KA4EET
08-21-2010, 02:39 PM
I was wondering if anyone heard anything about expanding the 17 meter band. There seems to be alot of wasted space on each side of it that I am sure the amatures could use.
View Full Version : 17 Meter Expansion
K5FH
08-21-2010, 03:08 PM
Not likely to happen any time soon. The FCC, to my knowledge, has nothing in the works about it (NPRM, etc.). But it would be nice if they would.
Of course, with 15, 12 and 10 being dead quiet the majority of the time, we would be hard-pressed to justify why we need MORE frequencies when those we have aren't being utilized. I suspect that the FCC has the same opinion.
Of course, with 15, 12 and 10 being dead quiet the majority of the time, we would be hard-pressed to justify why we need MORE frequencies when those we have aren't being utilized. I suspect that the FCC has the same opinion.
KF4ZHL
08-21-2010, 03:32 PM
10,12, and 15 simply aren't open for effective DX a majority of the time. At least, not yet. Sure, they are good for local simplex chat as well. But the VHF/UHF/SHF bands cover local needs more than adequately. 10m simplex chat still occurs on occasion. Mostly due to 10m equipment being cheap and easily available. Frankly, in most areas, 2m VHF has plenty of space available for local FM chitchat. Both simplex, and repeater.
KA4DPO
08-21-2010, 03:53 PM
There is no room at the bottom of the band since 17.97 to 18.03 MHZ are Aeronautical Mobile frequencies. There is however, at least another 5 KHZ or more of spectrum above 18.165 MHZ that does not appear to be allocated to anything. The current FCC chart just says Fixed/Mobile up to 18.69 MHZ with broadcasting above that.
It couldn't hurt to ask why the band can't be expanded with all that spectrum just sitting there.
It couldn't hurt to ask why the band can't be expanded with all that spectrum just sitting there.
AC0FP
08-21-2010, 04:33 PM
I haven't heard much on 17 lately let alone 15, 12, & 10 meters. With the Sun enjoying retirement, it looks like the solar flux is going to remain in the 77 area for the foreseeable future. :( I think the SFI needs to break 100 before a noticeable change on 15 meters will occur, of course this is just my opinion!
fp
fp
N0NB
08-21-2010, 05:14 PM
Well, if no one cares a whit about being able to utilize bandwidth that we're already allocated (14.125 to 14.150 MHz), why should we get on the bandwagon to extend 17m? Also, the current 17m allocation is world wide and it wouldn't do much good for just the USA to extend it. So this is an ITU/WRC issue not just a USA issue. In that case if the band were to be extended any amount, the current users will need to be relocated someplace.
I'm of the opinion that we need to start figuring out how to make our current use of our existing allocations as efficient as possible before asking for more allocations. Allowing large segments as on 20m to just sit idle is not efficient use of the spectrum.
I'm of the opinion that we need to start figuring out how to make our current use of our existing allocations as efficient as possible before asking for more allocations. Allowing large segments as on 20m to just sit idle is not efficient use of the spectrum.
K4KYV
08-21-2010, 05:40 PM
[/I]I'm of the opinion that we need to start figuring out how to make our current use of our existing allocations as efficient as possible before asking for more allocations. Allowing large segments as on 20m to just sit idle is not efficient use of the spectrum.
That's why Regions 1, 2 and 3 band plans and local regulatory restrictions in each country need to be coordinated world-wide to allow for maximum use of existing frequencies. The present situation that results in congestion in some parts of the HF bands while large swaths of frequencies lie idle in other parts, and the spectrum-wasting practice of split frequency operation (due to differing sub-band allocations in various countries) is ridiculous.
That's why Regions 1, 2 and 3 band plans and local regulatory restrictions in each country need to be coordinated world-wide to allow for maximum use of existing frequencies. The present situation that results in congestion in some parts of the HF bands while large swaths of frequencies lie idle in other parts, and the spectrum-wasting practice of split frequency operation (due to differing sub-band allocations in various countries) is ridiculous.
KA4DPO
08-21-2010, 06:12 PM
Well, if no one cares a whit about being able to utilize bandwidth that we're already allocated (14.125 to 14.150 MHz), why should we get on the bandwagon to extend 17m? Also, the current 17m allocation is world wide and it wouldn't do much good for just the USA to extend it. So this is an ITU/WRC issue not just a USA issue. In that case if the band were to be extended any amount, the current users will need to be relocated someplace.
I'm of the opinion that we need to start figuring out how to make our current use of our existing allocations as efficient as possible before asking for more allocations. Allowing large segments as on 20m to just sit idle is not efficient use of the spectrum.
Did you mean 14.125 to 14.350 MHZ?
But I see your point, I don't think the FCC can expand 17 or any other band without coordination and acceptance by the ITU.
I'm of the opinion that we need to start figuring out how to make our current use of our existing allocations as efficient as possible before asking for more allocations. Allowing large segments as on 20m to just sit idle is not efficient use of the spectrum.
