LABRE, through their Spectrum Defense and Management WG, joined lasted week the XXVI Meeting of the Permanent Consultive Council (CCP.II) of the Inter-American Telecommunications Commission (CITEL) in Ottawa, Canada. LABRE is co-rapporteur for the agenda item 1.4 (possible secondary allocation to the Amateur Service around 5300 kHz) at the Brazilian Communications Commission (CBC). The association has been integrated to the Brazilian team at CITEL. The delegation is coordinated by the National Telecommunications Agency (Anatel). Brazil presented a preliminary proposal in 2014. It was discussed along various meetings of CITEL with several countries, receiving across this journey support of 13 administrations. The proposal selected the ITU method that considered a continuous amateur secondary band between 5275 kHz and 5450 kHz. A second proposal was presented by Canada considering non-contiguous 2 segments with 25 kHz each. USA presented an informative document considering a single 25 kHz bandwidth but both suggestions did not received supporters. Since the CITEL happened in Ottawa was the latest meeting before the World Radio Conference of 2015, the first proposal became the official Inter-American Proposal (IAP) to be presented at the WRC-15 next November in Geneva. Other regional proposals also will be discussed. The major resistance came from Russia (RCC) that opposes to any additional attribution on the segment. Other proposals suggest reduced bands as 100 kHz by CEPT (under development) or even 15 kHz by China. The final decision only will be given at WRC-15. Some countries already have national permissions for regular or experimental emissions with full band, segments or channels options, while others do not permit any operation. Respect your national spectrum regulations and keep tuned for further informations. Photos on the original article: - General view of the XXVI CCP.II/CITEL delegates (Photo: CITEL) - Plenary session of XXVI CCP.II/CITEL (Photo: LABRE/GDE) - One of the big discussions about polemic agenda items. (Photo: LABRE/GDE) - Tim Ellan VE6SH, Jose Arturo YS1MS, Bryan Rawlings VE3QN and Flavio Archangelo PY2ZX with delegates at CITEL. (Photo: LABRE/GDE) From LABRE/GDE, August 28, 2015. http://www.radioamadores.org/news/news-2015/news-2015-25.htm
An HFLINK-sponsored poll taken in October 2014 asked: "As a USA ham operator, which position do you support for 5 MHz amateur radio recommendations at the World Radiocommunication Conference 2015 ?" 64% Support NTIA Position (keep 5 MHz channelization) 34% Support ARRL Position (change to 5 MHz VFO band) 2% No Opinion (or no support for either) HFLINK (6000+ members) is an organization for HF Interoperability. It covers issues related to High Frequency Interoperability for civilian, amateur, government, and non-governmental organizations worldwide. Specifically, there is a lot of 5MHz interest among HFLINK members. In USA, 5MHz channels are currently the only frequencies which have been demonstrated to have direct HF interoperability with governmental agencies. There is valid concern among many operators in both the amateur radio community and the federal communications community that this interoperability would be jeopardized by creation of an amateur radio VFO band.
Bonnie, I don't understand the HFLINK groups resistance to a 5 mhz amateur allocation with at least a partly "VFO" style band segment, as the ARRL seems to support. Preserve some channels if needed, but why, technically, is channelization required for interoperabilty between amateurs and governmental or other users? Don't take this next question as a criticism of the mode, curiosity is my sole agenda, but does channelization some how better accommodate ALE? I was not able to participate in this years Armed Forces Day Crossband Comms Test held in May, with the newly added feature of ALE mode operations, which sounded like a neat idea. However, I have not read any reports about what happened. Did, or did not, this years AFD XBT produce satisfactory results with ALE? In past years events I have never had an issue interoperating with these stations without ALE by using other analog or digital modes. 73 de John WØPV
The 5MHz channels are the only HF simplex (non-crossband) frequencies hams have in USA for direct communication with governmental entities, such as FEMA or others.
This proposed band allocation contains the five 60 meter channels, so hams would still be able to communicate with government organizations if it went into effect here. The channels go away, yes, but the frequencies are still there.
