[CQ-Contest] Re: FCC and ARRL 160 Bandplan

[Bill Coleman]

On 10/19/01 10:29 AM, Bill Tippett at btippett at alum.mit.edu wrote:

>AA4LR wrote:
>
>>I think it is a grave mistake to look at the ARRL bandplan as having the 
>>force of regulation. As I read the FCC regulations, SSB operation is 
>>permitted from 1800-1843 kHz. So, emitting SSB signals in this spectrum 
>>is not, by itself, a violation of the FCC rules.
>
>        I think it would be a grave mistake to ignore the bandplan unless
>you enjoy corresponding with the FCC. 

That's not what I said, Bill. I didn't say one should ignore the bandplan.

The issue at hand is simple -- does the bandplan have the force of 
regulation?

On the face of it -- NO. SSB emissions are allowed by the FCC below 1843 
kHz. Just transmitting with SSB modulation *IS NOT* a violation of any 
regulation.

Does that mean you can IGNORE the bandplan? No. The bandplan has a level 
of importance. HABITUAL transmissions of SSB below 1843 kHz are to be 
discouraged. Putting an SSB net down on 1810 kHz would be poor practice.

The fact remains that SSB emissions are legal in this segment, and some 
stations in other countries do not have SSB allocations at 1843 kHz and 
above. I would certainly be poor practice to SOLICIT QSOs on SSB below 
1843 kHz, but there may be no alternative if DX stations aren't listening 
above 1843 kHz.

But the big question -- is it a violation of rules to ANSWER DX stations 
calling CQ on SSB below 1843 kHz and listening simplex?

I say it is not.

>For those who may not like the idea
>of mode segmentation on 160, you should get used to the idea of following
>bandplans because I predict there will be no mode segmentation on any band
>if current trends continue (no-code licensing and consequent growth in
>demand for more SSB spectrum).  

I would welcome a regulatory change that permitted any mode any where. 
MOST countries do not have regulatory segregation of modes, and chaos 
does not reign on their amatuer bands. Why should it be any different in 
the US?

>Following voluntary bandplans may become 
>more important on all bands as sunspots decline, no-code grows and we are 
>all forced into the existing spectrum.  Extrapolate ARRL's current direction
>and it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what may be next (no
>mode segmentation anywhere with voluntary bandplans becoming the rule is
>my personal reading of their desired direction).

I think bandplans are a good way to get us all to cooperate together. 
However, bandplans should not be interpreted as having regulatory force. 
They do not.

>>The issue at hand that the FCC is enforcing is willful interference.

Read that carefully. Willful interference. The enforcements are for 
Willful Interference, not a violation of a bandplan. Bandplans do not 
have the force of regulation, therefore it isn't possible to be in 
violation of them.

>> Now, 
>>far be it for someone pushing the agenda that 1800-1843 is supposed to be 
>>CW-only to make claims of willful interference to those who happen to 
>>operate some SSB in this spectrum....
>
>        This has been the issue since I have been on 160.  Some groups
>have been incalcitrant and even vengeful (complete with recorded gun 
>threats).

You missed my point. I was not talking about folks who habitually operate 
domestic SSB nets below 1843 kHz (clearly not in harmony with the 
bandplan). I was talking about other operators who would perceive ANY SSB 
transmissions below 1843 kHz as some sort of territorial encroachment and 
would make false claims of willful interference in order to bring down 
the regulatory wrath of the FCC.

>If it were not for Hollingsworth's letters, they would be there
>today.  Just because they "were there first" (which I doubt is true if
>you go back in time far enough) does not give them the right to ignore
>the bandplan.  

It isn't an issue of ignoring the bandplan. Certainly the bandplan should 
not be ignored. The hard question is -- how should the bandplan be 
interpreted?

>If it were not for the recalcitrant few and for SSB contests
>filling the entire band, the situation on 160 today would be perfectly
>fine. 

DX operators have no where else to go but to operate SSB below 1843 kHz. 
I don't see how a bandplan solves that situation.

>I'll repeat Hollingsworth's comments again for those who may have 
>missed them the first time:
>
>*************************************************************************
>Excerpt from Hollingsworth's letter to K3NM:
>
>"Please be advised that Amateurs are responsible for taking steps to make 
>sure they do not interfere with ongoing communications, and contest 
>participants have no greater rights to any specific frequency than other 
>Amateurs."
>
>
>Excerpt from Hollingsworth's letters to W5TZ, KT5S and WA4TWM:
> 
>"Band plans are voluntary in nature, but the Commission depends upon them
>because they minimize the necessity for Commission resources to be used in 
>solving Amateur problems and they provide an opportunity for Amateurs to use 
>various modes of Communications.  Where interference results from band plans 
>not being followed, the Commission expects substantial justification to be 
>shown by the operators ignoring the band plans."
>**************************************************************************

Again, the issue here is WILLFUL INTERFERENCE. Not band plans.

>>That said, if you really want the bandplan to work -- and I think it 
>>could -- then there's a big education process that has to take place. DX 
>>stations have to listen above 1843 kHz -- both for US stations calling 
>>CQ, and US stations trying to answer their CQs. 
>
>        Of course it can work just as it does on 40 and 80.

