A new (legal) 60m wspr frequency is active

Well, from the quote you provided, (c)(1) would seem to rule out automatically controlled beacons on any frequency other than those listed in (b). I believe that such operation is further frequency-restricted in another location in Part 97.

 

Appreciate your take on the subject why would 60 meters not fall under the following "(c) A station may be automatically
controlled while transmitting a RTTY
or data emission on any other fre-
quency authorized for such emission"

Are there not provisions for RTTY and data emissions on 60 meters ?

The other question arises when dealing with WSPR yes it can be a beacon only set up but if you are set up to both transmit and receive WSPR signals on the same frequency does it still carry the beacon designation?

 

Because you are only quoting part of the regulation. The entire provision, from your original quote, reads:

(c) A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a RTTY or data emission on any other frequency authorized for such emission types provided that: (1) The station is responding to interrogation by a station under local or remote control; and (2) No transmission from the automatically controlled station occupies a bandwidth of more than 500 Hz.
​

The regulation does apply to other modes, but only under the conditions described in (c)(1) and (c)(2), which clearly exclude unattended beacon operation, since unattended beacons violate (c)(1).

In the context of the OP's idea, you certainly could operate WSPR provided it meets the emission limitations for 60m digital modes. Assuming that it does, WSPR operation still falls under the frequency sharing requirements for 60m. Even if you treat 60m like other HF bands, and WSPR like other digital modes, 60m still isn't one of the bands where unattended automatic beacon operation is permitted. Such operation, and appropriate frequencies thereof, is covered in other portions of Part 97. That was my point to the OP, pointing out that unattended automatic beacon operation won't work on 60m, if that was what he was intending (it wasn't clear to me from his posts).

I would like to see 60m operation expanded to include more digital modes. It should be a great band for daytime NVIS. But if US hams want to do more with 60m (like run multiple JT-65 Q's at different offsets within a single channel), they need to get FCC to change the rules, so such operation will comply with federal rules.

 

KK5JY good explanation would also agree there are restrictions that are specific to 60 mtrs. that must be taken into consideration in all of this discussion.

 

And yet 60m Channel 3 is filled with JT65 edge to edge every day and night and the FCC takes no action. Why?

Perhaps because the former CEO of the ARRL Dave Sumner K1ZZ wrote the primary potential potential source of complaints, the NTIA, and asked the question.

The response, "Karl Nebbia, Associate Administrator of the NTIA Office of Spectrum Management, stated, “NTIA has no interest in limiting the types of emission used by the amateurs as long as the data emission does not exceed the 2.8 kHz bandwidth generated by the upper sideband transmitter.”

So, de facto JT65 on 60m, for now, is a rationalization of the regulation - "no harm, no foul".

Maybe some day the FCC scribes will catch up.

73 de John WØPV

 

The problem with that... is that it's still a problem. By the logic you are following, anything can be "street legal" on the bands as long as enough people do it long enough. There is all kinds of behavior that I see from time to time on the bands that I don't want to see become legally acceptable.

The NTIA quote that you mentioned doesn't say anything about the alignment of the signals within the channel, just the signal type. The regulations actually speak to both, and operating off-center on 60m is still in violation of the active Part 97 rules. Whether FCC does anything about it or not, it's still wrong. If the regulations don't matter, let's just do away with them all -- callsigns, content, modes, frequencies, all of it. What you are suggesting is wild wild west, one rule at a time.

 

The following is simply my opinion, based on what I've read here and off the FCC website.
Per the US regs: Phone is permitted in the 60M band, provided that no more than 2.8kHz is occupied, and that the lower and upper limits of the SSB Phone signal are centered on the "center" of the channel... So 1.4kHz below and 1.4kHz above the center of the channel.
WSPR signals are extremely low bandwidth... and, per the way I read the rules, we can, as radio amateurs, transmit anywhere in the channel, provide we don't exceed 1.4kHz below or 1.4kHz above the center frequency of the channel.
So, if we set our USB dial to 1.4kHz below the "center", the 1500Hz audio signal (if we leave our AF at the default) will fall 100Hz above the center frequency of the channel...
Since we're permitted to use UP TO 2.8kHz centered on the channel, and the limits of the RF frequency we're permitted to use in a single transmission are 1.4kHz above and below the channel center, I don't see any LEGAL reason why we can't set the dial for 1.5kHz below the center, set USB, and WSPR away on any of the U.S. authorized channels.
If I'm wrong, please point out where...
I know this thread is over a year old, but I'm curious as to why I'm not hearing WSPR anywhere on the 60M band... especially since I've just modded my IC-718 to transmit there.
Thanks in advance.
de AI8W

 

Myself and another station on the East Coast will be on 5.355.700 USB dial frequency (actual wspr signal at 5.357.200 +/-) for the next week at least. Give a listen.

regards, Roy

 

I assume that means if someone is operating PSK-31 on 5332.000 KHz then someone else can't be on 5332.040, i.e., slightly to the right on the waterfall. That seems like a waste of bandwidth if it is not being used. I haven't listened so I'm not sure how strictly that rule is followed.

 

Yes, and yes.

See: http://www.arrl.org/60m-channel-allocation