Amateur Radio is poised to gain access to two new bands! The FCC has allocated a new LF band, 135.7 to 137.8 kHz, to the Amateur Service on a secondary basis. Allocation of the 2.1 kHz segment, known as 2200 meters, was in accordance with the Final Acts of the 2007 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-07). The Commission also has proposed a new secondary 630 meter MF allocation at 472 to 479 kHz to Amateur Radio, implementing decisions made at WRC-12. No Amateur Radio operation will be permitted in either band until the FCC determines, on the basis of comments, the specific Part 97 rules it must frame to permit operation in the new bands. Amateur Radio would share both allocations with unlicensed Part 15 power line carrier (PLC) systems operated by utilities to control the power grid, as well as with other users. In addition, the FCC has raised the secondary Amateur Service allocation at 1900 to 2000 kHz to primary, while providing for continued use by currently unlicensed commercial fishing vessels of radio buoys on the "open sea." The allocation changes, associated proposed rules, and suggested topics for comment are contained in a 257-page FCC Report and Order, Order, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking addressing three dockets - ET-12-338, ET-15-99, and IB-06-123 - which affect various radio services in addition to the Amateur Service. The FCC released the document on April 27. With respect to the new LF sliver band at 135.7-137.8 kHz, the FCC concluded that Amateur Radio and PLC systems can coexist there. "Since the Commission last considered this issue, amateurs have successfully operated in the band under experimental licenses without reported PLC interference," the FCC said. "We are also encouraged by the fact that numerous fixed radionavigation beacons, which operate at much higher powers, share spectrum with PLC systems without reported interference." In 2003 the FCC turned down an ARRL proposal to create a 135.7-137.8 kHz Amateur Radio allocation, after utilities raised fears of a clash between Amateur Radio and PLC systems operating below the AM broadcast band. This time, the FCC said, "It is clear that we will have to establish appropriate requirements for amateur use of the band, if we are to ensure compatibility with PLC systems." WRC-07 set a maximum effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) limit of 1 W, which is what the FCC is proposing. The FCC said it "explicitly" rejects the suggestion that it choose one use of the spectrum over the other. "Our objective is to allocate spectrum on a secondary basis to amateur stations in a manner...compatible with existing PLC systems," the FCC said. "However, we also expect to permit amateur operators to make use of the allocation in a manner that is less burdensome and more productive than they are currently afforded under the experimental authorization process." The Commission said that if it concludes, after considering the record, that Amateur Radio and PLC systems cannot coexist, it would "defer the adoption of service rules, and amateur users will have to continue to use the experimental licensing process to operate in the band." With respect to the proposed 630 meter allocation, the FCC has proposed limiting amateur stations in the US to a maximum 5 W EIRP. In the US, 435-495 kHz is allocated to the Maritime Mobile Service on a primary basis for federal and non-federal use, and to the aeronautical radionavigation service on a secondary basis for federal use. The ARRL submitted a Petition for Rule Making in 2012 asking the FCC to allocate 472-479 kHz to the Amateur Service on a secondary basis and to amend the Part 97 rules to provide for its use. Several countries, including Canada, already have access to the band. The ARRL has pointed out that during its extensive course of experimentation in the spectrum around 500 kHz, no interference reports have been received. The FCC said that the "cornerstone" of the technical rules it's proposing for both bands is "physical separation between amateur stations and the transmission lines" carrying PLC signals. "Such a separation, in conjunction with limits on the amateur stations' transmitted EIRP and antenna heights, will enable PLC systems and amateur stations to coexist in these bands," the FCC asserted. "In addition, we propose to limit amateur stations to operations at fixed locations only, to ensure that this separation distance can be maintained reliably." The FCC said it wants to hear from both PLC system users and radio amateurs regarding technical requirements it would have to put into place to permit both users to operate comfortably and without compromising the PLC systems. The Commission suggested that other requirements might include limits on antenna heights, transmitter power limits, and operating privilege limits based on license class or mode. The ARRL will file comments in the proceeding. The FCC will accept comments for 60 days following publication of the Report and Order, Order, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register. Reply comments would be due 30 days after the comment deadline.
