October 2002 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:7909] Re: Unattended Internet linking node on 2m simplex
by Tom Frenaye 24 Oct '02

24 Oct '02

At 12:15 PM 10/24/2002 -0600, W0CP wrote: >Have any of the other divisions figured this out? If so, what's your take on this? I've seen replies to several messages from John Hennessee. I know the CT repeater folks seemed concerned about what was going on - and there have been some problems with the IRLP inputs being put onto top of busy packet frequencies. Would like to hear more also. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7908] Something completely different.
by Mendelsohn, Stephen A. 24 Oct '02

24 Oct '02

Just when you thought it was safe to go into the internet, a NEW and potentially silly scam is invented. To whit: I got your address from K1MAN. I am Princess Sandra Ugo, the wife to the former Chairman, South Delta Petroleum Development Committee. [Hummm I wondered, could this be Delta Division at work? read on] My husband was murdered by some Moslem extremists immediately he publicly condemned the 11th September terrorist attack on World Trade Centre in USA. But, before he finally gave up the ghost, he revealed the sum of $40millionUSD he deposited with a Security and Finance firm to me. Now, my life and that of my 11year old son are in danger because the Moslem extremists are still after my life and that of my son. They have burnt our family house and our known property and stolen our K5UR amplifier and tower with 16 element 80 meter beam. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- There is certainly something strange about this one. -73- Steve, W2ML

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7907] Re: Ideas
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 24 Oct '02

24 Oct '02

Well, there are some problems with this. When looking for additional spectrum one question to ask is, who is there now? In this case there are two answers to that question: what it says on paper and what is reality. On paper the band is allocated internationally to the meteorological aids, fixed and mobile services. Domestically the allocation is to the government fixed and mobile with one channel, 27860 kHz, available to the forest products radio service on a secondary basis. Mostly of course it's for military, including MARS. In reality the band is filled with freebanders. Most freebanders stay out of the 10-meter ham band (at least, when they're not using their ham calls). They know what ham radio is (some of them are hams) and while there might be a few who enjoy coming above 28 MHz and baiting hams, most are content to stay below 28 MHz and do their own thing. Most of the "CB" activity we hear in the 10-meter band is by less sophisticated people using CB rigs that happen to have extra channels; they have no idea what frequency they're on. One reason there are so many freebanders and so many "enhanced" CB rigs is that the FCC hasn't figured out how to define what is a ham rig (for which there is no type acceptance and no controls on who can buy one) vs. what is an illegal CB rig. Having hams authorized to operate below 28 MHz could further complicate that issue. Taking the freebanders first, I share Jim Maxwell's opinion that if hams were to move below 28 MHz the freebanders would feel quite justified in moving above. In fact, even the rumor that we were thinking of doing it could cause that to happen. If you think we have problems with non-ham QRM on 10 meters now, listen below 28 MHz sometime when the band is open and picture that moving up. But let's make believe the band is used the way the allocation table says. In that case our competition is the military. In the domestic arena, before the FCC could make an allocation it would have to be cleared with the government side, just as with 5 MHz and the 7 MHz realignment. Getting clearance would involve a quid pro quo -- nothing comes free. We might not even know what it was right away, but at some point someone would say, "Well, we gave the hams what they wanted at 27.850 MHz so we don't need to give them what they want at [fill in the blank: 5 MHz, 7 MHz, 430 MHz, 2300 MHz, etc.]." It scares me to death even to raise the subject with them when we have these other issues pending. In the international arena there's no way to get from here to there at the moment -- the earliest opportunity would be to get it on the agenda for WRC-2007 (as of last week the ITU has decided that the next WRC after 2003 will be in the first half of 2007) but it would be a fight to get it on and again, it would cost something. We would have to decide what it's worth, and we would need to do that with our colleagues in other countries (imagine the chaos if every national amateur radio organization went to its administration separately with a different request for additional spectrum). There's another, more subtle problem with regard to the international arena. Some administrations, notably in Europe, are inclined to incorporate CB into the amateur service. This is one of the reasons we needed to get Recommendation ITU-R M.1544 adopted before the Morse HF requirement disappears, so there's some international standard for amateur licensing. Float a proposal to make the 27 MHz band part of the amateur service and the response from some will be, "Great idea -- but let's do it the other way around. Let's make the 27 MHz operators part of the amateur service. That way you'll both have more room." OK, what's it worth to us? I realize opinions may differ on this, but my own is that except for rare occasions such as this coming weekend (the CQWW Phone DX Contest) there isn't enough activity within the existing 10-meter allocation. The Novice CW/RTTY band is lightly loaded most of the time; SSB activity is sparse above 28.6 MHz except during a contest; and even during a contest there isn't much between 29.1 and 29.3 MHz. If we wanted to accommodate broadband digital we could do it within the existing band, which would also help defend it against interlopers. So the additional spectrum, even if we could get it without a fight, wouldn't really add any capability that we couldn't get through a much simpler change in Part 97 to permit broadband digital in a segment of the existing band -- if that's what the folks working in this field want. By the way, as noted in the IARU spectrum requirements document http://www.iaru.org/ac-spec00.html that been been updated regularly since 1990 (Larry Price, Paul Rinaldo, and I worked on a further revision just this week), AMSAT has long been interested in 29.7-30.0 MHz for satellite downlinks as a way of further reducing what little terrestrial interference they experience in the 29.3-29.5 MHz band. That particular segment has the advantage that it was once part of the ham band. But it's still a daunting task to get it, when weighed against its value. So that's how I see it. If you still feel that it's worth pursuing, take some time this weekend and listen between the top of the authorized CB band and the bottom of 10 meters, 27.405 - 28.000 MHz. I'm pretty sure that will change your mind. 73, Dave K1ZZ

