for taking the time out to explain to some of these people the reasons for its genesis. Its otherwise obvious that there will always be some scofflaws who you will never please because their sole intent is to create hate and discontent. Maintaining your composure in answering replies is a tough row to hoe. I guess there is some personal browbeating going on behind the scenes. Your choice not to respond to them in a direct manner demonstrates a hell of a lot or restraint (more than I would grant them). Moreover, it shows their cowardice not to maintain the discussion in a public forum.
I just want to thank you for taking on an issue that may seem petty to the rest of the world and getting little or no reward for your efforts. I'll chime in when I can but I'm pretty lame when it comes to legal dissertations.
Logged

Mike(y)/W3SLK
Invisible airwaves crackle with life, bright antenna bristle with the energy. Emotional feedback, on timeless wavelength, bearing a gift beyond lights, almost free.... Spirit of Radio/Rush
Art
Guest
« Reply #44 on: June 26, 2005, 03:08:04 PM »

Thanks Mike. I appreciate the help.
I figure we might just get some good input even from the perennial negatrons. You would be surprised how hard they will work and how much research they will do to criticise. I have noted they are multi media; posting, emails, PMs . . . if that kind of energy could just be turned to the light side of the force . . . If I can convert even one detractor it is a 100% return on the effort.

-ap
Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8154


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #45 on: June 26, 2005, 03:41:19 PM »

Quote from: K2PG
Quote from: Pete, WA2CWA
The essence of the proposal, "here's your band edges; play like nice people". The terms CB, "wild west", and badlands all come to mind. A proposal with 600,000 (or whatever the number is today) amateurs trying to do self-management of their operating and operating habits on the HF bands is quite a stretch.


Pete, you really should go down to the Office of Vital Statistics in Wilkes-Barre (assuming you were born in Luzerne County) and change your first name to Tom...as in "Uncle Tom". For your contempt toward your fellow Americans is truly despicable!


I was born in Lackawanna County.

Quote
Japan has at least three times as many licensed amateur radio operators as we have here in the United States. Although many of those Japanese operators do not have their own stations (Japanese law licenses amateur stations and operators separately), one would expect tremendous chaos on our bands whenever a trans-Pacific opening occurs.


Different country, different rules.

Quote
Oh yes, I forgot...we Americans are grossly inferior to amateurs in other countries, we forget to pick up the toilet seat (or to put it back down), we wear dirty underwear, our feet stink, we sit on the front porch in our underwear while swilling our Pabst Blue Ribbon, and we pee in our flower beds...so we and only we deserve to be confined to our own little ghetto in the amateur spectrum. You seem to feel that we Americans are the ni---rs that should be herded into the back of the bus! Well, baby, sorry to disappoint you, but these times, they are a changing! And, if enough of us can shake this self-hating, "Americans are inferior to the rest of the world" attitude, we can effect change without your buddies, the stodgy stuffed shirts in Newington, Connecticut!


Yes, I'm familiar with your area.

I have no idea where you get this notion ""Americans are inferior to the rest of the world" attitude". Maybe you need some counciling. And, yes, amateur radio's future will likely change over the next 10 to 20 years as new modes come on the scene and older amateurs die off.

Quote
I have been operating on 160 meters for years, using AM, CW, and SSB. The only time there ever seems to be a conflict is during those contests sponsored by the League and CQ magazine. But, after the contest, everything gets back to normal and everybody coexists as before.


I'm happy for you that you like 160, but 160 does not respresent the operating habits across all HF bands.

Quote
Perhaps you should consider emigrating to a country whose people would meet your high and mighty standards. A beautiful tropical island about 90 miles south of Key West comes to mind...

DEREGULATION NOW![/i]


Maybe I'll consider that when you migrate to a more liberal country.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8154


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #46 on: June 26, 2005, 05:11:18 PM »

Quote from: K2PG
I don't have that notion. But, obviously, you do, as you are the one who thinks that American amateurs should be crammed into their own little spectrum ghetto because they are uneducated boors who cannot behave, while amateurs in the rest of the world enjoy the freedom that we should have had years ago!


Ghettos generally develop by the people who live there.