Interesting. Hams were banished from the LF bands to the "useless" HF bands. Now they are gaining access again. Maybe the consensus now is that the LF bands are pretty useless ....
Actually in my opinion the LF bands are pretty useless since to me there be too many restrictions for us to use them actively. We as operators would benefit more from fully using the 222mhz, and the 10ghz microwave bands before they are given to commercial cellphone and business companies. Which is what they are trying to do with the 10 and 24ghz bands. Personally I also would love to see the opening of the 4 meter(70mhz) band. Which is used extensively in Europe as well. Above is just my opinion based on my own operating and current use.
One thing that bothers me about this whole thing is the official recognition the FCC is giving to unlicensed users - PLC on 136 kHz, and buoy beacons on 1900-2000. The electric power industry says amateur operation in that part of the spectrum could interfere with PLC and cause widespread disruption of the power grid. They are very concerned about protecting the grid from disruptions by cyber-terrorists. If the grid is so vulnerable that a low power VLF transmitter could cause widespread outages, why aren't they equally concerned about "terrorists" deliberately sabotaging the grid with low-tech VLF transmitters? Why can't the fishnet beacons be moved to the currently unused radiolocation spectrum in the 1705-1800 kHz and 2000-3300 kHz range?
I live in downtown St. Petersburg, FL ...in an apartment building ... on the 16 th floor. NO outside antennas are allowed. Can you design a "cute LITTLE" antenna tat could be used inside ? (HI) 73 Joe W4CBJ
Joe, it doesn't matter where you live. I just did the Math for a dipole for 472 KHz, it would be 991.5 FEET long. This will probably be a band very few people will use, OH and I'm still laughing at the maximum power output of ONE WATT. The Fcc is comprised mostly of professional people versed in law. I think a necessary requirement would be to have people versed in Electrical Engineering, instead. What you see is what you get.....What a ride ! BOB N2MDA
Who said they are not. POCO's can depend on Laws to stop amateur radio operators from using Power Line Carrier frequencies. No law can stop or prevent terrorist attacks using LF transmitters. Having said that utility PLC are ancient technology with very small bandwidth capability using antiquated DSSB modulation. they are being phased out using a fiber optic cable inside the power line cable with almost infinite bandwidth. PLC use the LSB for voice so switchman can talk to each other between substation. The USB is used to carry AF 9600 baud telemetry.
Joe W4CBJ said: John KB5NJD / WG2XIQ replied: Actually yes, its beens done. One just has to set a realistic goal for success. Then, BOB N2MDA said: John KB5NJD / WG2XIQ replied: One of the issues that those of us who are operating on 630-meters now as experimental stations have discovered is the overwhelming number of misconceptions that hams have about the band, low power on the band, and antennas. First lets address the antenna issue. Virtually ALL of us that currently QRV on 630m are using loaded verticals over proper ground systems (vertical loops have been demonstrated by many with very good success when ground conditions did not allow for a proper vertical). There is no free lunch. Vertical polarization is most desired at MF because it gives the best chance of power coupling to the ionosphere (Brown). Because we are defining power output in terms of EIRP (all of us are currently defined in termed of ERP, however, the same applies), you can almost run an infinitely small antenna as long as you control loading loses and/or have enough power and can stand off the voltage. Now, my main antenna is an 80 foot tall toploaded, base resonated (via variometer) assymetric Marconi-T vertical sitting over about 3 miles of radials. It is a very good TX antenna. Most guys won't be blessed with such a setup. But lets look at a very non-scientific treatment of the performance of smaller antennas: http://njdtechnologies.net/whats-the-dumbest-antenna-ive-ever-tried-on-630-meters/ . In the cases specified, it either worked or it did not. As a weak signal band, we have defined S/N limits for various modes so its very easy to determine whether or not a QSO is possible. So it is possible to find success using small antennas on the band. The desire and drive to accomplish has to be there. Think about all the guys who had to fight through LORAN on 160m to make a QSO back in the day. The same applies here. But its been demonstrated time and time again that it can be done. Let me address dipoles before I continue: The "problem" with a dipole on 630m is that it does not behave like a dipole. The height above ground results in an interaction very similar to what one sees with earth electrode antennas, setting up a virtual loop as current flow through the ground depending on ground composition. You