On May 3, 11:16�pm, Bill Horne wrote:
Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
If I recall properly we're secondary to the military in
that [70cm] band as well.

But the motorsports folks have no regular authority in that band at
all.

I'm not sure I understand why they thought they needed
amateur spectrum for that project. �

They obviously don't understand what amateur radio is all about.

The Pave/Paws system that is pushing some repeaters off 70cm predates
the complaints by several decades, and I take the military's new
attitude to be another nail in the coffin of ham radio's former
"favorite son" status at the Pentagon.

Maybe - or maybe not. Secondary status means no interference need be
tolerated by the primary.

There used to be a 50 watt limit on 420-450 MHz for amateurs due to
the possibility of interference to radar.

It used to be that we hams were a corps of operators who could
be pressed into service quickly during a war or other crisis.

That's still the case. But it doesn't mean that the primary users of a
band have to put up with interference from secondary users.

Now, with Morse as deeply buried as its creators and military
electronics too
secret to be entrusted to soldiers and sailors who haven't
been vetted
for security clearances, we're yesterday's news in the E ring.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Morse as deeply buried as its
creators".

We hams continue to use Morse Code on the air - extensively, too!
MARS is running Morse Code nets again, on an experimental basis.

It's true that Morse Code has all but been eliminated by the US
military for its own communications uses. That's no surprise, even
though Morse Code was used extensively by the US military in both
World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam. But that doesn't mean hams should stop
using Morse Code.

We'll have to find another reason to justify the allocations we
enjoy.

How about these:

1) Public service communications (not just in emergencies, but for
events like parades, marathons, bike races, etc.) Remember the search
for Space Shuttle debris a few years back? Amateurs provided
communications for at least some search groups, and it turned out to
be more useful and flexible than cell phones or other radio services.

2) Education in radio and electronics. Learn-by-doing, IOW. Recently,
ARRL ran a homebrew contest to design a 40 meter CW/SSB transceiver
that would use less than $50 in parts. Several entries met all the
requirements, and a winner was recently announced. What better way to
learn radio than by building an operating a homebrew station?

3) Historical preservation. We have museums, historic districts, etc.,
in other areas, why not in radio? We hams have shown that old and new
technologies can coexist, and an active operation is so much better
than a dry nonfunctional museum display.

4) Experimentation/wilderness area. Most of the rest of the radio
spectrum is channelized, digitized, and carefully planned as to its
users and uses. The amateur bands are like a wilderness area, without
all the central planning and channelization, where operator skill and
technical knowhow can try all sorts of new and old things.
And where all citizens who can pass the basic tests for a license have
access to lots of spectrum, modes, and activities.

It's going to be hard work, and not nearly as easy as learning
Morse (not that that would help now).

Morse Code is still worth learning, IMHO.

We're going to have to get better - in
fact, much better - at public relations: the Red Cross and other
disaster relief agencies have known the importance of image all
along,
but now hams have got to get in the game and advertise ourselves
as an
anlternative to traditional communications during hurricanes,
floods, earthquakes, etc.

Agreed - but also as a fun thing to do. Emergency and public service
comms are just one part of what hams do.

The key factor is that the "served agencies" want different things
today in the way of communications. In some emergencies they won't
need hams at all, in others they will really need amateurs to help
out. But they're the customer, as it were.




73 de Jim, N2EY

In ,
typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:

[snip]

: Maybe - or maybe not. Secondary status means no interference need be
: tolerated by the primary.

Not always, we're the primary users of 2m over here, but we can't complain
about interference.

: There used to be a 50 watt limit on 420-450 MHz for amateurs due to
: the possibility of interference to radar.

Don't recall we ever had that over here, but I may be wrong.
:
: It used to be that we hams were a corps of operators who could
: be pressed into service quickly during a war or other crisis.
:
: That's still the case. But it doesn't mean that the primary users of a
: band have to put up with interference from secondary users.

Ah, but who is the primary user..? Here it's the military. Amateurs have
to put up with anything and everything. On all bands.

73 Ivor G6URP

On May 6, 5:12 am, "Ivor Jones" wrote:
,
typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
: Secondary status means no interference need be
: tolerated by the primary.

I should have been more clear, and qualfied the above as "here in the
USA"

Not always, we're the primary users of 2m over here, but we can't complain

about interference.

: There used to be a 50 watt limit on 420-450 MHz for amateurs due to
: the possibility of interference to radar.

