PDA

View Full Version : 60 meters and DXing concerns


K3UD
04-06-2007, 01:30 PM
==>DXING ON 60 METERS HAS DOWNSIDE, ARRL NOTES

The ARRL is expressing concern that negative consequences could result from chasing DX on 60 meters. Some DXpeditions have announced plans to operate on Amateur Radio's only channelized band, where amateur operations hold secondary status to fixed service operations, including some US government stations. ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ, says that while it's legal for
DXpeditions to operate on the 5-MHz band provided the licensing
administration extends privileges there, DX pileups on 60 meters pose the potential for real and unique problems.

"US amateurs are limited to five channels on 60 meters, USB only, maximum effective radiated power (ERP) of 50 W, audio bandwidth not exceeding 2.8 kHz, and not all of the channels are useable because of ongoing fixed service operation," Sumner points out. "It is absolutely imperative that any amateur transmitting on a 60 meter channel be prepared to relinquish the
channel immediately upon being requested to do so" by a primary service user.

Among other things, Sumner says, this means constantly monitoring the transmitting channel, thus ruling out any split-frequency operation while using a single-channel receiver.

The Swains Island N8S DXpedition, just under way, announced plans on its Web site to operate SSB on the 60-meter frequency of 5.4035 MHz, although that band was not among those on an updated frequency list released this week. While Sumner said he wasn't singling out the N8S operation, working into the South Pacific on 5 MHz running just 50 W ERP on phone would be a challenge under the best of circumstances.

"Amateurs must resist the temptation to exceed the radiated power limit," Sumner stressed.

He also warned amateurs in countries that do not authorize amateur operation on 60 meters to resist the temptation to make contacts on the band. Radio amateurs transmitting on a 5 MHz frequency without authorization, Sumner asserts, not only are breaking the law but are putting their continued participation in the ARRL DXCC program in jeopardy.

"Anyone who submits a 5 MHz confirmation for DXCC credit may be asked to provide evidence that their operation on that frequency was authorized," he said.

Even countries that authorize operation on 60 meters impose the express condition Amateur Radio stations not cause harmful interference to fixed and mobile service stations.

"Should such interference occur and not be immediately corrected, it will place in jeopardy our existing limited privileges, our chances of increasing those privileges on a domestic basis, and any chance we might have of ever obtaining an international allocation," Sumner emphasized.

Last fall, the ARRL asked the FCC to expand 60 meter operating privileges and substitute a new channel for one that's often occupied by a federal government user. The League filed a Petition for Rule Making (PRM) October 10. The petition said amateurs have proven, through interference-free operation on the five channels, that compatible sharing of the channels is possible.

The League wants the FCC to authorize radio amateurs of General and higher class to run 100 W ERP and to allow Morse code and data communication. It also asks the Commission to replace the 5368.0 kHz center-frequency channel with 5358.5 kHz, so amateurs can avoid federal government digital traffic on
the current channel.

If the FCC goes along with the ARRL's suggested changes, operation on 60 meters would remain on a secondary basis, and radio amateurs would still have to avoid interfering with incumbent federal government and other services.

73
George
K3UD

KA4DPO
04-06-2007, 01:54 PM
I can see how that could become problematic very quickly. I think 60 meters is best left to non contest operations as long as we're secondary on the band.

W0BKR
04-06-2007, 02:47 PM
I find it ironic. Hams interfere with Fed functions on 60 meters, but Fed's BPL interferes with communications as a whole and there is no interest from the Feds on resolving that issue. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

W4XKE
04-06-2007, 03:01 PM
Quote[/b] (W0BKR @ April 05 2007,08:47)]I find it ironic. #Hams interfere with Fed functions on 60 meters, but Fed's BPL interferes with communications as a whole and there is no interest from the Feds on resolving that issue. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
I think the ARRL's concern is valid. Contesters commonly disregard all rules and etiquette in the quest for contacts but only QRM other hams. If they were to operate in their normal fashion on 5 MHz, the feds would be involved in the trashing of the band.

N2RJ
04-06-2007, 03:03 PM
Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ April 06 2007,08:54)]I can see how that could become problematic very quickly. I think 60 meters is best left to non contest operations as long as we're secondary on the band.
This is not contest operation though.

It's just regular DXing.

I think regular DXing is fine, but split operation should be watched.

Some countries also have a full 60m band with 1.5kw PEP and no mode limitations.

The US Government can't order them off the air.

W5HTW
04-06-2007, 03:21 PM
I can't think of anything negative about DXing on 60 meters, provided all the rules are followed. (I do agree contesting should not be permitted there.) I feel the band would offer some operator challenge (instead of just who has the biggest leenyear) if the rules stay in place as they are.

I say that, because the original intent of even asking for this band was for regional emergency communications, like the 5 mhz emergency frequency in Alaska. It was not intended to be a "normal" ham band. The request was for a band or range of frequencies that would serve as an alternate to 75 meters for local coordination. It was understood, of course, that there would be times the band would be useful over long ranges.

I can see where the NTIA could revoke our use of this band entirely if it serves their purpose to do so. They are not governed by what other countries do regarding this range. It is their ball park here in the USA. The fact that a few countries may permit 1.5 KW is irrelevant, especially in light of the normal propagation on that range. Just "do it because others do" is not in any way a valid answer.

For now the rules are clear. We should play by them. If the rules change, we should abide by the new rules. My own operation concerning 60 meters is to use it for regional communications, that is, roughly 500 miles or so.