Quote
And, frankly, your attitude, both toward your fellow American hams and toward the hard-working, down-to-earth people of the PA Coal Region, sucks more than a Shop-Vac. You are no better than the rest of us. I dare you to come back here and show your attitude toward Americans and the people of this area at one of the local bars!

AMERICA F1RST! DEREGULATION NOW!


You make a great stand-up comedian. You should work the bars in Pittston.

Your responses, and the responses on other boards, reinforces my opinion that self-management of our HF bands would be difficult, if not impossible, to implement.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #47 on: June 26, 2005, 09:41:27 PM »

Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of : )
) Petition for
Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission’s Rules ) Rulemaking
Governing the Amateur Radio Service )
Petition For Spectrum Deregulation in the Amateur Service

INTRODUCTION

The petitioners propose to discontinue mandatory segregation of emission modes and the activities using these modes in the Amateur Service, and substitute a voluntary system of coordination to achieve greater, and more efficient, utilization of frequency allocations within the amateur radio service bands. Spectrum utilization would be improved because amateur radio operators would dynamically select from among the entire range of frequencies available in a given band.

An important component of this change is consideration of the existing system of license classes and the desire to maintain motivation for basic licensees to improve their knowledge and skill. We propose retaining sub-bands that today recognize higher license class levels of achievement. In accord with the basic premise of this proposal, such sub bands by license class would also be permitted all modes of operation.

DISCUSSION

The proposed change addresses an imbalance in our ability to use amateur allocations in the high-frequency "shortwave" bands. Amateur activity in these bands favors voice communications (appendix A), and there is a chronic need to allow greater leeway in selecting a place to operate within our frequency range. Such flexibility is currently constrained by FCC regulations defining sub band frequency allocation by mode of operation.

The federally regulated zones do not match today's typical level of use by enthusiasts of Morse code as compared to phone operation. Digital operation is currently anomalous, neither CW nor phone. Phone use, on many bands, often exhibits signs of overcrowding. Our proposal, to discontinue the system of sub band definition by mode in the amateur service, supplies a way to address contemporary patterns of use while retaining and encouraging expansion of traditional voluntary agreements on mode utilization in sub sets of the frequency spectrum.

We believe the ideal band plan is one where good judgment on the operator's part supports use of any mode and any frequency available within their license class. Good judgment is centered on cooperative, flexible use of frequencies, with a specific goal of avoiding and/or resolving interference to others at a direct and low level, avoiding escalation and any need for outside enforcement.

Guided by the use of good judgment, removal of artificial boundaries would encourage dynamic selection of frequency, affording an operator the best chance to minimize compatibility issues with other modes and activities. This would lead to greater band "loading" and improved utilization by allowing an operator to choose a clear spot on the dial across a greater frequency range.

Intentional interference with communications is a violation of the regulations, independent of the mode in use, and whether automatic, semi automatic, or manually keyed. Sanctions would continue to be available against deliberate interference or problems involving technical signal purity, using volunteer "official observer" type programs. If a documented problem remains chronic or unresolved, the intervention of federal authority would reinforce volunteer OO in self-regulation efforts, as it does today. Automatic or semi automatic data operation not copied by the human ear becomes of particular concern under our proposal, since the activity would be unencumbered by subband. This group of users would have a specific challenge to maintain the good judgment pre-requisite by making certain their telemetry-polling systems recognize the presence of other modes and activities and avoiding interference to other communications. Chronically failing to do so would remain an actionable violation under existing rules against deliberate interference, since it could be shown such judgment had not been exercised. We contend that the goal of voluntary selection of operating frequencies for improved spectrum use is best achieved through real-time assessment of variables in propagation and radio traffic load. Efforts to improve spectrum use are currently constrained because these variables cannot be accommodated with fulltime, rigidly defined sub-bands. Additionally, contemporary technology offers interference protection at the receiver to an extent not possible 60 years ago, when protection was implemented by regulatory mandate to divide "phone" and "code" activity. Technology and patterns of use now encourage the more effective coordination that we propose.