Don't recall we ever had that over here, but I may be wrong.

It was a US restriction a long time ago.
:
: It used to be that we hams were a corps of operators who could
: be pressed into service quickly during a war or other crisis.
:
: That's still the case. But it doesn't mean that the primary users of a
: band have to put up with interference from secondary users.

Ah, but who is the primary user..? Here it's the military. Amateurs have
to put up with anything and everything. On all bands.

Well, here in the USA amateurs are definitely the secondary users of
420-450 MHz.
So while we can complain, we don't have the same "standing", as it
were.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In ,
typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
: On May 6, 5:12 am, "Ivor Jones" wrote:
:
,
: typed, for some strange, unexplained
: reason:
: : Secondary status means no interference need be
: : tolerated by the primary.
:
: I should have been more clear, and qualfied the above as "here in the
: USA"

I guessed that ;-)

: Not always, we're the primary users of 2m over here, but we can't
: complain about interference.
:
: : There used to be a 50 watt limit on 420-450 MHz for amateurs due
: : to the possibility of interference to radar.
:
: Don't recall we ever had that over here, but I may be wrong.
:
: It was a US restriction a long time ago.

Ok, thought I'd never heard of it.

: : It used to be that we hams were a corps of operators who could
: : be pressed into service quickly during a war or other crisis.
: :
: : That's still the case. But it doesn't mean that the primary users
: : of a band have to put up with interference from secondary users.
:
: Ah, but who is the primary user..? Here it's the military. Amateurs
: have to put up with anything and everything. On all bands.
:
: Well, here in the USA amateurs are definitely the secondary users of
: 420-450 MHz.
: So while we can complain, we don't have the same "standing", as it
: were.

Well of course we can complain, but nobody will take any notice..!

73 Ivor G6URP

On May 6, 4:44�pm, "Ivor Jones" wrote:
,
typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
: On May 6, 5:12 am, "Ivor Jones" wrote:

: Not always, we're the primary users of 2m over here,
: but we can't
: complain about interference.

Hold that thought...

: Well, here in the USA amateurs are definitely the secondary
: users of
: 420-450 MHz.

Personally I'd rather have, say, 1 MHz of worldwide-exclusive-amateur
allocation than 2 MHz of shared bandspace. But that's a minor thing,
really.

The big problem here in the USA with regard to amateur bands is that
our FCC tolerates too much RFI from unlicensed emitters. For example,
plasma TVs and other consumer electronics are notorious RF
noisemakers. The whole BPL controversy is a classic example of a bad
engineering idea being pushed for the wrong reasons. There's lots
more, but a lot of it boils down to lack of enforcement resources
coupled with the idea that the RF spectrum doesn't need as much
protection from noise pollution.

Recently, there was a particular brand/model of flat screen TV that
radiated significant RF on the emergency-locator frequency. That
caused quite a bit of excitement....

: So while we can complain, we don't have the
: same "standing", as it
: were.

Well of course we can complain, but nobody will take any notice..!

"You want to complain? Look at these shoes; I've only had 'em three
weeks and the heels are worn right through! If you complain, nothing
happens, you might as well not bother....."

73 de Jim, N2EY

On May 5, 8:04Â pm, wrote:
On May 3, 11:16�pm, Bill Horne wrote:

It used to be that we hams were a corps of operators who could
be pressed into service quickly during a war or other crisis.

That's still the case.

Incorrect. Amateur radio operating protocol is nothing like what
is used in the US military.

That "case" might have been valid prior to WWII but that time
period was 67 and more years ago.

Now, with Morse as deeply buried as its creators and military
electronics too
secret to be entrusted to soldiers and sailors who haven't
been vetted
for security clearances, we're yesterday's news in the E ring.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Morse as deeply buried as its
creators".

I would suggest you borrow a 'communications receiver' that can
tune in the HF spectrum OTHER than amateur radio band allocations.

For one thing, the US military had all but abandoned morse code
mode before 1953 for any mass-volume messaging connecting North
America to military bases around the rest of the world.

For another thing, the US military has abandoned HF for any mass-
volume messaging and now uses secure military communications
satellites, troposcatter, and the DSN (Digital Switched Network)
for 24/7 communications. DSN has very robust security and is the
major system of 'flash' alerts to land bases. Alerts for
submarines (to listen to HF thru microwaves for the main message)
are slow-speed encrypted data at VLF that can be received while
submerged. The US military still keeps HF radios on a standby
basis but only uses them for periodic operational checks. MARS
is not a part of the daily US military messaging routine, although
it is much closer to the use of operations protocol than amateurs.

We hams continue to use Morse Code on the air - extensively, too!

Please define "extensively" (with or without exclamation mark).

No one has stated or implied that amateur use of morse code was
not "extensive." In an unofficial poll at the ARRL website some
time ago, #1 communications mode on amateur bands was voice.

MARS is running Morse Code nets again, on an experimental basis.

Military Affiliate Radio System mission was changed about five
years ago to act in accord with other US government agencies to
(ostensibly) link them together. Army MARS Hq is at Fort
Huachuca, AZ, the same military base that houses the Army
Military Intelligence training facilities.

It's true that Morse Code has all but been eliminated by the US
military for its own communications uses.

That is not true. For routine tactical or strategic communications
the US military has abandoned morse code.

The M.I. school at Fort Huachuca still trains some in morse code
signal intercept analysis but that is NOT communications per se.
To attempt stating that SIGINT operations "use morse code" is like
saying the Army still uses muskets and Revolutionary War uniforms
because one Army unit in Washington, DC, has them for ceremonial
duties.

That's no surprise, even
though Morse Code was used extensively by the US military in both
World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam.

Morse code was used "extensively" in World War ONE. In that 1914
to 1918 period voice communications was relegated to wireline
communications circuits. Teleprinter circuits had already been
established before the US entry into WWII, including its use on
USN ships (see the 'SIGABA' descriptions on various websites for
online encryption capability over teleprinter as early as 1940).

As a soldier during and just after the Korean War, doing mass-
volume communications via HF, I can assure you that morse code
was NOT used for such communications about logistics or military
planning plus (in a secondary basis) broadcasting news and
'health and welfare' messages carried for the Red Cross and
other agencies to military members.

The vast majority of communications carried on during the
recognized active period of US involvement in Vietnam was voice
and teleprinter. Like the Korean War, the Vietnam War was not
a 'true' war yet service members were killed or wounded as a
part of that actual warfare.

During the prosecution of the Korean War, the US military
routinely handled about a quarter million messages a month
through military facilities. That was nearly doubled for the
Vietnam War. Morse code communications MIGHT have been used
in rare instances for both wars but its role was so minor as
to be discounted compared to the MASS of messaging needed to
maintain troops and equipment far from the USA.

All of that military communications information is public and
available to anyone who cares to look for it. I would suggest
the U.S. Army Center For Military History as a starting point
for very detailed historical accounts of the US Army since the
Revolutionary War.

But that doesn't mean hams should stop using Morse Code.

NOBODY has said "hams should stop using" it. Please try to
restrain generating another sub-thread about it. Please try
to educate yourself about radio uses outside of amateur radio
as described other than the ARRL publications or website.

In order to EDUCATE THE PUBLIC, I would suggest channeling
your promotion OUTSIDE of amateur radio venues. The general
public and lawmakers don't much look into ham radio venues.

AF6AY

In ,
AF6AY typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
: On May 5, 8:04 pm, wrote:
: On May 3, 11:16�pm, Bill Horne wrote:
:
: It used to be that we hams were a corps of operators who could
: be pressed into service quickly during a war or other crisis.
:
: That's still the case.
:
: Incorrect. Amateur radio operating protocol is nothing like what
: is used in the US military.

[snip]

Well, I seem to have sparked quite a debate..!

However, a lot of it seems to have gone more than a little OT (which
doesn't surprise me and is actually quite interesting, so don't consider
it a moan..!)

But.. what are the thoughts on my original point, that of the differences
in attitude of the authorities in the US and UK about protection from
interference from commercial operators using frequencies within the
amateur bands..? It seems to me, unless I've misunderstood, that in the US
you can still claim a certain degree of protection from other users,
whereas here we can't.

73 Ivor G6URP

On May 7, 12:03�am, "Ivor Jones" wrote:

what are the thoughts on my original point, that of the differences
in attitude of the authorities in the US and UK about protection
from
interference from commercial operators using frequencies
within the
amateur bands..? It seems to me, unless I've misunderstood,
that in the US
you can still claim a certain degree of protection from other users,
whereas here we can't.

The following is just an informal observation...

Here in the USA, we have two regulatory agencies for radio: FCC, which
does non-government radio, and NTIA, which does government/military
radio. NTIA trumps FCC, of course. The radar-interference case
mentioned elsewhere in this thread clearly shows who has priority on
the band in question.