Restating the obvious is not an answer to my questions. Sorry Bonnie, I don't yet get your point or agenda. What advantage are simplex channels? Crossband is direct communication also and has been proven many times to work with the DoD if needed. Were there any issues discovered using crossband ALE in the 2015 AFD test? I would like to know if there were any successful QSO's, or if not, why. Is this simply a FEMA issue, ie, their radios can't do crossband, or is there some NTIA regulation that prevents them using crossband. It appears the ARRL has built a strong relationship with FEMA and holds Field Day and Simulated Emergency Tests. QSO's with 5 mhz FEMA stations, simplex or crossband, should be part of those activities. (why are they not?) In a declared emergency I would think FEMA or any government station would be permitted to operate simplex if needed in amateur bands with or without embedded ham ops, and vice-versa. How would having an amateur 5 mhz allocation of non-channelized continuous segment of spectrum, a "VFO band", negatively effect direct communication with governmental entities? Is there a concern about encroachment and adjacent channel interference? I don't think that would be a problem in a true emergency but it could be alleviated by retaining some discrete channels separately. As I see it now, an addition of a smartly designated and secondary restricted 5 mhz "VFO" ham band, as the ARRL and/or others have proposed, would be of great benefit for all users. 73 de John WØPV
The joint ham-government interoperability exercises on 5MHz have been successful and possible only due to the channelization. HF interoperability between governmental entities and amateur service is channel-based only. Simply, the governmental entities hams communicate with on HF don't do VFO. They are channelized only, and more than 90% ALE-initiated. They don't have operators monitoring for HF calls by listening to static like hams do. When the (ALE HF) phone rings, they answer it. When they want to make an HF call, they dial the number (ALE address) of the desired station. It connects and they talk. With current interoperability techniques, that requires channelization. Hams are secondary users sharing 5MHz. If hams were to convert 5MHz to a VFO band and start sliding around willy-nilly in the 5MHz spectrum, the governmental entities who are primary users will be unable to exert instantaneous control over the 5MHz spectrum like they can do now. This is because if they try to talk on USB to the VFO ham interfering with them, it is unlikely that the ham will copy them if the ham is 1kHz or 2kHz off frequency. The primary user will effectively be pushed out by the adjacent QRM from hams. The likelihood of continued ham-gov interoperability goes down the tubes rapidly at that point. The governmental entities are likely to just remove those 5MHz ham interoperability channels from their scan list entirely, because they simply won't be viable anymore. Hams have been playing a game of bait-and-switch on 5MHz with the primary user government entities. To get on 5MHz, the ham community promised not to cause interference, that the need for 5MHz channels was mainly for emergency disaster use, and that hams would conform to the existing spectrum management methods (channelization) already in use in the 5MHz band. Now, ARRL and other ham entities are trying to turn it into a DX-chasing VFO band. Why should primary spectrum users trust hams in the future, when hams have lied to them so badly in this case? Hams should live up to commitments with honor.
I've done some more homework now on the HFLINK agenda; the ALE networks, HFIE-2014, etc. I am glad there apparently has been success in ham-government interoperability using ALE. I can understand promoting and championing the use of ALE. But its going too far when it starts using "gloom and doom" scenarios and focusing only on the "dark side", a surmised lack of operating skills, practice's or malevolent intention and character of either the involved government or amateur (DX) operators on 5 mhz. None of that negates the premise of an allocation for an 5 mhz ham VFO band segment! It has been proven that neither channelization nor ALE mode being used on both sides of a QSO is a requirement for successful ham-government interoperability. The ARRL asserts that there has never been a report of any interference to a primary user on 5 mhz by a secondary amateur source. The very nature of ALE mode is to search and sound multiple frequencies for a clear channel. The probability of ALL primary channels being occupied or significantly QRM'ed by secondary users is statistically irrelevant. And I am not buying the argument that adjacent secondary user VFO stations would not notice and QRT or QSY to compensate. The very existence and success of HFLINK network ALE channels embedded within highly active HF DX VFO ham bands is evidence to the contrary that potential adjacent channel QRM would be a disqualifying factor for successful primary use or joint ham-government interoperability on 5 mhz.