Therefore, to address the need to improve use of our entire range of frequencies, we propose a system of coordination that enables operators to adapt to the variables of propagation, and overall levels of use, and to accommodate and cooperatively respect the footprints imposed by our various modes and activities. That is, we propose ending mode-based sub bands in the amateur radio service, and we seek affirmation of established operator responsibility against interference as part of this request for greater latitude in frequency selection.

BENEFITS

 Enhancing the Basic Purpose of the Amateur Service: This petition is centered on the premise that all operating interests and emission types enjoy equal status in the amateur service, with emergency communications taking priority. Operation of an amateur station includes a "listen before transmit" function that involves searching for a vacant spot on the dial. Recognizing that all non-emergency communications are of a hobbyist and experimental nature, we propose access to any vacant frequency for any amateur activity within the scope of privileges granted by license class. Digital experimentation and development will be encouraged in a progressive environment which allows exchanges of data, image and voice on any vacant frequency, defined as one selected to minimize the chance for unintentional interference to other operators. The DX community and others will benefit from the great reduction in use of split-frequency operation. Split refers to the use of two frequencies on the same band as a means of finding a common way to communicate when international mode and frequency privileges differ. This proposal also provides for better international coordination of amateur frequencies. IARU (International Amateur Radio Union) acknowledges the need for greater cooperation and coordination of the increasing and changing usage patterns of the amateur HF bands. Deregulation of usage, and flexibility to accommodate changing demand, is a principle goal set forth in band planning discussions. (See IARU HFC-C4, 13 November 2002). Our proposal also aligns U.S. amateur radio operator privileges with the rest of the world. Communications authorities in many countries rely on amateur service licensees to achieve better spectral efficiency through voluntary band plans. Among those countries, our Canadian neighbors provide an excellent example of voluntary band plan success. Canadian phone operation coexists quite well with U.S. operators in the current U.S. CW/Data sub bands.

Another successful example of voluntary coordination involving U.S. amateurs is the way modes and activities have sorted themselves out on 160 meters, on a basis that has been overwhelmingly cooperative with a long-term record of minimal complaints. Our proposal, if approved, would reduce potential friction among operators when bands are in heavy use and congested, especially during contests. Greater flexibility in selection of operating frequencies will enhance cooperation between those who choose to participate in organized operating events and those who do not. Our proposal may benefit other services near certain amateur band edges by maintaining the license class band allocation of licensees, who have not yet demonstrated higher levels of achievement by advancing their license class, safely within our allocations.

By demonstrating improved utilization of our range of frequencies, we can forestall any proposals for use of the amateur radio spectrum by other services. These potential rivals now can see a portion of our bands appear deserted much of the time under today's allocation-bymode. In reality other modes are quite active and crowded into the top section of the bands. In sum, greater operating flexibility will significantly relieve conditions of over-crowding attributed to regulatory divisions of available spectrum against popular operating interests.

ISSUES

(See also Appendix B)
Interference:

A certain amount of unintentional interference must be accepted in a hobbyist, experimental communications system. Good judgment remains the tenet guiding when that level must be cooperatively addressed by operators involved. Intentional and/or deliberate interference with communications in process is in violation of the regulations, independent of the mode in use, and whether automatic, semi automatic, or manually keyed. Operators presuming use of a specific frequency for their use: The proposal to discontinue forced segregation by mode would drain pressure away from the problem of operators who make squatter's claims on frequency space during times of congestion, since there would be more room and a greater range to move elsewhere.


PROPOSED CHANGES
Section 97.301
(b) For a station having a control operator who has been granted an operator license of Amateur Extra
Class:
Wavelength Band ITU-Region 1 ITU-Region 2 ITU-Region 3
Sharing
Requirements
See 97.303
MF kHz kHz kHz
160 m 1810-1850 1800-2000 1800-2000 a,b,c
HF MHz MHz MHz
80 m 3.50-3.75 3.50-3.75 3.50-3.75 a
75 m 3.75-3.80 3.75-4.00 3.75-4.00 a
40 m 7.0-7. 7.0-7.3 7.0-7.1 a
30 m 10.10-10.15 10.10-10.15 10.10-10.15 d
20 m 14.00-14.35 14.00-14.35 14.00-14.35
17 m 18.068-18.168 18.068-18.168 18.068-18.168
15 m 21.00-21.45 21.00-21.45 21.00-21.45
12 m 24.89-24.99 24.89-24.99 24.89-24.99
10 m 28.00-29.7 28.00-29.7 28.00-29.7


