Bah, I was hoping for a real amateur band, like the one originally proposed and well on the way realisation in the US before the 9/11 attacks ratcheted up the paranoia and the idea was nixed by NTIA. I recall when the primary debate was whether or not the new band would have sub-bands. If what is now proposed is the best we can do, forget it, I won't even bother. We got some fairly decent new allocations from a previous WARC at 30, 17 and 12m, so why not now, with 60m?
The most vocal antagonists against a 5 MHz allocation were the Russian Federation which runs a lot of fixed links in Siberia in this frequency range, followed by France and NATO. The EMCOMM card has been played out so often that it has become worn-out, at least in Europe. Most European Administrations do not "give a damn" if the "Euro-Whacker" has 15 kHz around 5 MHz or not, but it eventually turned out that the CEPT common position became decided for a positive attitude to a new allocation. Due to this common position,it became possible to level out the differences of opinion between the Administrations. Agenda item 1.4 which dealt with 5 MHz was assigned the lowest possible priority in the Swedish WRC preparatory work. 73/ Karl-Arne SM0AOM
I refreshed my memory of past 60m events by using Google to locate some early 60m info. In early 2003, an article on 60m appeared in QST and explained how the new 5 channels would work, including the then-50w power limit. But what I found most interesting was the background info that initially the FCC was ready to grant U.S. hams a 150 khz domestic only allocation from 5250 to 5400 khz when the NTIA suddenly spoke up at the last possible minute -- after the FCC comment period had ended -- and said the heavy government usage of 5 MHz made a ham allocation in that region all but impossible. Discussions then began between the FCC and NTIA and the result morphed/compromised from a 150 khz band to 5 channels with a 50w limit and USB only. I didn't find anything about a power limit on the proposed 5250-5400 U.S. only band but my memory is there was no power limit different than the usual 1.5 kw PEP limit. What a difference between establishing a USA domestic-only allocation by the FCC and the many hoops of the WRC's and ITU. Food for thought. Wouldn't it be interesting if someone could find a lightly used 50-khz wide window with suitable sharing partner(s) somewhere near 5 MHz but still far enough away not to involve the NTIA. A 50 khz wide domestic only allocation with all modes and 100 watts in trade for the current and future 60m situation just might be very attractive. I know. I'm probably dreaming.
"a lightly used 50-khz wide window with suitable sharing partner(s) somewhere near 5 MHz" Seems like you are describing an animal that is rarer than a unicorn
As I recall, the NTIA issue appeared with its opposition right after the attacks on 9/11, claiming those frequencies were essential for "national security". I'm not sure what their definition of "heavy usage" is, since I have rarely heard any government or other stations in the vicinity of 5 MHz other than broadcast stations and WWV. I suspect this is a classic case of spectrum hoarding.
>The most vocal antagonists against a 5 MHz allocation were the Russian Federation Somewhat ironic given where 99% of the exclusive amateur band intrusions come from. 73 de Brian
5 MHz: What Comes Next for the 60 meter Band? Many amateur radio operators are rejoicing about a new worldwide 60 meter band, 5351.5 to 5366.5 kHz with a 15 Watt limit, forged at the recent World Radio Conference in Geneva. However, in countries where 5 MHz channels already exist with 100 Watt power limits or more, the hams are worried. They don't want their successful legacy allocations taken away. They protest that the extreme low power limits are totally insufficient to provide dependable SSB voice communications. Also, with a 15 kHz narrow slice of spectrum, hams argue that the entire band could nearly be wiped out by a high powered primary AM or data station, noisy RFI from a power supply, over-the-horizon radars, or intentional jamming. These kinds of interference issues are less of a factor with the widely dispersed existing 5 MHz channels and band segments that already exist in USA, UK, Canada, and Europe. In USA, before any changes to 5 MHz rules can happen, there will be a Notice of Proposed RuleMaking (NPRM) process with public comment and input, which could take more than a year. It will "open a can of worms" where anything can happen, good or bad. Hams need to start planning now for this. What would be the best outcome? For USA, the following proposal has merit: 1. Keep four (4) of the present legacy channels with "no changes" : -A. Keep existing 100 Watt power level and mode/bandwidth rules. -B. Keep existing channels 5330.5, 5346.5, 5371.5, 5403.5 kHz USB. -C. Keep existing 2.8 KHz bandwidth, any mode or content. 2. Exchange the present existing 5357.0 kHz channel for the new WRC15 VFO band: -A. 5351.5 to 5366.5 kHz -B. 100 Watts ERPd -C. Bandwidth 2.8 KHz max, any mode or content. If USA hams can achieve this in the FCC RuleMaking procedure, then the present domestic HF Interoperability for Emcomm can be maintained, as well as providing worldwide and regional service. Bonnie Crystal, KQ6XA
Suggest moving to Denmark. Since about 2 years the whole segment 5250-5450 kHz has been allocated for amateur radio with 1 kW and all modes on an NIB basis according to Article 4.4 in the Radio Regulations. Same in Norway and Finland but with somewhat lower power. 73/ Karl-Arne SM0AOM
Here's another possibility... Keep four (4) of the existing legacy channels and exchange the 5357.0 kHz channel for 5 new channels. Keep 100 Watts /all modes on all channels. This would bring the total to 9 channels: 5330.5 Old 5346.5 Old 5351.5 New 5354.5 New 5357.5 New 5360.5 New 5363.5 New 5371.5 Old 5403.5 Old The New channels are basically the new WRC15 band. I don't think 15 Watts will fly in USA. .
Stop while ahead! The first proposal was spot on. Don't get paranoid over a VFO. Restricting to more new official channels is a step backwards. If needed they can be later informally planned into a VFO band as is done on many other bands today.
In USA, the government stations are still the primary users on 5MHz. Hams can't call the shots, and will probably be forced into some compromise. The likely compromise will be: VFO at 15 Watts ? -or- Channelized at 100 Watts ? Which one would you choose? I'll take the 100 Watts channelized any day.
Right! Scandinavia would love to get more refugees, American hams fleeing from draconian 5 MHz regulations
Go back to the old tune, Exchange the present existing 5357.0 kHz channel for the new WRC15 VFO band: -A. 5351.5 to 5366.5 kHz -B. 100 Watts ERPd -C. Bandwidth 2.8 KHz max, any mode or content. Officially channelizing would not buy the gov't users anything; and, as well proven with the test of time, they have nothing to fear from amateurs at 100w on 5 MHz.
Good morning Brian, According to a quick 4NEC2 simulation 5 Watts out may already exceed 15 Watts EIRP on full size dipoles at lower levels, (full size @30 feet, see images below), low loss feeder lines and depending on the ground. I agree with Ben. Hardly worth the effort when it comes to DXing. OTOH I have 2 x 50 ft doublet at 45 ft and my KX3 is ready for 60m operation so why not give it a try... I have worked > 140 DXCCs using 5Watts or less. 73 Bernhard Edit: better picture
