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 > <[email protected]> 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