Section 97.301
(c) For a station having a control operator who has been granted an operator license of Amateur Advanced
Class:
Wavelength Band ITU-Region 1 ITU-Region 2 ITU-Region 3
Sharing
Requirements
See 97.303
MF kHz kHz kHz
160 m 1810-1850 1800-2000 1800-2000 a,b,c
HF MHz MHz MHz
80 m 3.525-3.75 3.525-3.75 3.525-3.75 a
75 m 3.775-3.800 3.775-4.00 3.775-3.900 a
40 m 7.025-7.100 7.025-7.300 7.025-7.100 a
30 m 10.10-10.15 10.10-10.15 10.10-10.15 d
20 m 14.025-14.150 14.025-14.35 14.025-14.150
Do 14.175-14.350 14.175-14.350 14.175-14.350
17 m 18.068-18.168 18.068-18.168 18.068-18.168
15 m 21.025-21.200 21.025-21.200 21.025-21.200
Do 21.225-21.450 21.225-21.450 21.225-21.450
12 m 24.89-24.99 24.89-24.99 24.89-24.99
10 m 28.00-29.7 28.00-29.7 28.00-29.7


Section 97.301
(d) For a station having a control operator who has been granted an operator license of Amateur General
Class:
Wavelength Band ITU-Region 1 ITU-Region 2 ITU-Region 3
Sharing
Requirements
See 97.303
MF kHz kHz kHz
160 m 1810-1850 1800-2000 1800-2000 a,b,c
HF MHz MHz MHz
80 m 3.525-3.75 3.525-3.75 3.525-3.75 a
75 m 3.850-4.00 3.850-3.900 a
40 m 7.025-7.100 7.025-7.150 7.025-7.100 a
30 m 10.10-10.15 10.10-10.15 10.10-10.15 d
20 m
14.025-14.150
. 14.025-14.150 14.025-14.150
Do 14.225-14.350 14.225-14.350 14.225-14.350
17 m 18.068-18.168 18.068-18.168 18.068-18.168
15 m 21.025-21.200 21.025-21.200 21.025-21.200
Do 21.3-21.450 21.3-21.450 21.3-21.450
12 m 24.89-24.99 24.89-24.99 24.89-24.99
10 m 28.00-29.7 28.00-29.7 28.00-29.7


Section 97.301
(e) For a station having a control operator who has been granted an operator license of Amateur Novice or
Technician Plus Class:
Wavelength Band ITU-Region 1 ITU-Region 2 ITU-Region 3
Sharing
Requirements
See 97.303
HF MHz MHz MHz
80 m 3.675-3.725 3.675-3.725 3.675-3.725 a
40 m 7.050-7.075 7.10-7.15 7.050-7.075 a
15 m 21.10-21.2 21.10-21.2 21.10-21.2
10 m 28.1-28.5 28.1-28.5 28.1-28.5
(f) For a station having a control operator who has been granted an operator license of Amateur Novice
Class:
Wavelength Band ITU-Region 1 ITU-Region 2 ITU-Region 3
Sharing
Requirements
See 97.303
VHF kHz kHz kHz
1.25 m 222-225 a
UHF MHz MHz MHz
23 cm 1270-1295 1270-1295 1270-1295
Logged
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #48 on: June 26, 2005, 09:45:43 PM »

Appendix A
An Analysis of Band Occupancy by Mode
Art Pightling, K3XF, PG-11-25720


Executive Summary

This report demonstrates and quantifies amateur radio band occupancy by mode of operation during a typical operating day. It is, by definition, a snapshot in time and subject to several variables that have been addressed, in majority, in the sample collection process.

Introduction

Amateur radio operators congregate in sub bands in accord with tradition as related to their respective modes of operation. The lower sections of allocated frequency spectrum are typically occupied by CW and higher frequency sections by phone. Other communication techniques such as keyboard digital, image, and experimental modes are often conducted in roughly the center of a given band. In the past few years there has been a growing observation that the lower portions of the bands are becoming less and less populated. Conversely, the upper sections are becoming more active with new licensees trending toward phone modes. This report is based upon test data that has been verified and shown to be statistically viable.

