4 Meters - North America?

Discussion in 'VHF/UHF - 50Mhz and Beyond' started by N5AF, Aug 4, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-2
ad: l-BCInc
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: L-Geochron
ad: abrind-2
  1. KA0HCP

    KA0HCP XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    No. Not using your US license or on a US registered boat. There is no FCC 4m band allocation.
  2. W2VW

    W2VW Ham Member QRZ Page


    As mentioned several times previously, VHF television was not abandoned in 2010 or later.

    The Spectrum Auction pushes even more television transmitters down to the 70 mhz area.

    Your proposal may have about the same chance as asking for space on the medium wave AM broadcast band.

    At least the television broadcasters have a viable business model for the future. Many medium wave AMs do not.

    Continued unworkable proposals dilute the solution for feasible ones.



  3. K9STH

    K9STH Ham Member QRZ Page


    The proposal was originally sent in 9.5-years ago when it appeared that the Channel 4 segment would be abandoned. After 4-years of hearing absolutely nothing, I sent a follow-up letter. At that time, I got the "Hell no" reply. This was 5-years ago. As such, at least for the time being, I have no intention of submitting any petitions concerning the 4-meter band.

    Over the years, I have received a fair number of E-Mails concerning my petition. Most of the inquiries were not aware that the FCC had rejected the proposal. The inquirer had heard, "through the grape vine", that I had submitted the petition and were wanting to know what was happening.

    Unlike those who keep saying that "something" needs to be done and then do nothing, I will submit a petition, to the FCC, when I believe changes need to be made. However, unlike a very few individuals who are constantly submitting petitions, I am very selective in what I submit and it is often a fair number of years between submissions.

    Glen, K9STH
  4. W2VW

    W2VW Ham Member QRZ Page


    I do not doubt your sincerity and purpose.

    The research could have used a little work.

    Yes, you certainly are not the same as some of the total crackpots who regularly send silly proposals to the FCC.

    BTW, my strongest television station here is WACP on RF channel 4. I visited their site back in 2013 to check out a co-located installation which has since been taken dark.



  5. K9STH

    K9STH Ham Member QRZ Page

    At the time, the "word on the street", plus from my few remaining contacts within the FCC (for a couple of decades I had worked fairly often with certain FCC personnel having to do with the commercial two-way arena), who had not retired, was that the FCC was trying to eliminate all of the "low band" (Channels 2 through 6) operation or, at least, severely curtail such operation. The time was "ripe" for trying to get a 4-meter amateur radio band. There was a fair amount of discussion about such a band but no one was really doing anything about submitting a petition to accomplish this. So, I submitted the petition.

    In all of my dealings with the FCC I have found that using "plain English", rather than "legalese", works much better. Over the years, I had gotten approval for, sometimes was granted even more than what I had requested, things that law firms, who specialize in dealing with the FCC, said were impossible! Quite often, with their proposals submitted in many pages of legalese, the law firms had no favorable reactions from the FCC. Then, a 1 to 3 page submission, in "plain English", got everything that I wanted and, as I said before, often even more. Frankly, I believe that the "worker-bees", at the FCC, who really do the work, get tired of dealing with law firms and, when something is straight forward, they are inclined to immediately grant the request.

    In 1989, within the administration of President George H. W. Bush, I was nominated, by U.S. Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, for appointment as one of the FCC commissioners. This was based on my work in the commercial two-way radio arena and the microwave radio arena and had absolutely nothing to do with me having an amateur radio operator's license. I made it until the last round which was, by then, only Washington, D.C., lawyers. Although I did not get the appointment, I felt honored that I had even been nominated in the first place!

    Dealing with Federal agencies is "something else". The only 2-agencies with which I have had any real interactions are the FCC and the FAA. The FCC for all sorts of things and the FAA with towers 200-feet above ground level and higher. I have been fortunate in that my dealings with those agencies have really gone very well. Many years ago I did have to work with the NRC, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, at their Sandia Base and then again when the Comanche Peak Nuclear Steam Electric Station (nuclear electric generating facility) was being constructed. The Sandia Base was because of thin-film circuits being manufactured by the Collins Radio Company and that interaction was pretty much non problematic. The Comanche Peak situation had to do with things like emergency communications drills as well as providing communications systems to school districts that were within a 10-mile radius of the plant.

    Glen, K9STH

    K3RW likes this.
  6. K3RW

    K3RW Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    No, I knew we don't have that allocation. But I wondered if we could operate it in international waters, or perhaps just operate it under a CEPT where it is an allocation... like UK or something.
  7. K3RW

    K3RW Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I applaud your efforts to push the issue. Too many times I too have heard 'someone should do something' and everyone steps way back, and no one does anything. Perhaps some ham out there sees an angle the rest of us haven't (yet) and can push a NEW petition.

    Having worked on the receiving end of petitions as a Fed employee myself, what the greater public doesn't seem to understand is that asking the same question over and over again will not get a different answer from said agency. Once its been decided at a Federal board level, subsequent petitions essentially making the same argument are all but ignored. They'll get a form letter and not any real consideration. That's part of bureaucracy, due process, you name it. To get the wheels turning we would need a NEW petition, with a NEW argument, and perhaps that has a snowball's chance.

    Its tempting to say 'well, the rest of the world gets it so we should too'. And that type of thinking goes flat. The FCC commissioners do not care what the rest of the world is doing--they make policy for this country. And they aren't in the habit of giving out freebies. And anymore they make business-friendly decisions. When hams and business collide, hams will lose spectrum. Its already happening. Aside from passionate arguments and pie charts, there's not much hams can do to sway the current appointees. And the public should realize that they are POLITICAL appointees. The FCC is not an a-political body at this decision-making level.

    What more frequently succeeds instead is to try a different angle and go with that. Hams pull the 'its for EMCOMM' angle way too much and it seems to fall on deaf ears. Choosing a different angle, such as a valid scientific research one may be enough to move the commercial-minded FCC nowadays.
  8. K3RW

    K3RW Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    You should feel free to resubmit with your own research. Any party can join a petition in support (or against) and give evidence for it.

    A little work? Kinda vague.
  9. K9STH

    K9STH Ham Member QRZ Page

    Unfortunately, the number of technically savvy personnel, at the FCC, is at an all time low and that number seems to be getting smaller every day. It is the same at most Federal agencies. Decisions are often made based on political agendas and not for technical reasons. Pseudo-science, usually with political reasoning, often is the basis for regulations and true scientific / technical reasoning is ignored.

    I absolutely have no idea as to how to again get things "back on track". However, such is badly needed!

    Glen, K9STH
  10. W2VW

    W2VW Ham Member QRZ Page

    I would not entertain resubmitting anything on this subject because the FCC handled it IMO exactly as they should. Case closed. It was summed up by Glen as "hell no". Or is that "hell, no"?

    During the time frame of interest I was Chief RF Engineer for the flagship station of the largest television network on Earth.

    One of my tasks at work in 2010 was to dispose of several gigantic solid state television channel 4 (66-72 mhz) transmitters.

    I spent a lot of time looking for someone qualified to haul them off. I found quite a number of broadcast engineers to discuss continued use of both low and high television VHF.

    One of the facts which came to light at the time was ABC's corporate mandate to return to VHF after the transition to digital.

    Just one example of note is Philidelphia's WPVI Television who operated on RF channel 6. This was well known and is completely different from Glen's inside information.

    Low VHF performance for 8VSB television is generally poor due to the ability of local RF garbage to propagate. This was well known but it did not dissuade broadcasters from utilizing it.
    W6RZ and N1BCG like this.

Share This Page