40 meters fixed, sort of
 

Will all the hubub about dropping CW. The change in six years on 40 meters
will be very important to ham radio.

We in region 2 (North/South America) stay the same. BUT Region 1 and 3
moves the broadcast crap above 7200. AND Europe gets another 100 kc. From
7.0 to 7.2.

About time.

Dan/W4NTI

In article , "Dan/W4NTI"
writes:

The change in six years on 40 meters
will be very important to ham radio.

We in region 2 (North/South America) stay the same. BUT Region 1 and 3
moves the broadcast crap above 7200. AND Europe gets another 100 kc. From
7.0 to 7.2.

FANTASTIC! This effectively doubles the amount of 7 MHz spectrum available to
amateurs on a worldwide basis!

40 is one of the best all-around bands. It's good for domestic and DX work. You
can get out with limited power, and the antennas aren't too big. Almost always
usable around the clock and around the sunspot cycle.

The only thing wrong with 40 is there isn't enough of it.

About time

Dang straight. The nonsense of sharing with megawatt SWBC has gone on since
before WW2.

Now to get the resto of the band for regions 1 and 3.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ...
Will all the hubub about dropping CW. The change in six years on 40 meters
will be very important to ham radio.

We in region 2 (North/South America) stay the same. BUT Region 1 and 3
moves the broadcast crap above 7200.

Moving the BC signals out of the 7.000-7.100 Region 2 CW and digital
haunts and into motormouth country above 7.200 oughta draw a
discussion or two about who really gains what with this move.


AND Europe gets another 100 kc. From
7.0 to 7.2.

About time.

Amen.


Dan/W4NTI

w3rv

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...


Brian Kelly wrote:


Moving the BC signals out of the 7.000-7.100 Region 2 CW and digital
haunts and into motormouth country above 7.200 oughta draw a
discussion or two about who really gains what with this move.

I don't think it'll matter much. 7.2-7.2 has long had a full share of
SWBC
anyway, and it wouldn't surprise me to see the BC units that move to just
move on up above 7.3, assuming
that as a possibility.

Dick


I think the MAJOR improvement will be opening to EXCLUSIVE AMATEUR 7.0 to
7.2. That will enhance the band world wide.

I used to operate from Germany (DA2LJ 71-74/76-79) and 40 was a total mess.
This was BEFORE the major digital influx. There just is not enough room on
40 for the rest of the world.

And when the band is good and Europe rolls in...forget it. It is a regular
zoo. In six years the Europeans can spread out.

Dan/W4NTI

I wonder if they eliminate CW (all but certain, but not to as when), will
they expand the phone bands downward a bit?

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.497 / Virus Database: 296 - Release Date: 7/4/03

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Brian Kelly wrote:


Moving the BC signals out of the 7.000-7.100 Region 2 CW and digital
haunts and into motormouth country above 7.200 oughta draw a
discussion or two about who really gains what with this move.

I don't think it'll matter much. 7.2-7.(3) has long had a full share of SWBC
anyway,

The BC stations in 7.0-7.1 have always seemed to me to be much more of
a problem than they are in 7.2-7.3 but maybe that's just a perception
on my part. Beyond that cleaning out 7.0-7.1 will be a huge
improvement for the CW and digital crowd but the phone guys will still
have work to do at upcoming WRCs to obtain the same improvements.

and it wouldn't surprise me to see the BC units that
move to just move on up above 7.3, assumingthat as a possibility.

That would certainly make sense, would completely eliminate the
conflict between the hams and the BC industry, everybody would win. I
have no idea how or why the BC stations choose their specific
operating freqs within their bands. Gotta be strategies involved. Any
clues here?

One thing I do know is that significant freq shifts can cost the BC
stations a bunch of money because the equipment and antenna arrays are
purpose-built & tweaked for operating on specific freqs. I understand
that they cannot just grab a big knob and twist it to QSY 150 kHz like
we can. I 'spose this is why it'll take six years to fully implement
their move out of 7.0-7.1.


Dick

Brian

"Jim Hampton" writes:

I wonder if they eliminate CW (all but certain, but not to as when),
will they expand the phone bands downward a bit?

I hope not. If they do, I hope the band plans still reserve the CW
spectrum, and hams obey them.

Regards,
Len.

In article , writes:

"Jim Hampton" writes:

I wonder if they eliminate CW (all but certain, but not to as when),

Eliminate CW? I thought it was just the TEST that was going away!

;-)

will they expand the phone bands downward a bit?

That depends on who proposes what and how FCC reacts.

From everyhting I've read on the subject, it's clear to me that as soon as the
revised treaty is ratified, FCC could just drop Element 1. No NPRM, no NOI, no
comments, nothing, zip, nil, nada. FCC could honestly and accurately say that
the whole issue had been debated and dealt with back in 1998-99 restructuring
and again in the Wormsey-Adsit-Dinelli Petition for Reconsideration.

Changing subband allocations is a different issue entirely. NPRM, comments,
etc. is almost certainly a requirement. A proposal to "refarm" the
Novice/TechPlus subbands was sent to FCC some time back, and to my knowledge
FCC hasn't acted on it yet other than to take comments and reply comments.

I hope not. If they do, I hope the band plans still reserve the CW
spectrum, and hams obey them.

All of the non-phone HF/MF subbands in the USA are shared between CW and
digital modes. It would be a BIG mistake to reduce or eliminate them.

73 de Jim, N2EY

From everyhting I've read on the subject, it's clear to me that as soon as the
revised treaty is ratified, FCC could just drop Element 1. No NPRM, no NOI, no
comments, nothing, zip, nil, nada. FCC could honestly and accurately say that
the whole issue had been debated and dealt with back in 1998-99 restructuring
and again in the Wormsey-Adsit-Dinelli Petition for Reconsideration.