Did you mean 14.125 to 14.350 MHZ?
But I see your point, I don't think the FCC can expand 17 or any other band without coordination and acceptance by the ITU.
WA7KKP
08-21-2010, 06:44 PM
I was wondering if anyone heard anything about expanding the 17 meter band. There seems to be alot of wasted space on each side of it that I am sure the amatures could use.
If you rephrased that and said 11 meter band instead of 17, and replace amatures (sp) with Citizen banders, you see my logic here . . . They did, and the expansion did nothing to alleviate the ongoing problem(s) . . .
I'd be more into pushing the ARRL to keep what we have -- my points being the loss of the bottom 2 MHz of the 220 band, and 1215-1240 MHz. Gone, without even a whimper from the back.
Gary WA7KKP
If you rephrased that and said 11 meter band instead of 17, and replace amatures (sp) with Citizen banders, you see my logic here . . . They did, and the expansion did nothing to alleviate the ongoing problem(s) . . .
I'd be more into pushing the ARRL to keep what we have -- my points being the loss of the bottom 2 MHz of the 220 band, and 1215-1240 MHz. Gone, without even a whimper from the back.
Gary WA7KKP
N0SYA
08-21-2010, 06:58 PM
how bout 160 down to 1710?
N2RJ
08-21-2010, 07:46 PM
Expand 17m? For what?!?!? We keep hearing about how there is no room to operate when a contest occupies the non-WARC bands yet the WARC bands are dead.
Maybe if the anti-contest whiners used 17m instead of interfering with a contest in progress I'd be in favor of expanding it. Otherwise, forget it.
Maybe if the anti-contest whiners used 17m instead of interfering with a contest in progress I'd be in favor of expanding it. Otherwise, forget it.
K5FH
08-21-2010, 08:04 PM
Maybe if the anti-contest whiners used 17m instead of interfering with a contest in progress I'd be in favor of expanding it. Otherwise, forget it.
Most of the time it's the non-contestors who complain about being QRMed by the contestors, especially if the non-contestors had an ongoing QSO stomped upon by a Kalifornia Killowatt Kontestor.
Sounds like you're saying that contest activity should take precedence over all other forms of Amateur activity. The Rules (Part 97) say that nobody has exclusive right to a frequency - not even the ARRL, and certainly not a certain somebody up in Maine.
It's a good idea to use 17M when there is a contest in progress on 20M, no argument. But it's also a good idea to remember that contestors have no special rights or privileges over non-contestors. Says so right on the (FCC) label.
Most of the time it's the non-contestors who complain about being QRMed by the contestors, especially if the non-contestors had an ongoing QSO stomped upon by a Kalifornia Killowatt Kontestor.
Sounds like you're saying that contest activity should take precedence over all other forms of Amateur activity. The Rules (Part 97) say that nobody has exclusive right to a frequency - not even the ARRL, and certainly not a certain somebody up in Maine.
It's a good idea to use 17M when there is a contest in progress on 20M, no argument. But it's also a good idea to remember that contestors have no special rights or privileges over non-contestors. Says so right on the (FCC) label.
G0GQK
08-21-2010, 09:30 PM
The FCC are not in any position to change the 17 metre band. Decisions on matters such as this are taken by the IARU and there is no indication that they have any intention of changing things. They usually give us a ten year warning !
G0GQK
G0GQK
WB2WIK
08-21-2010, 09:59 PM
The FCC are not in any position to change the 17 metre band. Decisions on matters such as this are taken by the IARU and there is no indication that they have any intention of changing things. They usually give us a ten year warning !
G0GQK
Change that to "ITU.":)
G0GQK
Change that to "ITU.":)
NN3W
08-22-2010, 12:54 AM
Most of the time it's the non-contestors who complain about being QRMed by the contestors, especially if the non-contestors had an ongoing QSO stomped upon by a Kalifornia Killowatt Kontestor.
Sounds like you're saying that contest activity should take precedence over all other forms of Amateur activity. The Rules (Part 97) say that nobody has exclusive right to a frequency - not even the ARRL, and certainly not a certain somebody up in Maine.
It's a good idea to use 17M when there is a contest in progress on 20M, no argument. But it's also a good idea to remember that contestors have no special rights or privileges over non-contestors. Says so right on the (FCC) label.
You should remind the SSTVers and the folks on 14.300 of that fact now and again......
Sounds like you're saying that contest activity should take precedence over all other forms of Amateur activity. The Rules (Part 97) say that nobody has exclusive right to a frequency - not even the ARRL, and certainly not a certain somebody up in Maine.
It's a good idea to use 17M when there is a contest in progress on 20M, no argument. But it's also a good idea to remember that contestors have no special rights or privileges over non-contestors. Says so right on the (FCC) label.
You should remind the SSTVers and the folks on 14.300 of that fact now and again......
