New French CEPT paper still wants 144-146 MHz for Aeronautical

In the light of the principle of solidarity with hams around the world, they should make all efforts possible, as should all ham organisations around the world.

 

New French CEPT paper still wants 144-146 MHz for Aeronautical

The French should stick to making white flags like they did during WW2.

 

Chip

It is a pity Soutgate did not pick up on the following news release with the link to the IARU paper submitted to the CEPT meeting.

https://www.iaru-r1.org/index.php/174-news/latest-news/1882-iaru-prepares-for-cept-cpg

73

Tim VE6SH

 

Writing our congressional leaders, ARRL, FEMA, Emergency Management agencies at state and local levels, the various Emergency Management certification agencies and Colleges with Emergency Management degrees as well as FCC.

 

and I would add the quality of the IARU paper is excellent and squarely addresses the issues raised by the administration in question. Papers like this simply do not "happen" and are the cumulative work of a number of IARU and member-society volunteers from a number of member-societies. I would also note IARU has two volunteers attending the CEPT meeting this week (which deals with other issues related to the amateur services and just no the French proposal)the expense of same which is directly funded by our member-societies. As I have said before, if this work does not give you an impetus to join your member society I do not know what will.

Tim VE6SH

 

... and telling them what? That we don't like the French proposal? They already know that.

No matter how it will affect them in the future, writing to your local Emergency Management agency about a proposal from the country of France that has current scope in Europe only, would be a waste of their time.

The ARRL is aware of it and as an IARU member society will comment at the appropriate time. Our congressional leaders would all defer to the FCC. The FCC is not within scope (wrong region). FEMA is not within scope (not communications, they would defer to the FCC as subject-matter experts). All other emergency management agencies are not within scope as they are local and would defer to FEMA anyway. Colleges with emergency management degrees... irrelevant. These are private institutions and have no say in international governmental regulatory affairs.

The ITU has very specific processes for handling these proposals, and governments and other organizations (such as the ARRL) can't just decide to jump into the process. If they do, it often does more harm than good. It would be like the mayor from Anytown, USA just deciding to show up at the UN, demanding to be heard. He wouldn't get past lobby Security, never mind ever being invited.

 

Hmmmmm....What if Aeronautical Radio interferes with Ham 2m Emcomm activity ?

G3SEA/KH6

 

This reminds me of "the sky is falling" editorials in 73 Magazine 40+ years ago prior to WARC '79.

Wayne Green was projecting that Amateur Radio would lose much of if not all of its HF allocations to international broadcast stations. This was in stark contrast to the calm reports coming from ARRL, advising that they were working the ITU system behind the scenes. The League was not only advising the US official voting delegation, but also offering help to radio regulating bodies in other nations, especially in third-world areas.

With such diametrically opposed positions, I "got out my popcorn" and waited to see which side really knew what was going on . . . .

And the result was, new HF allocations in the so-called "WARC Bands," instead of losses.

As VE6SH has posted, send in your dues, and let the pros in your country work the system.

 

Marketing 101

 

Well, tell RSGB, because they're not aware of that. I'm sure they can add it to their comments to OFCOM, and they can include those comments as part of their response to the IARU. </sarcasm>

 

This is easy to answer.

No frequency user in any amateur radio band, exclusive or shared, can claim protection from interference.
When amateur radio is a secondary user in a shared band, it must accept all interference and cause no interference to a primary user.

"Intruders" that operate outside their allocations are of course excepted from this.

The case where licensed users in a band are "co-primary" is somewhat more complex, but the general procedure is that all parties have to accept interference.

Amateur "Emcomm" frequencies have no special recognition or protection whatever in neither the ITU Radio Regulations nor in any national rules that I know of.

To obtain special recognition of a frequency, it takes mention as a "distress" or "distress and safety" frequency. Only a small number of selected frequencies such as
2182 kHz, 2187.5 kHz, 121.5 MHz and 156.8 MHz have this status.

Users can of course make up their own arrangements in forms of "gentlemen's agreements" for frequency use within the amateur allocations, but such arrangements have no legal standing.

It would be interesting to see how the concept of "closed repeaters" would survive a contact with European legal practices.

73/
Karl-Arne
SM0AOM

 

Good point Tim.

Taken further, even if a concerned party lacks impetus from belonging to their own national member society, perhaps due to protest over management policies, it is possible, instead or additionally, to support the IARU through their other member-society organizations.

As a North American ITU Region 2 ham with the XYL family home in DL-land I am now seriously considering joining RAC and/or DARC as well. They seem to do good works with greater efficiency and much less melodrama then mine lately.

73, John, WØPV

 

Actually, radio frequencies in the US are
considered to be a public asset. Also frequency allocations are based on world wide
regions. Even countries and sometimes locally. So technically we have our frequencies and you have yours.

But I do get your point and concerns.

My prediction is that the French will play all nice to get their foot in the door. Then when it won’t work for them they will use the cost of the money invested as justification to get what they want free and clear. Just because that is obvious to all, doesn’t mean it won’t work.

Ed

 

I can't see this working on any level.

First, 2 mtr is line of sight and line of site at FL400 is several hundred km. Limit power all you want, it's still going to be an issue. Countries are like States here in the US. Listening to KATL departure freqs I can follow European bound traffic well into NC and beyond. An Aircraft on 144-146 over France is going to be heard over half of Europe.

Second, if the French expect the rest of the world to install 144-146Mhz radios on aircraft just to satisfy a French requirement, it's not going to happen. Look how long and how many times the simple change from AM to FM for air band has been discussed and failed.

Third, in order for this to work, the rest of Europe would need to follow suit with respect to Amateurs operating on 2 mtrs to avoid interfering with AC at altitude.

I could keep going, but why bother.

Ain't gonna happen!

 

This was for drones, not regular aircraft.

The rest of Europe is in Region 1. If the ITU made new requirements for Region 1, the rest of Europe would have to comply. They don't get a choice in the matter.

Did you see that the French proposal was already pulled?