Use of New 5 MHz Band and FCC Docket 02-98
bcarling at CFL.RR.COM
Tue Jun 4 05:56:12 EDT 2002
Hey folks - give this a read.
Here is an excellent commentary on the use of the new 5 MHz band. Maybe we
can help by commenting the same to FCC and joining DOn's voice.
We REALLY do not need a lot of limitations decided up front on the new 5 MHz
band. We certainly do not want or need a 200 watt limit or a CW-only limit either!
By DON CHESTER, K4KYV
k4kyv at hotmail.com
You need to get in your comments to the FCC re docket 02-98.
The pro-subband crowd is once again stuffing the ballot box. Reviewing
comment submitted so far, I see that at least half refer only to the
to have subbands, without offering any justification whatever for even
allowing amateurs to use the band in the first place! Apparently, these
largely the same people who pushed for subbands on 160, cw ops who appear
160 only during contests.
60 m. should follow the lead of other WARC bands with a "no contest"
I am afraid the pro-subband people are putting the entire proposal for
new band in jeopardy. Here is a copy of the message I recently posted on
the CW Reflector:
"I think we may be shooting ourselves in the foot if we make a big issue
over subbands in the proposed 60-metre band. First of all, from their
remarks at the Dayton FCC Forum, the rulemakers DO NOT appear to be
enthusiastic about the idea at all - preferring to let hams "work it out
To me, the most significant reason (not my idea; I read this from the
comments already posted) to think twice about subbanding is that 60m. is
be a shared band with amateurs enjoying only the status as secondary
on a non-interference basis with ship-to-shore and gov't fixed services.
Subbands by mode or licence class would limit our flexibility to QSY in
order to dodge primary users of the band and avoid harmful interference,
which would be a legal conditioun for our use of those frequencies.
Once we get our foot in the door, and maybe achieve primary or at least
co-primary status, we might then debate the issue of subbands if they seem
desirable at that time; at present I think this is a trivial point. We
to make the case for amateur use of the band as strong and unanimous as
possible, without unnecessarily giving the pposition any ammunition to
For what it is worth, here is a copy of the comments I submitted to the
"Regarding the proposed 5250-5400 kHz amateur band (RM-10209), I
support allocating this band to the amateur radio service on a
secondary basis. From my own experience with the 3.5 and 7 mHz bands
I see a need for spectrum to fill the gap in propagation conditions
between these existing bands, particularly due to severe interference
from international broadcasting that limits the usefulness of the 7
mHz band at night, and strong thunderstorm static that may
simultaneously limit the usefulness of the 3.5 mHz band. Listening
in the vicinity of 5 mHz, I have recently heard very little fixed or
ship-to-shore traffic. I suspect the majority of this traffic is now
communicated by satellite.
There is no justification for any special power limit in this band,
different from the other h.f. bands. Operators can avoid harmful
interference to primary services by following normal amateur
practice. Amateurs who feel they cannot afford new high power
amplifiers for this band could easily modify existing h.f. units to
cover these new frequencies. This would allow these licensees a
practical opportunity to upgrade their technical expertise and
constructional skills beyond merely operating commercially built
I propose to allow amateurs licensed General Class and higher to use
any mode of emission presently authorized on the other h.f. bands,
on any frequency within this new band. Amateurs can achieve any
needed segregation of modes of emission by establishing a voluntary
band plan, instead of calling on the Commission to expend its limited
resources to enforce what is essentially an internal amateur radio
matter. Most other countries in the world, including Canada, have
eliminated legally sanctioned mode subbands altogether."
It is easy to file FCC comments using their e-filing system @
Let's let the FCC know that the push for subbands is not unanimous.
This list is a public service of the City of Tempe, Arizona
Subscription control - http://www.tempe.gov/lists/control.asp?list=BOATANCHORS
To post - BOATANCHORS at LISTSERV.TEMPE.GOV
Archives - http://interactive.tempe.gov/archives/BOATANCHORS.html
More information about the Boatanchors