Could a new licence counter threats at VHF and above?

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by G4TUT, Jun 17, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: abrind-2
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
ad: Subscribe
ad: L-MFJ
  1. N5SMO

    N5SMO Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I don't get this at all. Look at the PSKReporter activity for FT8 on 2 meters. You hardly ever see anything in the US, but Europe is full of FT8 on 2m every day.
    VK4HAT likes this.
  2. NG8M

    NG8M Ham Member QRZ Page

    The agencies that coordinate repeaters need to do a better job getting dead repeaters off the air and reassigning them to those that would effectively use the space. I looked to stand up a 2M repeater for Fusion and DMR in my area but was told there 'was no space' by SERA. I reached out to dozens of repeater admins listed on those repeaters along with trying to listen to traffic and received no responses from the admins and heard no traffic. They need to clean house and give up the bandwidth to those that are willing to put it to use.
    KN4SKF, N7VXA, K6AEA and 3 others like this.
  3. VK4HAT

    VK4HAT Ham Member QRZ Page

    If all you are listening for are analogue voice signals then you are missing out on most of the activity on 2m and above, which is mostly in the digital realm. Just because you do not hear anyone playing talkie talkies or the local repeater is doing nothing, does not mean there is not a wealth of activity happening on the band. The fact is ham radio is changing in profound ways and the local rag chew is becoming less and less the focus of what many are doing.
    KT4RK likes this.
  4. VK3VM

    VK3VM XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Folks here in VK the loss of 2m - at least 2MHz of it - is inevitable. Business and emergency service interests are already salivating for 2MHz more !

    The template for us as a Region 3 nation is Region 1, where most nations only support 144 - 146 MHz.

    Remember that ITU etc. standards are only a GUIDE not THE RULE for member nations and their lawmakers.

    Perhaps the IARU needs concentrate on lobbying (perhaps with professionals???) for EXTENDING R1 to 4MHz on 2M rather than concentrate on expensive talkfests?

    Yet as most posts here point out it is a case of "use or lose".

    Let's bring in a discussion point that, I do not like raising (and do not agree with) but see as being a necessary evil with regards to saving 2m for Amateur use. Perhaps these "large" reservations - predominantly unused in many parts - that we have for satellite comms on 2m needs to be reviewed?

    Perhaps as well the IARU should be encouraging AR hardware producers to concentrate on SSB-based devices and linear repeaters?
  5. SM0AOM

    SM0AOM Ham Member QRZ Page

    "Talkfests" is actually the only thing that the IARU can manage with some success.

    The IARU is a quite toothless body composed of upper-middle aged well-meaning people who like to hear their own voices, but lack any real influence in the quite ugly realities of spectrum politics. They have observer status at the regional and global levels,
    but cannot vote.

    If we look at the allocation table for the 144 MHz range in the ITU Radio Regulations 144.JPG
    A lot of things fall into place.

    The 144-146 MHz segment is globally coordinated, so if a re-allocation to aeronautical mobile first takes place in Region 1, it would be quite easy to extend it to the two other regions if there is sufficient demand.

    Further, such a re-allocation would open up the possibility of having a contiguous block of spectrum between 138 and 146 MHz in Region 1 allocated for things like UAV telemetry and sensor data transmissions. Those fit very well into the user class of Aeronautical Mobile (OR).

    Remote data collection and telemetry are "hot" items in the aerospace industry of today,
    which has a very large political influence. The interests of a few hobbyists weigh very light in comparison to those of defence-related multi-billion industries.

    Professionals with a reputation to safeguard (like me) cannot defend amateur radio with too much vigour. In many if not most spectrum management circles amateur radio today is seen as a nuisance that consumes man-power and resources and contributes nothing., so being associated with amateur radio may influence your career in the wrong direction.

    Regarding the actual proposal to reallocate 144-146 MHz, I am promised a report later in summer from a participant in the CEPT PTA working group about how it was received. Knowing more about the initial sentiments in the international community regarding the proposal could give a "hint" of its chances to succeed.

    But, amateur radio has quite powerful enemies today, which also tend to do their homework. Currently in the CEPT, the question of which stance the EU countries should have to a 50 MHz amateur allocation in Region 1 is on the table.