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7906] Re: Ideas
by Bernard E. Fuller 24 Oct '02

24 Oct '02

Jim - Let's go for it! 73, Bernie-N3EFN -----Original Message----- From: W5JBP(a)aol.com [mailto:W5JBP@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 8:15 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7891] Ideas I guess by now you know that I can come up with some interesting stuff from time to time so here is my latest. You know that we have two ad-hoc committees working on high speed data, and digital voice. I read both reflectors and have watched the progress of both committees. What I am proposing is this: File for 150 kHz starting at 27.850 and ending at 28.000. This would be for digital ONLY to experiment and use some new technology. In addition to Clover, Pactor III there is some interest in 56 Kb which can be up to 50Kc wide. I would ask that the experiments be by band width only and again, digital only. I have done some preliminary checking with the NTIA and the FCC. There are some assignments there but we think most are paper assignments rather than actual uses. I know of one that I mentioned to the NTIA which was an old Coast Guard frequency that I used to use many years ago. It was issued in 1962 and as far as we can tell the Coast Guard Auxiliary no longer uses it but prefers VHF. The FCC reaction was favorable as I thought it might be, as it would partly solve the free bander problem they have suffered with for years. So, board, what say? The worst thing is that we will be told no, the best thing is we just might get something. 73 Jim Haynie, W5JBP --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com) Version: 6.0.406 / Virus Database: 229 - Release Date: 10/21/02

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7904] Re: Ideas
by Huntington Howard-CADV02 24 Oct '02

24 Oct '02

I think this is a great idea. Thanks Jim. What I like most is that it would demonstrate to FCC and the amateur community that we are in fact doing something to advance communications technology. It would provide a place for true experimenters. Somehow the regulations should encourage experimentation rather than provide more spectrum for today's digital operators. Also, and I am a bit reluctant to bring it up, we should have a band plan in place early on to allow the 56kbit users and voice bandwidth users a chance to coexist within adjacent spectrum. Howie, K9KM

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7903] Re 7891 Ideas
by John Bellows 24 Oct '02

24 Oct '02

I like this idea. We ought to be proactive rather than reactive whenever possible in allocation matters. All too often we are forced into a defensive mode by commercial interests seeking to appropriate Amateur allocations. Since it appears the allocation has little actual authorized use it seems to be a situation where there is both no harm in the asking and a possibility of some real gain. A request for an exclusive digital allocation at 27.850 to 28.000 would reaffirm our commitment to the experimental and innovative aspect of the Amateur Service and would afford experimenters a place to put ideas into action and test them without striking fear in the hearts of Amateurs plying traditional modes. At present the freebanders operate in the allocation because they either have tacit approval or no active opposition. Though there is a risk that they might try to move above 28.000 if we are successful. There is also a risk that if left unchecked there numbers will grow and they will move above 28.000 anyway. Joel makes a good point that openings in this part of the spectrum will be limited for the next few years for any experiments due to declining sunspots. Perhaps could use this to our advantage in establishing a foothold in the allocation at a time when freeband activity is reduced. Im not clear how this request would detract from current efforts at 5MHz and 7 MHz? Each of these matters stands firmly on its own merits. If it is a question of funding I agree we will need to get a feel for the cost of seeking the additional allocation before proceeding, but at first blush it would not appear to be significant. 73, Jay, KØQB