I suppose it would be neat to be permitted a steady carrier in order to tune the rig, say for 15 seconds. But we hams would quickly extend that to 20 seconds, one minute, repeated every minute. Why not just use a resonant antenna and tune the radio on a dummy load?

As to other modes? Why? Again it was intended as a regional band for emergency communications. The use of CW would be silly, since virtually NO emcom types know CW anyway. The use of digital can easily be handled on other frequencies, both 40 and 80 meters.

In other words, let's just accept that 60 meters is what it IS, and stop worrying about what it COULD be. Maybe someday. But for now, use it or don't. If you hear DX, fine, go for it. Within the rules.

Ed

w3dub
04-06-2007, 03:23 PM
With how small our 60m allocation is, I completely think ARRL's concern is valid. Pileups on any of these frequencies pose a significant risk of RFI to primary operators.

And if it becomes a problem, you might as well kiss any chance of a 60m band goodbye.

N2RJ
04-06-2007, 03:26 PM
Quote[/b] (KB3JGU @ April 06 2007,10:23)]With how small our 60m allocation is, I completely think ARRL's concern is valid. Pileups on any of these frequencies pose a significant risk of RFI to primary operators.

And if it becomes a problem, you might as well kiss any chance of a 60m band goodbye.
I don't think we're close enough to the primary users to cause RFI.

KA3TGV
04-06-2007, 04:36 PM
From the ARRL website:
Even countries that authorize operation on 60 meters impose the express condition Amateur Radio stations not cause harmful interference to fixed and mobile service stations.

"Should such interference occur and not be immediately corrected, it will place in jeopardy our existing limited privileges, our chances of increasing those privileges on a domestic basis, and any chance we might have of ever obtaining an international allocation," Sumner emphasized.


This appears to be a case of the chickens coming home to roost. Channelized 60 meter operation should have never been accepted by ARRL or codified into Part 97 by the FCC with blessings from the NTIA, DoD, and/or whomever. A bad policy all the way around. I have seen the argument made by the past President of the ARRL about wanting to get a foot in the door at 60 meters for emergency communications and so forth, which seems to be trotted out as a justification for everything happening in amateur radio these days. I would have preferred the ARRL forget about a 60 meter allocation until the Feds were ready to relinquish spectrum sufficient to comprise a proper amateur band with all modes and full legal power permitted. I am totally in favor of something along the lines of what was originally proposed by the League, a 60 meter amateur band from 5250 to 5400 kHz. Initially at least they had their heart in the right place. My concern is the current arrangement establishes a bad precedent for the way amateur frequency allocations are made in the future.

73

Doug
KA3TGV

KA4DPO
04-06-2007, 04:44 PM
I realize I used the term contest but once that pileup starts it quickly becomes a contest trying to work the DX station.

K3UD
04-06-2007, 05:18 PM
Maybe the ARRL should not accept contacts made on 60 meters for DXCC.

I have always considered DXCC the ultimate contest. QST publishes lists of hams showing how many countries they have confirmed. The also print an Honor Roll of the top DXers in the world, plaques are handed out and other hams spend large amounts of money to put some island or rock outcrop on the DXCC map.

Ever see what happens on 17 meters when there is a hot DXpedition holding court? A lot of times over a third of the band is wiped out because of the lure of a new one in the log. Not much different than a major contest weekend.

When DXpeditions show up on 60 meters will all the rules fly out the window? Will people wait in line for their turn to use the channel? We everyone adhere to the 50 watt ERP limit? Will there be splatter and off frequency operation? Is this really a good idea?
Should the DXpedition have a pre-registration process when they assign 15 second intervals to those who have registered to try to work the DXpedition?

There is some irony here though. The ARRL did not seem to be overly concerned about interference from auto and semi auto operation on HF for some digital modes, but now pleads for understanding about possible interference on 60 meters creating havoc.


73
George
K3UD

w8znx
04-06-2007, 05:22 PM
Quote[/b] (KA3TGV @ April 06 2007,09:36)]Channelized 60 meter operation should have never been accepted
if you cant run cw on it
its not a ham band

dx
hell you all know
if rare dx shows up on 60 meters

it will be a cluster blank

erp rules be damed

fire up that Hank 6 k ultra export model
or home brew pair of four by ones

flyspeck island is on 60 meters

Mac

cu2jt
04-06-2007, 05:49 PM
At last, a thread that does not concern me. We have no access to the 60M band and if we had, my TS-570 is not prepared for that band. But, from time to time I use to listen on the channels just to see what I am missing.

N2RJ
04-06-2007, 07:00 PM
Quote[/b] (K3UD @ April 06 2007,12:18)]Maybe the ARRL should not accept contacts made on 60 meters for DXCC.
They currently don't, unless the operation has been approved by them.

wa9cwx
04-07-2007, 04:32 AM
I think TGV pretty much said it.
So did Ed.

It was a bad idea to begin with, but, used as it was intended it serves a purpose.

We really need to keep contests OFF these "channels".

I find nothing 'enjoyable' about this band, except the politeness I have heard, which really IS nice!

As a short range alternative to 75 it is IDEAL. And as an aide to comms that may be needed in some emergency, again, it is ideal. It should be left as channelized, SSB only, and may work just fine as an "inter-service" type communications link if needed someday.

However, I too would like to see SOME real spectrum in this range for real ham radio, perhaps a 100 Khz segment just above or below the channels.

Would be nice.... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif