60 for 60 on HamRadioNow That's 60 days to comment on the new FCC NPRM for 60 meters (and many other things for other radio services). The FCC is finally getting around to almost being about to take action on proposals that began with the 2015 World Radio Conference, which settled on a proposal to 'harmonize' the Amateur Radio secondary allocations on 60 meters into a teeny-weeny 15 kHz 'band' (and not the 5 discrete 'channels' we have now), with an equally teeny-weeny 9-watt power limit. Apparently life is not too short for QRP. All this received a round of comments back in 2017 when the FCC asked what to do. Now they're asking again, and while they're inclined to go with the WRC's recommendations (the tiny band, tiny power), they want your comments again, just in case. Back in 2017, the ARRL said they wanted it all: the current channels, and the 'band' (which surrounds the 'middle' channel), and 100 watts on the whole shebang (because almost no hams are going to object to that... almost). I don't think they've changed their mind. Our job at HamRadioNow is (sometimes) to go over this stuff in depth, so this time I look hard at the NPRM's ham-radio-specific sections. No big surprises, but maybe it's entertaining enough to take a look. I'm joined by HRN regular Jim NO1PC, and a couple of our regular viewers who join us on the Zoom (David W0DHG makes a cameo at the top, but can't stay). and remember that we're also an audio podcast - ask your podcast app to find us https://HamRadioNow.tv
I'd prefer a tiny band to a handful of discrete channels. I'd like to rum more than 9w, but it sounds like that isn't in the cards.
It's been proven in many Operational Exercises, by using 100 Watts for the past few years, (since we were able to upgrade power from 50 watts ERP), now we can communicate with Government agencies with much more reliability. Just last weekend was a good example with the Armed Forces Day stations on 60 meters, at 10 watts I never could get them to answer any call, however at 100 watts, the same stations all gave me "Good and Readable" reports.
Hopefully the FCC will just copy the Canadians, and then everyone else can do the same thing. I suspect though it is still unlikely we will end up with universally identical 60m allocations.
I seldom use 60m, but I'd opt for a 15KHz band-portion at 100 watts RF max... that is more reasonable. I'd venture that not many folks using 100-watt rice gear would lower the power on their radios, or, rather, forget to.
ORDER AND NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Adopted: April 18, 2023 Released: April 21, 2023 Comment Date: [60 days (June 17) after date of publication in the Federal Register] Reply Comment Date: [90 days after date of publication in the Federal Register] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-26A1.pdf
60 METERS IS FINE AS IT IS I would prefer they leave the 5 Channel as is . The 5 Channel Allocation Makes It Unique and Eliminates QRM I have played 60m since its inception at 50watts ERP With todays poor propagation 100 watts is a necessity. 5403.5 is a common international frequency losing that is not acceptable Channel 1: 5330.5 kHz Channel 2: 5346.5 kHz Channel 3: 5357.0 kHz Channel 4: 5371.5 kHz Channel 5: 5403.5 kHz
I believe that firmware updates will be released for radios to enforce new frequency allocations would include the appropriate power settings. If people are programming radios on their own to reflect new rules for 60 meters then a power setting can be included in the programming. There's going to be those that use older gear that lack such programming ability, and those that don't put in the correct programming, but that's the risk that is inherent in a radio service with so much latitude on self enforcement.
,If the FCC lowers the power, 60 meters will be useless. 50 watts minimum, keep the 5 discrete channels and a dedicated 15khz swath. Don't know why FCC wants to ruin the 60 meter band
I'm not so sure the FCC has all that much control on the band to "ruin" it for licensed Amateurs. As noted in the FCC order it is the NTIA that "owns" this spectrum and so the FCC has limited options on what can and cannot be done. A quick review of the order tells me that it looks like the FCC is actively advocating on the behalf of Amateur radio operators to the NTIA but the NTIA has no obligation to do anything the FCC asks. Perhaps the most effective means to convince the NTIA to give more latitude on this spectrum to Amateur radio is seeing more Amateurs from other nations using this band. NTIA might be able to stop Amateurs in the USA from occupying this spectrum but not those in other nations. International popularity of this band could convince the NTIA that the fight just isn't worth it. I have to wonder if the problem the NTIA is seeing are Amateurs on 60 meters treating each channel like a little sub-band for narrow bandwidth digital modes to play in. I have no firsthand experience with this but I'll read reports of people violating the provision of keeping every transmission centered on the channel regardless of how wide the signal may be. Radio operators will see a signal occupying some segment in the middle of the channel and decide they can shift off to the side a bit and fit their own CQ call in. It may be inside the channel, and not interfering with the transmissions in the middle of the channel, but it is still a violation of the letter of the law. If people had followed the rules then perhaps the NTIA would not be so reluctant to share. I'm speculating here, but then there's a lot of that going on.
FWIW, here are the 'informal' comments I just posted to the ECFS: I am a casual user of the Amateur Radio 60 meter channels. Most of my activity is mobile, all of it using USB/phone. I generally support the ARRL's position - basically 'we want it all' (100 watts, keep the existing 4 channels and fold the middle channel into the 15 kHz-wide band). But I also suggest an alternative. It appears that the NTIA's primary reservation and complaint has been digital activity on the existing channels, with digital operators not complying with the 'single signal per channel' requirement. My suggestion: Retain the existing four discrete channels, but return to restricting them to USB only (no cw, no digital), at 100 watts. Allocate the new 15 kHz wide band to narrow modes only (cw, narrow digital modes) - no SSB/phone. Eliminate the 'channel' that sits in that band, allowing operators to select any frequency in that band. Regarding power levels: 100 Watt USB signals on 60 meters received via skywave (ie. not local/direct) are typically not strong, especially daytime, and especially mobile. I rarely see signals above S-5. With a low noise level (typical of daytime operation), these signals are clearly readable, but there isn't much 'fade margin' for reducing power or increased noise. Nighttime operation sees enhanced signal levels as the ionospheric D-Layer dissipates, but that is mitigated by a dramatically increased noise floor. For USB operation, 100 Watts is the low threshold of adequate. I recommend keeping the 100 Watt ERP power limit. If my suggestion of a 15 kHz-wide 'band' with only cw and narrow digital modes is adopted, I leave it to operators of those modes to recommend an appropriate power level. That is outside my area of expertise. K4AAQ - Licensed since 1965, Amateur Extra class.
I suspect the push back is coming from our Armed Forces. They dont like anything infringing on their turf. AND, under NTIA, (Which are the FCC for Government Services) all of their spectrum is channelized. They dont get Bands like we do.
The 60-day comment period has not begun yet. It is 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. This usually takes a few weeks after Adoption, which was in April. But for unclear reasons, it hasn't reached F.R. yet, which means it's not official or open for official comments yet. Also, when you do post comments, insert all three proceeding names into ECFS: 23-120, 23-121, and RM-11785. I don't think the -121 part technically impacts us, but it's part of the proceeding so the safe thing is to include it. Opinion on the band and rules are beaten to death in the Ham Radio Discussions forum so that's where such posts belong.
Finally published in the Federal Register: https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...the-2015-world-radio-communication-conference
It's time to make your comments to the FCC. I particularly hope that MARS members and Leadership respond favorably on keeping the existing channelization and power levels. Because of all the excellent past exercises between them and amateurs that have occurred over the years on 60 meters. Proving the initial goal of 60 meters has been very successful. Especially since this spectrum is regulated by NTIA, by Mars supporting this, it would help prove that 60 M at 100 watts erp and still using channelization, is an effective tool for interagency and services communications. Also the additional new Spectrum, which matches the International allocation and would be useful for experimentation and digital modes at the international WRC allocation of 15 watts.