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7902] Unattended Internet linking node on 2m simplex
by Walton Stinson, W0CP 24 Oct '02

24 Oct '02

Interference on 2m simplex frequenciesFine, Dave. This isn't an urgent situation. However, it is causing a great deal of discussion out here. Have any of the other divisions figured this out? If so, what's your take on this? 73, Walt W0CP ----- Original Message ----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ To: arrl-odv Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 12:01 PM Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7901] Re: Fw: Interference on 2m simplex frequencies; Still more info Walt, sorry I was not able to respond sooner. I'm not an expert on Internet linking and I hadn't previously heard it was being done except by repeater. In principle it's no different than connecting by telephone. Picture a repeater with autopatch, then picture a simplex autopatch. It seems to me that the frequency and control issues are similar with Internet linking. However, I'm not going to be able to devote any more time to this until I get a couple of other projects done, which have to be done today (before I leave for the QCWA National Convention early tomorrow). 73, Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Stinson, Walt (Dir, Rocky Mtn) Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 5:34 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7884] Fw: Interference on 2m simplex frequencies; Still more info Dave, The Echolink and IRLP nodes are popping up on 2m out here, as I'm sure they are elsewhere. No one seems to know quite how to classify them and there even a question as to whether they are legal (see below). Do we have an "official" position on the classification of this activity? Is there an NFCC position on coordination of this activity? 73, Walt W0CP ----- Original Message ----- From: Douglas Sharp (EWU) To: 'Jeff Ryan' ; W0CP Walton Stinson Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 2:51 PM Subject: RE: Interference on 2m simplex frequencies; Still more info I'm not sure that I completely agree with the interpretation below. Some thoughts for you guys ... I pulled Part 97 from the ARRL web page. The first section of interest is §97.113 Prohibited transmissions: 97.113f - No amateur station, except an auxiliary, repeater or space station, may automatically retransmit the radio signals of other amateur stations. IRLP nodes mainly operate under Automatic Control (unattended). So they must then fall into either auxiliary or repeater operation (obviously not space so I'll ignore that one). So, what defines each? §97.3 Definitions. (a) The definitions of terms used in Part 97 are: (7) Auxiliary station. An amateur station, other than in a message forwarding system, that is transmitting communications point-to-point within a system of cooperating amateur stations. (39) Repeater. An amateur station that simultaneously retransmits the transmission of another amateur station on a different channel or channels. I believe that when the FCC wrote these rules that they felt: Auxiliary is a point-to-point link. (For example: Between the CRA site on Conifer and the CRA site on Lee Hill. Communications are limited to only include these two stations.) Repeater is a traditional repeater and communications are sent "point to multi-point." (For example: 146.970 MHz on Pikes Peak.). I suspect an IRLP nodes is more a "point to multi-point", therefore might be classified a repeater. But it is not a traditional repeater, since the TX and RX are physically isolated and under different parties control, so the repeater classification may not apply. From these definitions it seems not to be auxiliary, but also not to be a repeater. So what is it? I guess I state the obvious. J On a side note, I'm also concerned that if classified a repeater, then CCARC might have to coordinate every IRLP and EchoLink node in Colorado. (Not something I am looking forward to do!) Regardless, I think this is something that we need to determine and resolve. I am pressed for time today, thus wrote this very quickly, so I hope my comments above make sense. J How do we get to the bottom of it? 73, - Doug -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Ryan [mailto:Jeff.Ryan@wcom.com] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:12 PM To: Doug Sharp; W0CP Walton Stinson Subject: RE: Interference on 2m simplex frequencies; Still more info Doug / Walt: John Hennessee, ARRL's regulatory information specialist has responded that it is his position that simplex links to IRLP nodes fall under 97.219-- they are "message forwarding systems". What follows is my interpretation / expansion on John's statement. Part 97.221 tells us that if the message forwarding system transmits RTTY or data, it can be automatically controlled. Since IRLP simplex links are transmitting voice, they do not fall under 97.221, so they may not be automatically controlled (unattended). A control operator must be present at the control point at all times the link is forwarding messages (e.g., the link is active), either locally or remotely. If the control operator is present locally, transmission (message forwarding) on 2 meters is permitted. If the control operator is present remotely, then the remote location is an Auxiliary Station and control of the radio that interfaces to the IRLP node must conform to 97.201(b) and ensure the 'link' frequency is 1.25 meter and shorter wavelengths. Another point about auxiliary stations is that the operation can not be "open" to