Survey Process

The object of the survey is to demonstrate amateur radio band occupancy by mode. Test scheduling, execution, and data collection were accomplished in a consistent manner to yield accurate observations of actual conversations in progress (QSOs).

Determination of test schedule

Observations of the HF bands were conducted for two weeks to ascertain the most likely period(s) necessary for valid data collection. It was found that weekday operation was very heavily biased toward phone operation and unlikely to accurately represent potential CW operations. After these observations it is reasonable to conclude an extended test, which would exceed the scope of this study, would clearly indicate phone QSOs in process exceed CW QSOs in the same time period by a wide margin. Therefore, it was determined testing on a Saturday would yield a representation of band occupancy that would more accurately demonstrate potential and actual band occupancy during peak usage periods. June 4, 2005 was selected as the survey date and a twelve-hour time period from 1200Z to 2359Z.

Test equipment

A typical amateur radio station consisting of a Kenwood TS-2000 and antenna system with dipoles on 160M, 80M, and a delta loop for 40M was the primary data-gathering tool. Additional test equipment that may not appear in the usual operating station was utilized to observe the entire band: 1. A Motorola 2002C spectrum analyzer 2. A FlexRadio SDR-1000 and 3. An AOR AR7030 receiver.

Data gathering process

Amateur radio contacts in process were observed by tuning from the lower end of a given band to the top sequentially and iteratively. When a signal was encountered it was determined if the signal was a contact in process and if an operator party to the contact using a US call was involved. This required significantly more effort than a simple band scan, or count of signals on the band and more accurately represented the occupancy of US operators. As a signal was encountered and validated it was entered in a spreadsheet. After an operator completed a pass another operator performed a second pass and the two passes analyzed for relative percent difference to achieve validation of the data. Note that this identified who was transmitting and if they were a US amateur or in QSO with a US amateur. It does not count all parties to all QSOs. There were roundtables in process, particularly on the upper end of 40M, which may understate phone operation somewhat. There were also nets (CARS) that provided a count for phone on every pass while they were in session. This may have elevated the phone count and the two situations were considered to offset each other. The numbers may be different if your antenna system or equipment is different but the ratio of CW to Phone QSOs using the same method should be very close to the results obtained using the process described here. There was also a CW contest in process and many of the signals on the bands (notably not counted as QSOs) were CQ test. If a contest QSO in process was encountered, and there was a US operator involved it was counted. This may have elevated the CW QSO count somewhat but one must also consider there are amateurs who avoid operation during contests. There was considerable activity but not as many QSOs as might be expected with general band activity at this level. Phone contests could be expected to generate similar results, skewing the count toward more observed phone QSOs.

Band selection criteria

The On Line HF Propagation site (http://salsawaves.com/propagation/frequency.html) was employed to indicate the Maximum Usable Frequency (MUF) for communication from the test location to Europe. Considerable amateur radio operation is focused on communication with distant stations. Europe was chosen as an intermediate 'DX' contact area that would be sought after by both phone and CW operators. The test data collection was done one and two bands below the MUF. Later in the test period lower HF bands were utilized to "follow the action". This process was validated by the higher relative occupancy of band measurement points chosen in accord with this process.

Survey Results

Before the data was analyzed, and observing the bands on a spectrum analyzer, it is easy to get the impression that phone is by far more prevalent than CW operation. However, analysis of the data indicates that the phone to CW QSO ratio aggregated over the test period is 1.75:1 in favor of phone operations.

