Don,
I too reflect Jeff's thoughts and appreciation.
Thank you.
73,
Gary
KA1J
> Hi Don,
> Thanks for the interesting link, and for your efforts on our behalf.
> Regards,Jeff W6JK
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 12:15 PM, Donald Chester
> <k4kyv@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The FCC has raised the secondary
> Amateur Service allocation at 1900 to 2000 kHz to primary.
> Up until now, we were "secondary" users in that segment, with the
> Radiolocation service having priority.
> As high-resolution GPS service became available to civilians, radiolocation
> beacons gradually disappeared
> from 160m. The FCC proposed to upgrade the amateur allocation a couple of
> years ago in a NPRM,
> inviting comments from the public.
>
> Although this won't have much immediate impact on our daily operation on
> the band, it strengthens our hold on the entire band since we in the USA are
> now
> primary and nobody else can easily displace amateurs in the top end with some
> new technology
> that could fall into the category of "radiolocation". An unlikely threat?
> Recall the so-called
> "washing machine", the Canadian OTH radar signal that almost completely wiped
> out 1900-1930
> for several days this past winter, and which still occasionally reappears on
> the frequency.
>
> This is a clear example of how it is wise to pay close attention to FCC
> issues, consider all
> possible consequences and submit comments. The 160m proposal was only a small
> sub-section of
> what was a large, omnibus rulemaking proceeding issued a couple of years ago,
> involving numerous
> other services besides amateur radio, so the 160m issue might have gained
> little attention.
> I attempted to drum up interest amongst amateurs and particularly 160m
> operators, but the response was
> disappointing at best. Posting information on the this Reflector appeared to
> draw scant interest
> and generated only one or two replies while most were pre-occupied with what
> DX stations
> were being heard at the moment and upcoming contests.
>
> Granted that CW, DX and contest enthusiasts who largely inhabit the Reflector
> pretty much
> stay in the lower half of the band, but were we ever to lose all or part of
> 1900-2000 to some new form
> of radiolocation, many if not most of those who presently populate the high
> end would be forced to move
> below 1900, making 1800-1900 more congested, which would indeed adversely
> affect weak signal, DX and
> CW operation.
>
> Even more incredibly, my efforts were actually derided by some hams. A
> read-only announcement
> of the FCC's proposal in another amateur radio website was so poorly worded
> that some hams interpreted it
> to mean that the FCC was "reallocating" 1900-2000 and taking it away from
> amateurs. When I attempted to
> clarify the issue, one response was that this was of little interest to him
> because he found 160m so boring
> that the QSOs on the band put him to sleep. Another added that he thought
> amateur radio would
> be just as well off if the FCC took away 160m altogether.
>
> Although the total number of submitted comments to the 160m proposal totalled
> only 34, it appears that our
> efforts paid off. To see the pertinent section of the FCC's R & O, go to
>
> http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view;ECFSSESSION=XpxJVQlHZsLr63dPQq2WvZpN8VfLT5JS9B5bG5Q9wb1pWsphb4Lc!9955362!-1420975216?id=60001030136
> If a line break disables the link, manually copy and paste the entire URL
> directly into your browser.
>
> Scroll down to Paragraph 30 on Page 15, and continue through Paragraph 44 on
> page 21.
>
> Don k4kyv
>
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|