Don, I agree that many hams just can't leave a certain frequency. If you gave hams extended band coverage, many of them would still stay above 3800 Khz and fight the QRM. Creatures of habit, I guess.
Are you going to Dayton? Dave, W3ST Secretary to the Collins Radio Association Publisher of the Collins Journal www.collinsra.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donald Chester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 12:26 PM Subject: [AMRadio] WT Docket No. 04-140, 80m phone proposal > Because of the length and complexity of the latest FCC "restructuring" > proposal, it may not be immediately obvious when first reading the > document that THE FCC IS PROPOSING TO ADD ONLY 25 kHz to our > existing 75/80m phone privileges, as petitioned by ARRL. > > We are all aware of the overcrowding of the 75m phone band while tens > of kilohertz of spectrum below 3750 lies idle, even during optimum > wintertime condx, due to the outdated, unrealistic size of the 80m "cw > subband". > Quoting a comment by Jim, N2EY that appeared on the CW Reflector, one of > the reasons for this lack of activity is that "80 CW/data is a huge band > compared to the others, so it takes a lot of hams to fill it up." > > It appears that the FCC has rejected the idea of eliminating mode > subbands Canadian style, but the "phone" community, including AM, SSB, NBFM > and SSTV enthusiasts should try to persuade the Commission to adopt a > more realistic reapportionment between narrowband (cw/data) > and wideband (phone, etc.). The topic of "spectrum efficiency" is brought > up, but little is proposed that would remedy the present > inefficient allocation of subbands that results in simultaneous > overcongestion and > underuse of the amateur spectrum in the 75/80m band. > > The current proposal would extend the "phone" band down to 3725 kHz, > with 3725-3750 limited to Extra Class, 3750-3800 limited to Extra and > Advanced, and 3800-4000 open to Extra, Advanced and General. > Nothing is proposed to simplify the complex matrix of > emission mode/operator class subbands that exists today. > > I believe at the present time it would be futile to push for > subband-free amateur bands in the US, and with the possibility of > eliminating the Morse Code testing requirement altogether, > cw/narrowband data modes may end up needing a reasonable amount of > "protected" > frequency space, in the (unlikely, in my opinion) case that the eventual > no-code licence exam does result in an influx of SSB appliance > operators. However, the existing subbands need to be at least reapportioned > to > reflect the actual level of usage of the various modes. > > I would suggest that the "phone" or "wideband" segment be extended > down at minimum to 3600 kHz. 100 kHz seems more than adequate to > accomodate the present level of cw and narrowband data activity on 80m. > > This is more than an AM issue. It would be in the interests of the SSB > and SSTV communities, as well as amateurs who might want to > experiment in the future with wideband digital modes including digital > voice transmission. This should not become a "CW vs Phone" issue; I > work cw myself and certainly do not want to see cw shoved off the band > to accommodate more bubbas with riceboxes. However, the cw > community seems particularly adamant in insisting on not budging an > inch, to keep every kilocycle of the present exclusive 80m allocation, > despite its sparce occupancy. > > With the amateur community reportedly split close to 50-50 on the issue > of code vs no-code, it would seem that there would be much more > support in the US for a more equitable apportionment between phone and > cw, than what is reflected in this FCC proposal. > > Maybe too many active US hf hams, especially the SSB community, are > content to meet daily on their one frequency to talk to their same half > dozen or so cronies, with little interest these matters beyond bitching and > griping about the QRM. > > Oughtn't we to talk up the idea of advocating more than 25 kHz of expansion > of the US phone bands by actually filing comments with the FCC? The > comment deadline is the 15th of June. See excerpts from the FCC > proposal (WT Docket No. 04-140) that follow below. > > Don K4KYV > > **************************************************************************** *********************************************** > > 1. High Frequency Privileges... > > ARRL Petition. Background. On March 22, 2002, the ARRL requested that we > eliminate the telegraphy frequency segments currently authorized to Novice > and Technician Plus > Class licensees, and to restructure the operating privileges authorized > licensees in certain HF > amateur service bands. The ARRL based its request on over 4,700 responses to > a survey it > conducted regarding different emission subband options for four of the eight > HF amateur service > bands. The ARRL notes that while the survey results did not reflect a > consensus on any one HF > band frequency alternative, most respondents favored dissolving the Novice > and Technician > Plus Class telegraphy subbands so that additional spectrum could be > authorized for phone > communications. The ARRL requests the Commission to amend Section 97.301 of > its Rules to > expand the frequency segments of the 80-, 40-, and 15 m HF amateur service > bands that licensees > may use for phone communications. The ARRL states that a "refarming" plan > based on > eliminating the Novice and Technician Plus Class subbands is critical > because the segments > presently authorized for phone and digital communications are severely > overcrowded. > ...(2)General Class licensees should be authorized to control an > amateur station transmitting voice communications on the 3800-4000 kHz, > 7175-7300 kHz and > 21275-21450 kHz frequency segments; (3) Advanced Class licensees should be > authorized to > control an amateur station transmitting voice communications on the > 3750-4000 kHz and 7125- > 7300 kHz frequency segments; and (4) Amateur Extra Class licensees should be > authorized to > control an amateur station transmitting voice communications on the > 3725-4000 kHz and 7125- > 7300 kHz frequency segments... > > 9. Discussion. The Commission received over one hundred and twenty comments > regarding the ARRL's Petition... Other commenters also note that the Novice > Class subbands are > underutilized thus agreeing with the ARRL's request > that we reallocate these subbands to other > uses. Other commenters supporting the ARRL's request suggest that we ... > establish > different frequency limits for the phone subbands...As an alternative to the > ARRL's request, > two commenters suggest that we eliminate subbands > altogether and allow the amateur service community to address emission > separation on its own > through voluntary band planning. This suggestion, we note, was opposed by > others... > On the other hand, some commenters oppose the request explaining that the > current > allocation of spectrum for voice communications is sufficient. Two > commenters in particular > state that allocating additional spectrum for single sideband (SSB) phone > communications is > spectrum-inefficient....In addition, some > commenters believe that the proposal will not have any significant effect on > congestion in the > amateur service phone bands... > > We believe > that the tremendous volume of survey responses indicates intense interest on > the part of the > amateur service community to promote spectrum efficiency. Because the ARRL > Petition > addresses the operating privileges of all classes of licensees on these > amateur service bands, we > believe that the ARRL Petition provides a basis for a comprehensive > restructuring of operating > privileges. We note that, as proposed, no licensees would lose any spectrum > privileges and that > General, Advanced, and Amateur Extra Class licensees would gain spectrum for > phone > emissions, one of the most popular operating modes on the HF bands. For > these reasons, we will > propose amending Part 97 of our Rules as the ARRL requests. We seek comment > on this > proposal. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Test your 'Travel Quotient' and get the chance to win your dream trip! > http://travel.msn.com > > _______________________________________________ > AMRadio mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