SURVEY DATA
DTG MUF -Europe Band CW
Control Phone Control Keyboard
604051200Z 15M 20M 6 5 9 11 2
15M 40M 8 9 21 19 1
0604051300Z 15M 20M 3 3 14 13 1
15M 40M 14 13 21 23 1
0604051400Z 15M 20M 10 10 33 27 2
15M 40M 6 4 12 12 0
0604051500Z 15M 20M 9 8 13 18 4
15M 40M 5 7 11 9 0
0604051600Z 15M 20M 22 24 25 27 1
15M 40M 6 6 11 10 0
0604051700Z 15M 20M 14 16 16 19 2
15M 40M 5 4 9 7 0
0604051800Z 20M 20M 11 13 11 12 3
20M 40M 2 2 11 11 0
0604051900Z 20M 20M 13 11 17 13 2
20M 40M 6 6 11 8 0
0604052000Z 20M 20M 11 12 16 19 5
20M 40M 6 6 18 17 1
0604052100Z 20M 20M 18 17 22 26 4
20M 40M 13 14 16 16 1
0604052200Z 20M 20M 13 15 19 18 5
20M 40M 9 11 19 21 3
0604052300Z 30M 40M 9 8 13 13 0
40M 80M 0 0 8 9 1
0604052359Z 40M 40M 18 16 25 21 1
40M 80M 3 3 23 23 2
Totals 240 243 424 422 42
Averages 241.5 423
RPD mode-control <1.25% 1.242% 0.473%

The observed ratio of phone to CW QSOs in progress in the measurement time frame is
423/241.5=1.75:1.





QSO relative count graph.

This chart illustrates the QSO counts tracking consistently throughout the survey. It adds an additional layer of validation to the individual measurements.

Conclusion

This report demonstrates and quantifies amateur radio band occupancy by mode of operation during a typical operating day. Data was collected in a consistent manner with validating statistical and graphical analysis.

We may conclude from this study that CW occupancy of the bands evaluated is significantly less than phone use of the same bands at the same time and utilizing consistent sampling techniques.

Note: 80M and 10M yielded surprisingly low CW QSO counts during the survey, when, in accord with propagation conditions, expected band usage, and phone QSOs in progress, they should have been more heavily populated. Therefore, 10M was not utilized in the survey, 15M was monitored as a candidate but was not utilized, and 80M was used after 40M activity dropped off.
Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8154


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #49 on: June 27, 2005, 04:03:39 AM »

Quote from: K2PG

And your responses here show your arrogance, immaturity, and profound ignorance.


Actually, I feel none of this, no reason to, but I do feel some pity. I should also remind you to read the "Rules and Regs" on the home page, click on Rule Updates, or, if you get lost, just go here, http://amfone.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4086


Quote
I have long ago grown tired of this "Americans are lawless, ignorant boors, so let's saddle them with excessive restrictions" attitude foisted upon us, not by the ITU, but by self-hating American hams such as you and your tin gods in Newington! I guess you've never heard me on the air, either, as I do abide by bandplans on 160 and elsewhere. You won't hear me using AM on, say, 1810 or 1850, nor will you hear me using CW on 1885. Likewise, I won't use FM on 144.2 or 50.125. But, I guess your immaturity and blind allegiance to the ARRL have me pegged, in your opinion, as a lawless CB type because I won't march in lock step with every pronouncement that comes from the Almighty ARRL.


Phil, we all know you're an angel on the air and recite the bandplans every  day. Never said you might be the on-the-air problem.

Quote
And if the prospect of hearing American phone signals on those once-sacrosanct CW frequencies and de facto "American-free zones" in the current "DX phone" bands disturbs you so much, perhaps you should sell your radios and take up another hobby.


Sold 5 rigs at Dayton this year. And the only issue that disturbs me is your total lack of insight to the future of the amateur radio service.

Quote
You seem to look down your nose at Pittston. I find it to be a nice town with friendly people. I grew up in Middlesex County, NJ, where you now live. Sayreville is not exactly a high class town, either (witness all the sleazy nightclubs on Route 35), so I can't see how you can have such a high and mighty attitude toward either your fellow American hams or toward the people of the Wyoming Valley.


Pittston has great bars. Actually Sayreville, Parlin,  and South Amboy all border that strip of Route 35. What's left of those "sleazy nightclubs" (ah, all those great times when I was single) are now mostly in South Amboy.

I do love the way you read things into my statements though. It's another great way to say "Gotcha".
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

AMfone - Dedicated to Amplitude Modulation on the Amateur Radio Bands
 AMfone © 2001-2015
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.054 seconds with 18 queries.