typically see vertical radiation patterns off the ends. This has been effectively demonstrated by Brian Pease W1IR / WG2XPJ in VT. It does work but at the end of the day you are probably still better off with a short vertical with proper radial system. There is also data from Stefan, DK7FC, related to work with low dipoles but as expected, the punch line is the same: even a short vertical will offer better ionospheric power coupling at MF. Power is not the albatros that many make it out to be. In fact, at 1W ERP using my current system I was heard in VK and ZL last summer and many, many of us have made it to Europe, often on a regular basis. The first report from VK is chronicled here: http://njdtechnologies.net/home/ . Transtlantic is common on 630 meters. Propagation is much like 160-meters, but with an attitude and possibly on steroids. You have to really want it and you have to really want to dig and play in the noise. If that is not of interest to you, this band will not be of interest. Most of us that are there now come from extreme operating backgrounds, whether QRPPP, EME, microwave or weak signal DXing on 160-meters. Its a very good CW band and may be the best kept secret for the little pistol who runs digital modes from a small station (consider how things have changed on 160m for the little pistol with the development of weak signal digital modes). Most importantly: Focus on your receive systems! Even a small RX loop can outperform the TX vertical on RX. This will be where the rubber meets the road. So if you have an interest, there are certainly plenty of us that can help. You just have to ask. 73! John KB5NJD / WG2XIQ http://njdtechnologies.net/
With a practical top loaded vertical that most amateurs could put up, think of how much DC input to the transmitter or RF power input to the antenna that would be required to generate 1 W ERP. What about 135.7 to 137.8 kHz?
At the time when my grant was only listed as 1W ERP on 630m, I needed 52w to the coax to make 1 W ERP. To make 5W ERP I can put about 200W on the coax but in winter my environmental resistance changes such that the ERP goes up to close to 10W ERP for the same amount of power to the coax. Most of the modes in use don't require linear amps (class D/E is typical) so switch mode amps are inexpensive and easy to put together. Its not tough to come up with a few hundred watts and even wilkinson combining can be use to put several amps together. Note that the petition and NPRM reflect 5W EIRP on 630 meters. During my experiments with a variety of conventional ham antennas, I note that even the 8 foot tall pipe over a radial field with 100w applied to the load coil resulted in a handful of mW ERP. Imagine if I had added some top loading... As I indicated in my antenna experiment article, using the G5RV as a Marconi-T over good ground but few radials, based loaded, and at 100W to the coax yielded results very similar to what I saw at my main station and the ERP was probably approaching 1W ERP. So imagine the capabilities of a Topbander who had a 90 foot top loaded tower. In fact that has been done but a few active topbanders and been quite the performer. One could have similar results on 2200m. Existing topband guys will have an easy time making the transition as far as antenna is concerned, both RX and TX. Unfortunately, I am not a 2200m op but there are many qualified ops out there who could comment. I do know that things are very different down there and 1W EIRP may sound small, but a lot of guys have done amazing things with that. Think about the VLF work done by W4DEX last year... literally mW ERP to get across the pond. Its a different world below the BC band and you have to suspend much of the conventional thinking. 73! John KB5NJD / WG2XIQ njdtechnologies.net
I for one think that crowing about "new bands" at these frequencies is a waste of time. Those that would probably try to experiment at these bands under an Amateur license are probably already there under Part 5 licenses and/or Part 15 operations. Both bands offer almost zero practicality for any bonafide Amateur applications. Create a new license...."VLF Experimenter". I wholeheartedly agree with KF5ZCN, both on using the allocations we have at 222MHz and above and at getting Uncle Sam to open an allocation at 4 meters. This celebration over a couple of slivers of access at VLF is silly. 73 Steve, K4YZ
