ad: Alphaant-1

New ham radio band at 5 MHz

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by G4TUT/SK2022, Nov 19, 2015.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: Left-2
ad: Radclub22-2
ad: abrind-2
ad: L-MFJ
  1. ND8W

    ND8W Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I'm glad to see that 60 meters will become a "band" (although a very small one) but I just can't agree to such a large reduction in EIRP. This development will translate into a significant reduction in usable signal strengths from existing levels, especially in and around urban centers and other high-noise areas, and will accordingly diminish the attractiveness of 60 meters as a dependable NVIS alternative when 75 and 40 are unusable for reliable regional EMCOMM.

    Clearly, Amateur Radio public service groups would be much better served by keeping the current five channels and using 100 Watts EIRP.

    73 and Happy Thanksgiving one and all.

    Marc
    WD8MWD
     
  2. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    aRRL had to deal with huge roadblocks... They did the best that could be done.
     
  3. DL4ZAB

    DL4ZAB Ham Member QRZ Page

    Hi Brian,
    if You are a keen QRPer, so do it and have fun! No Problem as our hobby has a widespread spectrum of possibilities.
    But, reflecting the Situation here on DL on 6m, it took nearly 25 years (!) to get rid of the 25 Watts ERP Limitation and to recognize no interference
    between HAM Radio and the German Army due to ignorance and bureaucracy; this year they finally changed it to 25 Watts Output.
    ERP/EIRP means: The better your antenna is (gain, esp. on VHF) the lower your Output power must be. This can be good to check the inerference between primary users
    and Ham Radio in a (short) time after starting, but in the long run it is foolish and silly if there is obviously none.
    Why the heck had it not been possible to give a least 50 kHz, like on 30m, and at least the 100 Watts (allowed on 10 Mc, think in all countries)?
    By the way, I have to TRXs opened on TX, an FT-847 and FT-897D.
    But for DXers such a playground of 10 kc is silly and totally useless, simply Nutz!

    Good DX and 73 de DL4ZAB, Ben
     
  4. KQ6XA

    KQ6XA Ham Member QRZ Page

    In many countries, hams received 5 MHz allocations by pleading for Emcomm spectrum.
    Even at the WRC-15 event, there was trailer set up for IARU to promote Emcomm to the delegates.
    However, the 15 Watt EIRP limit mini-band is actually counterproductive for dependable Emcomm communications.
    Such a narrow 15 kHz chunk of spectrum can be easily knocked out or jammed by interference from HF radars, RFI from a power supply, or even a single primary user high power fixed station transmitting a wide AM or digital signal in the middle of this mini-band.
    Having 5 widely-spaced frequency-agile channels, in a channelized allocation, is far superior to the WRC compromise 60 meter band.
    We recognize the need for those countries who didn't have 5 MHz allocations previously.
    But, those countries who already have good 5 MHz ham spectrum, at 100 Watts or more, would be taking a huge step backwards by adopting this mini-band QRP allocation.
     
  5. KQ6XA

    KQ6XA Ham Member QRZ Page

    The ham radio officials at WRC-15 did not publicly announce which delegates opposed the 5 MHz proposals, and eventually caused the 15 Watt limit. However, the identity of the opposition has been rumored, and some of us know who they are... that kind of thing doesn't remain under wraps forever. At some point they will get called out.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2015
  6. K2WH

    K2WH Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber Life Member QRZ Page

    15khz equals 1 1/2 turns of my VFO dial.

    Therefore, with these new power restrictions and a very small slice of spectrum, I think the only DX one is going to hear is crickets........................ Maybe that is the intent.


    K2WH
     
  7. W0PV

    W0PV Ham Member QRZ Page

    I don't see any steps backward from the published WRC-15 information.

    There are four types of 5 MHz allocation mentioned,

    1) none
    2) existing 100w fixed channels
    3) in some places a QRP VFO mini band(s)
    4) implication that both 2 and 3 are combined

    Certainly a step from 1 to 3 is not backward. And step 4 seems to be what was agreed upon.