Suits me just fine. Today, I passed element 3 by two questions, and missed
element 4 by two questions. Not one minute of study time, yet. Tomorrow
calls for a trip to the library to 621.38 for that extra test book they had...

Saving my pennies for that IC706MKIIG.

-Scott, a dual part operator, 95 & 97. (With the right radio for the band.)

On 6 Jul 2003 01:10:01 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote:

have no idea how or why the BC stations choose their specific
operating freqs within their bands. Gotta be strategies involved. Any
clues here?

Four times a year, the ITU International Frequency Registration
Board (or whatever it's called nowadays) holds a conference for SW
broadcast frequency assignment. Most of it is by paper submission
and is routine "we've been on this frequency for 70 years....."
stuff.

For new requests, the requesting Administration will have submitted
info on the location of the transmitter, directionality and power,
hours of service, and the target area. A computerized frequency
coordination study is made by the IFRB to determine what frequency
in the band in question would cause no harmful interference to
existing (earlier priority date) stations. Quite often the
coordination will be for less or different hours or power than
requested to avoid any harmful interference to or from the
applicant. This coordination will be "ratified" at the quarterly
conference and a priority date assigned.

One thing I do know is that significant freq shifts can cost the BC
stations a bunch of money because the equipment and antenna arrays are
purpose-built & tweaked for operating on specific freqs. I understand
that they cannot just grab a big knob and twist it to QSY 150 kHz like
we can. I 'spose this is why it'll take six years to fully implement
their move out of 7.0-7.1.

Or so they say. A 150 kHz shift is no big deal as long as the
broadcaster is willing to take the transmitter down for a period of
time (weeks? months?) to find the proper coil and capacitor settings
(synthesizers are a no-brainer nowadays). A good friend of mine was
a tech at a SWBC station years ago and could do a band change with
pre-set taps in less than two minutes (of course the walk-in 50 KW GE
monster was shut off during that time).

The long lead time comes in not where the broadcaster has to
order and install parallel equipment currently (from scratch it
should take no more than 2 years at the very outside) but where the
broadcaster wants to amortize the equipment, i.e. when they are
ready to order a new transmitter they will order it for the new
frequency.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

In article ,
Brian Kelly wrote:

The BC stations in 7.0-7.1 have always seemed to me to be much more of
a problem than they are in 7.2-7.3 but maybe that's just a perception
on my part. Beyond that cleaning out 7.0-7.1 will be a huge
improvement for the CW and digital crowd but the phone guys will still
have work to do at upcoming WRCs to obtain the same improvements.

Remember that the "CW band" concept only exists in the U.S. In the
rest of the world the 40m phone band starts at 7.0mHz. Here in
Israel, all of Europe and Africa, the whole band is only 7.0-7.1 mHz.

Getting the broadcast band out of there 7.0-7.2 will also open that
extra 100kHz to us too. It would be nice to be able to use 40m for
SSB to the U.S., something I can't do now.

Since the novices are just about gone, IMHO the U.S. should drop the
7.1-7.15 mHz CW band. Actually what I would like to see is a worldwide
7.0-7.2 mHz 40m band, with the following "band plan"

7.000-7.050 CW
7.050-7.100 Digital
7.100-7.200 SSB voice, no SSTV, packet, etc.

Geoff (4x1gm, N3OWJ)
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson 972-54-608-069
Do sysadmins count networked sheep?

"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...
On 6 Jul 2003 01:10:01 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote:

have no idea how or why the BC stations choose their specific
operating freqs within their bands. Gotta be strategies involved. Any
clues here?

Four times a year, the ITU International Frequency Registration
Board (or whatever it's called nowadays) holds a conference for SW
broadcast frequency assignment. Most of it is by paper submission
and is routine "we've been on this frequency for 70 years....."
stuff.

For new requests, the requesting Administration will have submitted
info on the location of the transmitter, directionality and power,
hours of service, and the target area. A computerized frequency
coordination study is made by the IFRB to determine what frequency
in the band in question would cause no harmful interference to
existing (earlier priority date) stations. Quite often the
coordination will be for less or different hours or power than
requested to avoid any harmful interference to or from the
applicant. This coordination will be "ratified" at the quarterly
conference and a priority date assigned.

I had no idea the IFRB existed, clears up my question nicely, tnx
Phil. Sounds very much like the basic procedure used by the FCC for
our AM BC stations.

One thing I do know is that significant freq shifts can cost the BC
stations a bunch of money because the equipment and antenna arrays are
purpose-built & tweaked for operating on specific freqs. I understand
that they cannot just grab a big knob and twist it to QSY 150 kHz like
we can. I 'spose this is why it'll take six years to fully implement
their move out of 7.0-7.1.

Or so they say. A 150 kHz shift is no big deal as long as the
broadcaster is willing to take the transmitter down for a period of
time (weeks? months?) to find the proper coil and capacitor settings
(synthesizers are a no-brainer nowadays). A good friend of mine was
a tech at a SWBC station years ago and could do a band change with
pre-set taps in less than two minutes (of course the walk-in 50 KW GE
monster was shut off during that time).

He can have it, I have an allergic reaction to kilovolt B+. On and
"off".

The long lead time comes in not where the broadcaster has to
order and install parallel equipment currently (from scratch it
should take no more than 2 years at the very outside) but where the
broadcaster wants to amortize the equipment, i.e. when they are
ready to order a new transmitter they will order it for the new
frequency.

Squeeze the nickel until the buffalo yelps, common sense.

w3rv