    The IARU has proposed a 50-54 MHz allocation, which has been opposed from many other actors. This triggered a spectrum occupancy measurement campaign that showed that at the most 1 MHz could be justified due to use of the band.

    A model based on usage profiles for determining spectrum needs for various radio services has been designed, and when actual amateur usage is input, a few hundred kHz of space comes out.

    Our colleagues in the Russian Federation did exactly this, and attached a statement to
    recent CEPT working group minutes:

    "Statement from the Russian Federation

    The Russian Federation is of the view that to satisfy spectrum needs of the amateur service in the frequency range 50-54 MHz is required 200 kHz spectrum, so the Russian Federation supports an allocation to the amateur service on a secondary basis the frequency band 50.08-50.28 MHz.

    Also Russian Federation is of the view, that even if the some part of frequency band 50-54 MHz will be allocated to the amateur service on a secondary basis, the use of this allocated frequency band by amateur stations is subject to getting prior special authorization by the administration concerned, together with the agreement of other administrations, whose stations of the broadcasting service may be affected. To identify potentially affected administrations in Region 1 the field-strength value shall not exceed 6 dB(μV/m) at a height of 10 m above the ground for 10% of the time at the border of the territory of this administration"

    Obviously, the Russian Administration does not like amateur radio, and this is unfortunately something which is spreading in the Administrations of the world.

    WN1MB likes this.
  6. WQ4G

    WQ4G Ham Member QRZ Page

    I was speaking of the space above and below the 2-meter ham band. Yes there is more going on in the 2-meter ham band than there is going on above and below the band. If they want to make use of under utilized band space then that is where they need to look - below 144 Mhz and above 146 Mhz.

    Dan KI4AX
  7. VE6SH

    VE6SH Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    "The IARU is a quite toothless body composed of upper-middle aged well-meaning people who like to hear their own voices, but lack any real influence in the quite ugly realities of spectrum politics. They have observer status at the regional and global levels, but cannot vote."

    I agree with your sentiments we have no vote, but disagree strongly with the rest of your suggestion. The record with respect to protecting existing amateur spectrum (the main role of the IARU) is beyond doubt and a review of the decisions from past W(A)RCs evidences much success in the allocation of new spectrum.


    Tim VE6SH
    N4QX likes this.
  8. KY4UE

    KY4UE Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    You can start to worry. On page 77, I think it was, of the May issue of QST there is an article separate from Technician enhancement, where the FCC is or, was solicitating comments on a completely new class beginners license. A candidate could take an online test and have operating privileges on a significant portion of the 70 centimeter band. I filed comments. I know of several that did. I didn't see anything on QRZ about this new license class. I hope you were aware of it. If not you are now. I hope you take this comment in the spirit in which I give it. 73 KY4UE, Edgar
  9. SM0AOM

    SM0AOM Ham Member QRZ Page

    As representative for a largely self-serving organisation, your opinions are quite expected.

    The problem is just that up to quite recently there have been no organised international opposition against amateur radio spectrum allocations.

    In the "old world" (WRC 1947 to 1979) officials were quite sympathetic to amateur radio, but not so any longer.

    The "architect" behind the CEPT compromise that eventually resulted in the 5 MHz allocation at WRC-15, put in a large number of "skunk-works" man-hours into the project.

    When his superiors understood how many man-hours that were spent in total on this,
    there will be no more actions in favour of amateur radio for him.

    Replacements for the "old guard" have no warmer feelings for amateur radio unfortunately, and are more and more prone to listening to the "gospel of deregulation", where every spectrum user have to earn their keep.

    KQ6XA likes this.
  10. VE6SH

    VE6SH Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page


    I was at WRC-15 and well understand the work put in by all representatives (including those amateurs on national delegations and representing IARU) to achieve the 5 MhZ allocation. Obviously you and I disagree on the work of the IARU and how the value of the Amateur Radio Services are perceived within ITU. However, I do take exception with your characterization of the IARU, which undermines the extensive and underappreciated work our volunteers (not all of whom are upper middle aged!) do representing the ARS within the ITU and the RTOs.

    I would be pleased to discuss any aspect of the IARU with you offline.


    Tim VE6SH
    N4QX likes this.

Share This Page