On 40 and 80m, things are very different. On 40m especially, there *IS* a 
regulatory PROHIBITION on SSB transmissions below 7.1 MHz in the US. 80m 
is much the same below 3.75 MHz.

>And I doubt
>that much more education is needed than the exposure this issue has already
>received on this reflector.  If you are a serious contester, you quickly
>learn what works and what doesn't.

This is exactly what I'm afraid of. If contesters are going to find out 
that the DX stations aren't listening to 1843 kHz and above, because the 
DX stations haven't learned to do so, so contesters will transmit SSB 
below 1843 kHz in order to complete there contacts, which will piss a 
bunch of territorial CW operators off, who will file complaints of 
interference with the FCC, who will try and violate the operators, who 
will then get really pissed off at ALL CW operators -- and then where 
will we be?

>  This is exactly the reason that most
>DX contest QSO's on 75 meters are made split rather than simplex in the 
>3750-3800 area common to both ITU Regions 1 and 2.  The common "window" is
>filled with QRM from strong local stations calling CQ while most weaker
>stations are worked split with Region 1 below 3750 and Region 2 above 3800. 
>Just listen during the CQ WW SSB and you will find the KC1XX, W3LPL and K3LR 
>gang mostly above 3800 and listening below 3750.  That is not an accident 
>even though they certainly have the option and signal presence to operate in
>the 3750-3800 area if they so chose.  So why are they split?  Simply because 
>it is MORE EFFECTIVE...QED and end of debate IMHO.

The situation on 80m is different. The 80m practices have evolved over 
dozens of years. There has been plenty of time to educate everyone -- US 
contesters, DX operators, etc. Everyone on the band knows the practice 
well.

On 160m, these changes are new. They may be familiar to US operators -- 
but it is the DX operators who need the education. If they aren't 
listening split, or S & Ping above the top of THEIR 160m band -- the 
bandplan won't work.

>>For a contest like CQWW, the control is really in the hands of the DX 
>>stations. If a DX station is loud and calling CQ on 1830 kHz simplex -- 
>>are you saying I should ignore him because he isn't following the 
>>bandplan? 
>>
>>Heck, 1830 kHz may be a good frequency for him. He may not even have 
>>allocations above 1843 kHz. 
>
>        If I were a Region 1 DX station in a 160 SSB contest, I would
>transmit on the clearest frequency I could find, listening simplex (for
>other Region 1 stations) and split for Region 2 on the clearest frequency
>I could find between 1843 and 2000.  Why?  Because local signals are 
>likely -25 to -35 dBm, with adjacent sidebands/spurs down only -40 dB 
>(to -65 to -75 dBm) in the presence of which I am trying to hear weak (-100 
>to -130 dBm) DX signals.  If I compound this with strong Region 2 stations 
>also calling CQ on the same frequencies (which would be covering Region 1
>stations), it gets even worse which is exactly the chaotic situation that 
>exists today.

Ironically, nothing TECHINCALLY has changed about 160m. Yet stations have 
not adopted this practice on 160m SSB. 

>>I do think that perhaps it would be poor form for US stations to call CQ 
>>below 1843 kHz, but I think it is likely to happen. Again, the DX 
>>stations are the key. If they aren't listening above 1843 kHz, then what 
>>is a US station supposed to do?
>>
>>Again, all this realising that 1800-1843 is perfectly legal for SSB 
>>emissions, at least as the regulations are today, and many DX stations do 
>>not have allocations above 1840 or 1850 kHz.
>
>        I would be very careful with your "perfectly legal" comment unless
>you are willing to take the FCC to court.

Show me the portion of the regulations that says it is illegal to 
transmit SSB emissions between 1800-1843 kHz. 

If the FCC wanted to make such emissions illegal (such as they are 
between 7.0 and 7.1 MHz), they could. The FCC has not chosen to do so.

>  Hollingsworth's comments clearly
>indicate otherwise to me and it is not worth my time or money to argue in
>court...besides I happen to agree with him.  I'm a firm believer in choices 
>and consequences...if you are willing to risk the consequences of operating
>SSB below 1843, please feel free to do so since you have been forewarned 
>of the consequences.

So, you're telling me you plan to file bogus claims of interference to 
anyone who dares to violate 1800-1843 kHz with an SSB emission?

>        On a side note, the argument that 160 antennas cannot be retuned 
>for SSB is very weak. 

I did not make any such argument.

>Somehow we have learned to tune them from 3.5 MHz
>to 3.8 MHz which is a much smaller percentage shift than tuning from 1.830 
>to 1.875.  It takes all of 10 seconds to reresonate my shunt-fed tower by
>moving the series capacitor and should not take very long to short out about
>3-4 feet of an inverted-L or 3-4 feet from both sides of an inverted-V.

You'll get no argument from me on that.

--

Bill, the bottom line is not to expect every contester to be perfectly in 
line with the "bandplan" this season. Take it as an opportunity to train 
and educate. Threats of FCC violations aren't going to be helful. 

And the worst part is you can only threaten US operators with FCC 
violations. They aren't the ones you need to educate. It's all the DX 
operators.

Let's work cooperatively to make the bandplan work, not as adversies. 
Carrot, not stick.




Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL        Mail: aa4lr at arrl.net
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
            -- Wilbur Wright, 1901


--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com