Will Martin <wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL> (01/08/90)
I would encourage ANARC to file comments that held the following position: New HF spectrum IS needed for broadcasters, and all such allocations should be worldwide and exclusive. We should oppose shared allocations, because the mutual interference caused by hams and broadcasters in the same spectrum space is destructive to all involved, and the geographic limitations are NOT effective in eliminating it. However, this does NOT mean that hams should lose their allocation(s), or even be forced to move. The broadcasters should move, and 7100-7300 kHz should be exclusively amateur worldwide. It would be a financial hardship for the large number of amateurs to have to alter or replace equipment to accomodate a changed allocation, but it would be much less of an impact if the broadcasters just started using a slightly different band. Most of their transmitters these days are programmable, not crystal-controlled, so they can as easily punch in a frequency in the 7300 - 7500 kHz range as one in 7100-7300 kHz. And if the band is kept close to the existing allocation, their antennae will work OK without much (if any) modification. There are vast chunks of underutilized HF spectrum these days, due to the widespread move to satellite links. Many of the "utility" allocations can be decreased, leaving some HF space for those services to use for backup to satellite links or for the limited number of point-to-point applications that don't have satellite support. But the areas of HF that ARE heavily used are broadcasting and amateur. Since the new generations of receivers are general-coverage, and new transmitters are programmable, lets move broadcasting into these formerly-utility segments. There are enough broadcasters now using "out-of-band" frequencies, including major worldwide services like the BBC, that it has been proved that trying to restrict broadcasters to narrow slices of spectrum won't work anyway. So admit the fact, and widen the broadcast allocations, and at the same time move them away from the hams. This would give more ham allocations (7100-7300 kHz) to the parts of the world outside of Region 2, so this change should be worded so as to be a pro-third-world proposal, in that it is giving those areas more amateur allocations, thereby increasing their opportunity for individual communications, which is consistent with the liberalization of Eastern Europe and the USSR. Note that I picked 7300-7500 as an arbitrary range. 6900-7100 should be just as good. The whole idea is that the broadcasters get an equivalent space adjacent to where they were, to minimize the technical impact. I don't have a spectrum chart handy so I don't know just what utility services these two choices impact, but anyone who tunes around on a general-coverage receiver can prove the usage level drops off dramatically as soon as you get out of the ham or broadcast "bands", and therefore these existing HF utility services needs can obviously be satisfied by smaller chunks of spectrum than they needed in the pre-satellite days. There is another argument against this -- the limited-coverage receivers out there in the hands of listeners; receivers that tune 7100-7300 kHz only, or have only slight extensions outside that range. I think this is not really a consideration. After all, the WARC already, many years ago, came out with a pro-SSB-broadcasting position. Going to SSB broadcasting would render the vast majority of the worlds' receivers obsolete anyway! If the WARC could take that position and thereby ignore their making useless all the non-SSB-capable receivers, they shouldn't pay attention to the impact of moving one of the many broadcasting bands to the users of this smaller number of receivers. New receivers should all be general-coverage anyway; the fact that companies are still coming out with some low-end limited-coverage models is an aberration. The WARC adopting this position will send a clear message to manufacturers to not market any such limited models in the future. I contend that this position is BOTH pro-SWL and pro-ham. The only people who could object are the utility listeners (and, I suppose, the utilities themselves! :-), and we aren't trying to get rid of any of their HF services, just push them together a little and free up the unused space they now luxuriate in. On the whole, I think this position will improve the lot of the maximum number of people at the minimum expense to the world at large. Feel free to post this on BBS's, reprint it in bulletins, or otherwise spread the idea around. Will Martin
sorgatz@UUNET.UU.NET> (01/11/90)
In article <15384@well.UUCP> rh@well.UUCP (Robert Horvitz) writes:
+The Federal Communications Commission has released a Notice of
+Inquiry, calling for comments on matters to be discussed at the 1992
+World Administrative Radio Conference. WARC-92 will focus on
+allocations issues in the shortwave (HF) and other bands.
Good issue! I'll assume your interest in soliciting comments here is to
formulate a unified response to the FCC from ANARC.
+
+The 1987 WARC for HF Broadcasting adopted a resolution (No.
+641) which states that "the sharing of frequency bands by the
+Amateur and Broadcasting Services is undesirable and should be
+avoided; ...it is desirable to have worldwide exclusive allocations
+for these services in Band 7;..."
+
As an Amateur I agreee. The SW broadcasters need their own space. Spectrum
that is shared often sounds terrible..like 40 meters! :-)
+When the member-nations of the ITU convene in 1992 to
+consider new allocations for shortwave broadcasting, it is quite
+possible that those sentiments will be translated into action.
+At recent WARCs, the US has joined other nations in arguing
+strongly for more spectrum for international broadcasting.
So long as Amateur operations in the 3900-4000 KHz and 7100-7300KHz bands
are unaffected, fine! That a hundred or even a thousand commercial SW ops
must retune (up or down band) is trivial. That 2-3 MILLION Amateurs would
have to either refit (crystal-coil-cap-etc), or in some cases, build/buy
NEW gear, would be a sham. I favor having the broadcasters move, it's a
lot less expensive in the global sense.
+
+The FCC seeks comments on these issues in Gen. Docket 89-554. I
+would like to have YOUR comments HERE, to help decide what ANARC
+should do. We seem to have three basic options: file comments
+opposing shared allocations for international broadcasting, file
+comments in favor of shared allocations, or take no position on
+sharing.