    It doesn't help to form and spread gloom and doom insinuations and rumor. I have not seen any officials report or suggestion that what is proposed from WRC-15 is an EITHER-OR decision regarding existing 100w channels versus a QRP VFO mini band. It appears that both can and should coexist.

    Unless and until another agreement can be reached.

    73 de John - WØPV
     
  8. K2DFC

    K2DFC Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I see nothing to gain with the "new band". Would rather keep the existing channels at 100 watts. Like so many things, new isn't always better.

    K2DFC
     
    ND8W likes this.
  9. N4KZ

    N4KZ XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    It's hard to see how 60m will serve its intended primary purpose of enhancing Emcomm capabilities under poor propagation conditions with such restrictions in place. A step backwards as far as I can see. In the U.S., we'd be better served with the status quo - 5 channels and 100w output. I don't blame the ARRL for this. It wasn't their call. But I'm not a fan of their strategy no of trying to find the silver lining in this black cloud. Think back several years. Wasn't there some mention of wanting to keep 60m as gentlemenly as possible to appease the government agencies we share these frequencies with? I seem to recall such talk. Hmm. Wonder what kind of ham behavior would they have found distasteful? I love to DX -- Honor Roll and 8BDXCC here. But I could see where some spectrum sharing partners wouldn't quite appreciate a ham DX pile-up with the same enthusiasm many of us hams might. Wonder if this might be factor in all this?
     
  10. W0PV

    W0PV Ham Member QRZ Page

    The new band combined with the existing channels would be a great gain at least and especially for the fast growing HF digi modes like JT65 and WSPR, which are crowded and can get clobbered more frequently elsewhere. Should work well for CW too. When a VFO segment combined with the channels is implemented, what will be a bit challenging is working out the suggested mode band-plan, in gentlemanly fashion, of course.
     
  11. W0PV

    W0PV Ham Member QRZ Page

    Who defined the "primary" purpose for 60m amateur use being EMCOMM? I don't recall seeing that from the FCC or ARRL. (not to be confused with the 5 MHz Alaska channel) It can of course have an EMCOMM function, but how often is that needed? Meanwhile, it could be spectrum much better utilized by hams, and adding a VFO allocation (and not subtracting channels) can enable more interest and use.

    Would a combined VFO segment plus channels 5 MHz become more of a DX band? Maybe. Hopefully. So what? That's a good way to train and test comm abilities. Some 5 MHz proponents have been spreading misinformation about the effects of ham DX'ing in a wrongful negative way, perhaps for their own agendas. Don't listen to them.
     
  12. N4KZ

    N4KZ XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Go back and reread some of the talking points from 10-15 years ago justifying why an amateur radio allocation in the vicinity of 5 MHz was desirable. While not specified in the U.S. regs, enhanced emcomm capability (because during sunspot minimum the MUF was often below 7 MHz and therefore a new "band" between 80 and 40m was desirable during emergencies) was certainly a selling point for us to gain access to that part of the spectrum.
     
    K8PG and ND8W like this.
  13. W0PV

    W0PV Ham Member QRZ Page

    Sure, I am not disputing that EMCOMM was and is a prime selling point for ham allocation in 5 MHz, but its not THE primary purpose, nor only purpose, for the 60m band, or for hams in general. Amateur radio serves the public in a lot of other important ways then just EMCOMM. We ought not to be shy of properly promoting them, even DX'ing.
     
  14. VE6SH

    VE6SH Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

  15. W0PV

    W0PV Ham Member QRZ Page

    Thanks for the reference Tim. That does underline the EMCOMM selling point, but still does not designate it as primary. If fact, it spells out the more general use, c) "... amateur stations would need to be able to access spectrum at around 5 MHz in order to fulfil their communication functions..." followed by highlighting the specific EMCOMM response.

    Again, amateurs "fulfil (ling) their communications functions" in a normal non-EMCOMM fashion, such as calling CQ and making routine contacts, roundtable ragchewing or nets, DX'ing, experimenting, all contribute to preparing for the EMCOMM contingency.
     
    ND8W likes this.

Share This Page

ad: Radclub22-1