5 ms·

Another open issue is the threat to limit amateur radio access to the 60-meter band (shared with commercial interests). https://www.arrl.org/news/deadline-exte

Another open issue is the threat to limit amateur radio access to the 60-meter band (shared with commercial interests). https://www.arrl.org/news/deadline-extended-to-november-28-2023-for-60-meter-comments https://www.arrl.org/news/deadline-extended-to-november-28-2...

threemux 3y ago
Well we're not really being kicked off, the FCC is proposing to change the allocation to match what was agreed to in WRC-15. This page summarizes: http://arrl.org/60-meter-band http://arrl.org/60-meter-band
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  The power limit would be 15 W EIRP under that provision. It's basically useless to amateurs
  - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
    That's around 10W with a dipole. With some modes (even FT8, not just stuff like WSPR), that's enough to reach around the globe. I support less limitiatons for ham radio operators, but 15W eirp is really not that useless.
    - mlyle 3y ago
      > With some modes (even FT8, not just stuff like WSPR), that's enough to reach around the globe. I semi-routinely spoke to Japan with SSB using improvised antennas in the field with 10W. Elecraft KX3 + Buddipole Deluxe. Doubt I was very efficient, though I did try to get a couple good counterpoise wires going.
    - sidewndr46 3y ago
      That's not really the point. You can work the whole world with 100mW on FT8. We don't need another low power band for digital only. If this is the route they want to go, make it unlicensed experimental operation and just limit the power to 1 W transmitter power. The whole point is having an amateur band is that it can be used for operation which might otherwise be problematic because I've agreed to work with the FCC if interference arises.
  - kloch 3y ago
    I always thought it was weird and unnecessary to use EIRP power limits on 60m vs transmitter output power (before feedline losses and antenna gain) as on every other band. The TX power limits were primarily driven by builder/operator safety - higher power requires higher amplifier voltages. If there is a lower requirement for a band to avoid interference with shared uses, why not just specify a lower power level? Why add a requirement that involves antenna and near-field environment modeling?
  - threemux 3y ago
    ~10 watts into a dipole is plenty for both CW and modern data modes. SSB is harder but still doable. ARRL is right it probably limits its use for emergency interop, and I do support their proposal to keep the 100w limit. However, if the FCC goes with its original proposal I won't lose any sleep. Perhaps it can be a haven for QRP operations. The propagation on 60m is quite good day and night.
baz00 3y ago
I think that's probably because 5MHz already has shared military use in some countries. Also to remember what I was told: it's a privilege not a right. Limitations are to be expected.
- bigallen 3y ago
  Doesn’t this kind of rub you the wrong way? The government telling you “hey, private citizen, we decided we are going to manage the EM spectrum, so you'd better follow our rules if you want to transmit anything.” I understand it’s to help coordinate everything and make the space better for the largest amount of people, but referring to transmitting as a privilege, not a right, seems asinine
  - mpalmer 3y ago
    It's critical infrastructure and it can be abused. What's controversial about this?
  - Workaccount2 3y ago
    I'd love to hear a description of your utopia with a totally unregulated spectrum space. Or perhaps your thinking is "I wish it was open, and everyone just mutually respected it". Which is great. Everyone agrees. But most people realize that their mass mutual collaboration ideas will never work by the end of high school. "If we all stopped stealing we wouldn't need locks!"
    - everforward 3y ago
      Great, then you'll have no issue if the government hands me the rights to a band around 430 THz then (red visible light)? You'll soon forget that you used to be able to own red stuff.
      - treyd 3y ago
        That's very obvious reducto ad absurd. The FCC has a clear mandate with regard to radio regulation. Visible light is clearly outside that domain.

threemux 3y ago

Well we're not really being kicked off, the FCC is proposing to change the allocation to match what was agreed to in WRC-15. This page summarizes: http://arrl.org/60-meter-band http://arrl.org/60-meter-band

sidewndr46 3y ago
The power limit would be 15 W EIRP under that provision. It's basically useless to amateurs
- ajsnigrutin 3y ago
  That's around 10W with a dipole. With some modes (even FT8, not just stuff like WSPR), that's enough to reach around the globe. I support less limitiatons for ham radio operators, but 15W eirp is really not that useless.
  - mlyle 3y ago
    > With some modes (even FT8, not just stuff like WSPR), that's enough to reach around the globe. I semi-routinely spoke to Japan with SSB using improvised antennas in the field with 10W. Elecraft KX3 + Buddipole Deluxe. Doubt I was very efficient, though I did try to get a couple good counterpoise wires going.
  - sidewndr46 3y ago
    That's not really the point. You can work the whole world with 100mW on FT8. We don't need another low power band for digital only. If this is the route they want to go, make it unlicensed experimental operation and just limit the power to 1 W transmitter power. The whole point is having an amateur band is that it can be used for operation which might otherwise be problematic because I've agreed to work with the FCC if interference arises.
- kloch 3y ago
  I always thought it was weird and unnecessary to use EIRP power limits on 60m vs transmitter output power (before feedline losses and antenna gain) as on every other band. The TX power limits were primarily driven by builder/operator safety - higher power requires higher amplifier voltages. If there is a lower requirement for a band to avoid interference with shared uses, why not just specify a lower power level? Why add a requirement that involves antenna and near-field environment modeling?
- threemux 3y ago
  ~10 watts into a dipole is plenty for both CW and modern data modes. SSB is harder but still doable. ARRL is right it probably limits its use for emergency interop, and I do support their proposal to keep the 100w limit. However, if the FCC goes with its original proposal I won't lose any sleep. Perhaps it can be a haven for QRP operations. The propagation on 60m is quite good day and night.

baz00 3y ago

I think that's probably because 5MHz already has shared military use in some countries. Also to remember what I was told: it's a privilege not a right. Limitations are to be expected.

bigallen 3y ago
Doesn’t this kind of rub you the wrong way? The government telling you “hey, private citizen, we decided we are going to manage the EM spectrum, so you'd better follow our rules if you want to transmit anything.” I understand it’s to help coordinate everything and make the space better for the largest amount of people, but referring to transmitting as a privilege, not a right, seems asinine
- mpalmer 3y ago
  It's critical infrastructure and it can be abused. What's controversial about this?
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  I'd love to hear a description of your utopia with a totally unregulated spectrum space. Or perhaps your thinking is "I wish it was open, and everyone just mutually respected it". Which is great. Everyone agrees. But most people realize that their mass mutual collaboration ideas will never work by the end of high school. "If we all stopped stealing we wouldn't need locks!"
  - everforward 3y ago
    Great, then you'll have no issue if the government hands me the rights to a band around 430 THz then (red visible light)? You'll soon forget that you used to be able to own red stuff.
    - treyd 3y ago
      That's very obvious reducto ad absurd. The FCC has a clear mandate with regard to radio regulation. Visible light is clearly outside that domain.