+
Actually you have another, more intelligent option: File comments that
offer an alternative. Like having SW broadcasting occupy the 4000-4500KHz
and the 7500-8000KHz areas of the spectrum, exclusivly. This means that
Amateur operations can continue, without broadcast QRM and that SWLers can
actually hear what's being broadcast. Except when the bastards in the Soviet
Union are jamming...SEP (somebody else's problem! ;-) )
+In my opinion, if we file comments opposing shared allocations,
+there's a good chance that Region 2 amateurs could lose 7100-7300
+kHz a few years down the road, and perhaps 3900-4000 kHz as well.
+Broadcasters could use those channels to beam programs to North and
+South America, alleviating some of the congestion in other broadcast
+bands. But hams would be furious at SWLs.
+However, even if we take no position, it's quite possible that hams
+will lose the bands they share with broadcasting and vent their
+anger at broadcasters and listeners anyway.
+
+
Almost correct on the last point, Hams would be madder still at the FCC!
We've lost enough spectrum to commercial interest in the last 50 years, if
it keeps up there will come a time when some people will just bootleg, no
licenses, no allocations, no rules..and why not?! The broadcasters did
EXACTLY THAT when they "needed" space below 200 meters!
In an all out confrontation, no one would win...
+
+I've requested guidance from our Executive Council and the
+Representatives of our clubs. Individuals can, of course, file
+comments on their own. Many hams will no doubt do that. As we get
+closer to the FCC's deadline, I'll post more information about how
+to file.
+
+In the meantime, though, your ideas: what should we tell the FCC?
+What we say can really make a difference.
+--
SWLers and Hams must stick together on this issue, the commercial interests
are only interested in MAKING MONEY! SWLers want high-quality, non domestic
programming that they can actually HEAR! Hams want to be able to communicate
with the DX stations - and be able to hear..it's not so different!
1) MOVE THE BROADCASTERS TO 4000-4500KHz and 7300-7500, exclusivly.
2) MAKE 3900-4000KHz and 7100-7300KHz an AMATEUR ALLOCATION, exclusivly.
3) The current users of 4000-4500 and 7300-7500 would not be impacted
greatly since that space is currently used as 'high seas' space and
with the influx of satellite-transponder based SITOR systems, the
ships are not using the allocation.
4) Recommend World Court action for non-signatory violators! Japan is
currently broadcasting in the 160 meter band - a clear violation! Yet
nothing is ever said or done about it.
'73 and good listening!
--
-Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY +-------------------------+
Citicorp(+)TTI *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 *
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 +-------------------------+
{csun,philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix}!ttidca!sorgatz **ron%hplabs.hp.com.uucp@BBN.COM> (01/11/90)
Re: Sharing the bands As I understand it, hams are not allowed to use spread spectrum techniques. Perhaps permission for this could be traded for a few kHz of space? Ron Miller NW0U
cccph%locus.ucla.edu@BBN.COM> (01/12/90)
In article <8929@ttidca.TTI.COM> sorgatz@ttidcb.tti.com (Erik Sorgatz - Avatar) writes: . . . (stuff about shared ham/shortwave bands deleted) . . > 4) Recommend World Court action for non-signatory violators! Japan is > currently broadcasting in the 160 meter band - a clear violation! Yet > nothing is ever said or done about it. Japan? Broadcasting in the 160 meter band? Is this "station" in the WRTH or any other listing?
markz@UUNET.UU.NET> (01/14/90)
In article <8929@ttidca.TTI.COM>, sorgatz@ttidca.TTI.COM ( Avatar) writes: > We've lost enough spectrum to commercial interest in the last 50 years, Time to remember that Hams got 250 Khz more HF bandwidth from the last WARC. 10100-10150, 18068-18168, 24890-24990 Khz in case anyone wants to listen. I smell a swap, and would expect that 41 Meters will go to the broadcasters. > 3) The current users of 4000-4500 and 7300-7500 would not be impacted > greatly since that space is currently used as 'high seas' space and > with the influx of satellite-transponder based SITOR systems, the > ships are not using the allocation. Try listening. The maritime TOR channels are some of the busiest and most interesting stuff available. They mostly serve regional traffic, and since their costs have to be lower (they don't have to put something in geosynchronous orbit), they will continue to fill that niche. If anyone should be in orbit, the gobal broadcasters should be. The ITU should work at getting a couple hundred Megahertz of exclusive allocation so that low cost satellite receivers or converter using low gain/wide beamwidth antennas are possible (for mobile applications). markz@ssc.uucp
pfluegerm@BBN.COM> (01/16/90)
In article <9350016@hpfcso.HP.COM>, ron@hpfcso.HP.COM (Ron Miller) writes: > Re: Sharing the bands > > As I understand it, hams are not allowed to use spread spectrum techniques. > Perhaps permission for this could be traded for a few kHz of space? > > Ron Miller > NW0U We are in the new rules! -- Mike Pflueger @ AG Communication Systems (formerly GTE Comm. Sys.), Phoenix, AZ UUCP: {...!ames!ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!hrc | att}!gtephx!pfluegerm Work: 602-582-7049 FAX: 602-581-4850 Home: 602-439-1978 Packet: WD8KPZ @ W1FJI Internet: PLEASE USE UUCP PATH (NOT INTERNET)!