NN3W
08-22-2010, 12:58 AM
I haven't heard much on 17 lately let alone 15, 12, & 10 meters. With the Sun enjoying retirement, it looks like the solar flux is going to remain in the 77 area for the foreseeable future. :( I think the SFI needs to break 100 before a noticeable change on 15 meters will occur, of course this is just my opinion!
fp
Bad opinion. The SFI was 84 last weekend, and folks were working Europe like it was next door. Terrific opening. Folks in the midwest and west coast were making plenty of EU QSOs.
fp
Bad opinion. The SFI was 84 last weekend, and folks were working Europe like it was next door. Terrific opening. Folks in the midwest and west coast were making plenty of EU QSOs.
AC0FP
08-22-2010, 02:40 AM
Bad opinion. The SFI was 84 last weekend, and folks were working Europe like it was next door. Terrific opening. Folks in the midwest and west coast were making plenty of EU QSOs.
Not me, I must of been at work, on the wrong band, or I live in zero land. I didn't hear anything about it either but then I really don't operate narrow band modes CW/PSK31.
Checked SFI again today and its 76!
Not me, I must of been at work, on the wrong band, or I live in zero land. I didn't hear anything about it either but then I really don't operate narrow band modes CW/PSK31.
Checked SFI again today and its 76!
NN3W
08-22-2010, 02:53 AM
Not me, I must of been at work, on the wrong band, or I live in zero land. I didn't hear anything about it either but then I really don't operate narrow band modes CW/PSK31.
Checked SFI again today and its 76!
VE7s and W0s in Minnesota and Colorao, and a lot of W5s were all working EUs on 15 CW - it was last weekend.
Checked SFI again today and its 76!
VE7s and W0s in Minnesota and Colorao, and a lot of W5s were all working EUs on 15 CW - it was last weekend.
N0NB
08-22-2010, 07:37 PM
Did you mean 14.125 to 14.350 MHZ?
No, I meant 14.125 to 14.150 which is unused by amateurs under the jurisdiction of the FCC.
No, I meant 14.125 to 14.150 which is unused by amateurs under the jurisdiction of the FCC.
AC0FP
08-22-2010, 08:16 PM
VE7s and W0s in Minnesota and Colorao, and a lot of W5s were all working EUs on 15 CW - it was last weekend.
Sounds like a "contest opening", again I don't do CW!
Sounds like a "contest opening", again I don't do CW!
K4KYV
08-22-2010, 09:48 PM
how bout 160 down to 1710?
Actually, the band used to be 1715-2000. Then the FCC took away 1715-1750 and gave us 2000-2050. For a brief period the band was a full 300 kHz wide, from 1750-2050, until Pearl Harbor threw the US into WW2.
1700-1800 and 1900-2000 are now primarily allocated to Radiolocation. Amateurs are presently secondary users of 1900-2000. Fortunately for us, GPS has pretty well rendered Radiolocation in that part of the spectrum obsolete and there are no longer any beacons to be heard in 1900-2000, and only one or two are audible on 1700-1800. By the late 80s or early 90s, 1700-1800 was packed with beacons, and they were beginning to show up in the 1900-2000 kHz amateur band as well.
Actually, the band used to be 1715-2000. Then the FCC took away 1715-1750 and gave us 2000-2050. For a brief period the band was a full 300 kHz wide, from 1750-2050, until Pearl Harbor threw the US into WW2.
1700-1800 and 1900-2000 are now primarily allocated to Radiolocation. Amateurs are presently secondary users of 1900-2000. Fortunately for us, GPS has pretty well rendered Radiolocation in that part of the spectrum obsolete and there are no longer any beacons to be heard in 1900-2000, and only one or two are audible on 1700-1800. By the late 80s or early 90s, 1700-1800 was packed with beacons, and they were beginning to show up in the 1900-2000 kHz amateur band as well.
N0SYA
08-22-2010, 09:57 PM
we need a front man to present our case!
N2NL
08-22-2010, 11:55 PM
I've been working tons of EU and some NA on both 15 and 17m over the past week or so. Probably 300-400 EU on 15 (7000 mile path) and a couple hundred NA (8000+ mile path). 12m has been open to EU as well. The SFI bump really turned up the propagation on these bands.
Granted, this was on CW, but signals were loud enough for SSB as well.
73, Dave KH2/N2NL
Granted, this was on CW, but signals were loud enough for SSB as well.
73, Dave KH2/N2NL
WA4ILH
08-23-2010, 02:20 PM
There is activity above 18.168. Check out this frequency search site
http://qrg.broker.freenet6.net/
here's just 2 listings found in this band.
18.171 MHz USB USA FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigations rs
18.172 MHz Chaguaramas, Trinidad 9Z4DH SailMail
Tom WA4ILH
http://qrg.broker.freenet6.net/
here's just 2 listings found in this band.
18.171 MHz USB USA FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigations rs
18.172 MHz Chaguaramas, Trinidad 9Z4DH SailMail
Tom WA4ILH