There has been significant discussion about public service applications for the bands, 630-meters in particular. While I am not an emcomm operator in the traditional sense, I can tell you that even small stations can have a very large ground wave foot print during th daylight hours which can offer significant advantages over infrastracture-based systems, like repeaters. During the winter, a 600 mile GW radius has been common for my station, probably dropping by half in the summer. This groundwave path is unaffected by solar activity and typically the biggest limitation can be local noise levels so when repeaters go down and perhaps 40m is dead due to a SID or other event, these bands might offer an alternative propagation path not currently served. Protocols only need to be developed for utilization. Certainly many of us that are on the bands now will be major players in an amateur band but as an active speaker at hamfests and club meetings, and others doing the same will tell you the same, a statistical crosssection of hams find these bands very intriguing and show enough interest and desire to try them out. So while these bands might not interest you, a large number of amateurs in the US are of a different opinion... and thats ok... 73! John KB5NJD / WG2XIQ http://njdtechnologies.net
Like everything else in the amateur radio discipline, it varies. Conceivably, an existing top band operator could retrofit their 160m vertical with a loading coil and matching network and then one would only have to worry about generating a signal. The Kenwood 590DG is already setup to generate a +0 dbm signal to drive an amp. The K3, with its new synthesizer, can do the same. Older Icom radios that can be MARS/CAP modifiable only need to have a low pass filter added to the output side. Flex radio is already ready for both bands. I am sure there are others I am neglecting. Still another option, which is one way I generate a signal, is the MF Solutions Transmit Down converter board developed by John Molnar, WA3ETD / WG2XKA: http://njdtechnologies.net/the-mf-solutions-630-meter-transmit-downconverter/ . Currently, John is getting $70 for the kit and has a GPSDO LO input option. If you want CW only, check out the GW3UEP option. I wrote about my implementations here: http://njdtechnologies.net/a-few-simple-cw-transmitters-for-630-meters/ . When I bought parts, I bought in bulk - maybe $50 for enough parts to build 10 -100W switch mode PA's for 630-meters. If you have a power supply, heat sink and enclosure, you could probably get all of these parts for $15-$20. TX antenna's will cost whatever the material cost is. Verticals and Vertical loops rule at these frequencies so if you can somehow modify an existing antenna, you will be ahead of the game. A dipole configured as a Marconi T is very cost effective provided it is implemented in free space. A loading coil/variometer can be placed at the ground lever and the coax feeding the elevated dipole becomes the wide vertical radiator. This can be fed against radials. See my discussion previous noted about "dummest antenna's tried on 630m". Loading coils are commonly made from Teflon coated wire and polyethylene buckets for coil form - but you are not limited to that. Cost will be whatever you can scrounge or find at home depot. Its not terribly critical. Being that we are on the ground floor of this thing, there are no real turn key solutions. You can't call HRO and order a complete station that is plug and play but this really gets back to the roots of hamming and that is something that drives many of us. There may be an auto tuner option commercially available so stay tuned. There is one station on the east coast that has recently been granted his part 5 license on 630m and is having very good success using a 150-foot long random wire and tuning network. So anything is possible. Just be mindful of the voltages associated with large coils. I would shy away from attic antennas or antennas that might wrap around trees. They can be a fire hazard. I can't comment on 2200m, but similar situations and costs would be involved. You could build a true QRP CW transmitter and add switching relays for RX for under $50. It all depends on what you want to do. 73! John KB5NJD / WG2XIQ http://njdtechnologies.net
To those concerned that they won't be able to whip out the credit card and purchase a plug 'n play plastic radio from HRO to get on those bands, I think K4YZ is right; this is a waste of time. Let those ops stay on 75m SSB and fret over frequency ownership and discuss their ailments, or operate 20m DX and QuaRMtests and exchange five-nines. The new "bands" will be way too narrow for analogue phone or most digital modes; one SSB or digital image signal would occupy the entire band. The only practical modes for use will be CW and narrow-band data modes like PSK. It doesn't take rocket science to build up a homebrew transmitter at those frequencies, and at least for 630m, at the power levels most amateurs will use. A simple regenerative receiver would be adequate, but anyone with elementary technical knowledge could easily build a down-converter or transverter to transform those frequencies to one of the regular ham bands. Of course, once those bands become firmly established it will be only a matter of time until the manufacturers will get in on the action and plug 'n play appliances for the masses will appear on the market, but until then, this will give hams a brief window of opportunity to go back to the authentic roots of amateur radio. The real challenge in getting out a signal will be effective antennas.
