RadioBanter - View Single Post - CHU Public Notice : http://inms-ienm.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/time_services/shortwave_broadcasts_e.html

David L. Mills · December 14th 06, 05:10 AM posted to comp.protocols.time.ntp,rec.radio.shortwave

The ITU has allocated the band 7300-7450 kHz for broadcasting in all
three regions of the world. The band 7450-8100 kHz is allocated for the
fixed/mobile services, so Canada could in principle move CHU to some
frequency in that band. North of 8100 kHz are huge blocks of maritime
and aviation channels. However, in typical ugly American fashion, that
band is allocated by the FCC in the US for broadcasting (47 CFR Part
2.106). Even now, CHU has to contend with loudenboomer splatter from
cochannel and neighboring channel broadcasters. Moving north of 7450 kHz
might have the same problem, and that from south of the border.

One alternative might be to move CHU south of the 40-meter amateur band.
There is a 6765-7000 kHz band allocated for the fixed/mobile services.
However, the FCC considers that an ISM band, so various kinds of evil
emitters are sure to be found. Tonight I found a S9+20 dB religious
program on 6855 kHz broadcasting from Florida, no doubt registered as an
ISM emitter. Don't get me going on Part 15 and Broadband over Power Line.

The dillema CHU faces is quite serious. The ITU has allocated 10 kHz
channels at 2.5, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 MHz for standard frequency
broadcasting. However, shortwave broadcasters are camping on +-5 kHz
carrier spacing on 5 MHz at least, so their sidebands sometimes clobber
the WWV transmission, contrary to ITU and FCC rules. There is no other
frequency that is protected from the broadcasters or vested interests.

The unvarnished fact is that CHU has been a valuable service in the
eastern US and Canada where WWV signals are often weak and unreadable.
And, sad to say, WWVB service at 60 kHz has become seriously degraded
due to noise pollution via the power lines and uninterruptable power
sources (UPS). My experience with the NTP audio demodulators for WWV and
CHU suggest that they may in fact become the preferred alternative after
GPS, which has its own antenna issues.

Dave

wrote:
Does anyone know how the definitions of a broadcast and fixed signal
differ? It sounds like ITU is expanding the number and kind of
stations that can use that frequency. Implicit within that decision is
that the time signals from WWV on 5 and 10 mhz could fill the void
which may not be the case.

I wonder what the process of re-doing the CHU license for the 7335
frequency involves and whether they may find themselves competing with
other signals. Best solution might be to shift to a nearby frequency.

....