But your question is about *commercial* (nongovernment) users/
intruders into the amateur bands, where such use is not part of the
regulations.

In theory, those intruders are breaking the law and should be removed
by the FCC. In practice, the FCC is complaint-driven, which means
amateurs must identify the intruder and complain to the FCC. Helping
with such complaints is one of the major functions of the ARRL and its
legal department.

But simply complaining to FCC does not mean the problem will be
solved, because FCC's resources are very limited. The motorsports
story referred to required a lot of work on the part of the ARRL and
the amateurs involved.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In ,
typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
: On May 7, 12:03�am, "Ivor Jones" wrote:
:
: what are the thoughts on my original point, that of the differences
: in attitude of the authorities in the US and UK about protection
: from
: interference from commercial operators using frequencies
: within the
: amateur bands..? It seems to me, unless I've misunderstood,
: that in the US
: you can still claim a certain degree of protection from other users,
: whereas here we can't.
:
: The following is just an informal observation...
:
: Here in the USA, we have two regulatory agencies for radio: FCC, which
: does non-government radio, and NTIA, which does government/military
: radio. NTIA trumps FCC, of course. The radar-interference case
: mentioned elsewhere in this thread clearly shows who has priority on
: the band in question.
:
: But your question is about *commercial* (nongovernment) users/
: intruders into the amateur bands, where such use is not part of the
: regulations.
:
: In theory, those intruders are breaking the law and should be removed
: by the FCC. In practice, the FCC is complaint-driven, which means
: amateurs must identify the intruder and complain to the FCC. Helping
: with such complaints is one of the major functions of the ARRL and its
: legal department.
:
: But simply complaining to FCC does not mean the problem will be
: solved, because FCC's resources are very limited. The motorsports
: story referred to required a lot of work on the part of the ARRL and
: the amateurs involved.
:
: 73 de Jim, N2EY

Ah, thanks. However, over here we do have "legal" intrusions into some of
the amateur bands, most are in the microwave region, notably 10GHz, where
we lost a sizeable chunk a while back.

The main one though is 431-432 MHz which is not available for use within
100km of Charing Cross (central London) and also for some distance around
the military radar installation at Fylingdales in Yorkshire. In the London
area I believe it's allocated to taxis of all things..! There isn't a lot
of amateur activity in that segment, I think some wide-split repeaters may
have inputs or outputs there but generally it's a low-occupancy segment of
the band, so all in all it's not a major hassle.

It's the principle of the thing that annoys me, though. Even where we are
primary users, such as 2m, we can claim *no* protection from interference,
even if the cause of said interference shouldn't be there.

73 Ivor G6URP

On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:48:04 EDT, "Ivor Jones"
wrote:

It's the principle of the thing that annoys me, though. Even where we are
primary users, such as 2m, we can claim *no* protection from interference,
even if the cause of said interference shouldn't be there.

Things must have changed since my initial training in international
radio regulation in the mid-1960s where the British Post Office (the
forerunner of the RA) was held up as a model of "we'll lock you up if
you don't have a licence to operate there" - and the French were
pointed out as an example of "the ordinary citizen needs a radio as
much as he needs a machine gun".....hams were a grudging exception,
and of course when cellphones became available, everyone got one
because they knew that cellphones were not radios, right? g

Then again, the FCC in the US - where I ultimately spent most of my
professional career - was also very involved in "catching bad guys".
The epidemic of unlawful CB operations of the 1970s and 80s - for
which most of the world's governments never forgave the US - and an
unfortunate shift in regard to what the government's obligations were
- changed all that.

Notwithstanding the historical precedents of military-civilian sharing
of frequency bands, granting commercial interests licenses to operate
in the amateur bands is basic bad regulatory policy. All of us
old-time regulation professionals knew that as an article of faith.
The new crop is guided more by the buck (or the Euro, or the quid)
than by what good regulatory policy is.

As far as the military goes, I learned early in the game that de
facto the military of any country can operate on any frequency that it
so desires if (1) it doesn't interfere with anything operating in that
country and it (2) doesn't identify. If it wants to play the
gentleman game the country will notify the operation to the ITU
Radiocommunications Bureau (ITU-R) which now does what the
International Frequency Registration Bureau (IFRB) did before ITU
reorganization. Whether the information is accurate or not is an
exercise left for the listener.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net