just anyone--- each operator must be specifically authorized to act as the Control Operator. Insofar as the specific operation of the N0MFB IRLP simplex link, the messages I have received do not indicate specifically how he is using the link. I did notice on one of the IRLP node maps/web pages that there are many other 2 meter simplex frequencies listed-- but this fact doesn't make it legal. An example of another area that is replete with misunderstanding and misuse is the operation of so-called dual band radios in "cross-band repeat" mode. There are many hams across the U.S. that simply do not understand some of the guidelines that must be followed and operate illegally because they: -- fail to identify all transmissions emanating from the cross-band 'repeater'; -- use 2 meters from an HT or other mobile into the x-band radio -- fail to provide a method for shutting off the x-band radio should the control link fail (no time-out timer) In a manner similar to these issues, it is my contention that many IRLP node operators with a simplex link don't understand the rules under which they should be operating. The ARRL is planning on including a 'sidebar' about IRLP operation in the next edition of the Rule Book when published-- but I don't think that will solve the problem. (ARRL ran an article about cross-band 'repeater' issues but there are still dozens--if not hundreds-- of people still violating Part 97 because they don't know any better). So... this is my take on the issue. If you see any flaws in my logic, or disagree with my conclusions, please let me know. 73, Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Doug Sharp [mailto:doug@dougsharp.com] Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:38 AM To: W0CP Walton Stinson; Jeff. Ryan@WCom. Com Subject: FW: Interference on 2m simplex frequencies; Still more info Walt, As we discussed, IRLP nodes are coming on-line every day. Here is another example of a node (right here in Boulder) that came on-line on a non-standard channel on the two-meter band. Thankfully this guy was willing to work with me (informally) to move him on-bandplan, but all are not as cooperative! J Although he is also requesting a UHF repeater coordination, he stated that he wanted to leave his node on VHF to give it more access to all. As we discussed, I am unsure of these unattended simplex nodes are proper on two-meters. It appears that Jeff has also asked someone at HQ for an opinion. I look forward to hearing that opinion. I thought I'd forward his e-mail to you since we discussed this item at the last hamfest, and you may be also inquiring. Thanks & 73, - Doug Doug Sharp Longmont, CO doug(a)dougsharp.com k2ad(a)dougsharp.com -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Ryan [mailto:Jeff.Ryan@wcom.com] Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 6:39 PM To: Gary Geissinger Cc: Skip Cubbedge; Mike Lewis; Gary Mattie; K2AD(a)arrl.net Subject: RE: Interference on 2m simplex frequencies; Still more info Gary: The CCARC Frequency Coordinator spoke informally with N0MFB about the IRLP node on 146.560. At this time it is still unclear whether or not this is a matter for which the CCARC would be involved which is why the discussion is categorized as informal; nevertheless, N0MFB has indicated he will move his operation to 146.565 to comply with the Colorado band plan. This should eliminate any interference to 146.550. I have requested the ARRL Regulatory Information folks give me their opinion as to whether or not running a simplex IRLP link is auxiliary station operation. (It is my opinion that a simplex link to an IRLP node is a remote base, which falls under Auxiliary Station operation). If it is, then N0MFB must move his operation to a frequency above 222.15 in order to comply with FCC rules Part 97.201(b). I'll keep you posted. 73, Jeff, K0RM ARRL Section Manager, Colorado -----Original Message----- From: Gary Geissinger [mailto:ggeissinger@digitalglobe.com] Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 4:14 PM To: 'Jeff Ryan' Cc: Skip Cubbedge; Mike Lewis; Gary Mattie Subject: RE: Interference on 2m simplex frequencies; Still more info Jeff, Here is some additional research. N0MFB has an IRLP node. It is advertised to be on 146.560. See: http://status.irlp.net/IRLPLowCPU.php3?option=3&refresh=-1 Well, what is the ARRLs position on this activity and the 2 meter band plan? I'll tell you this; if he stays on 145.560, then both local simplex frequencies are going to be useless. Thanks and 73's, Gary

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7901] Re: Fw: Interference on 2m simplex frequencies; Still more info
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 24 Oct '02

24 Oct '02

Walt, sorry I was not able to respond sooner. I'm not an expert on Internet linking and I hadn't previously heard it was being done except by repeater. In principle it's no different than connecting by telephone. Picture a repeater with autopatch, then picture a simplex autopatch. It seems to me that the frequency and control issues are similar with Internet linking. However, I'm not going to be able to devote any more time to this until I get a couple of other projects done, which have to be done today (before I leave for the QCWA National Convention early tomorrow). 73, Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Stinson, Walt (Dir, Rocky Mtn) Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 5:34 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7884] Fw: Interference on 2m simplex frequencies; Still more info Dave, The Echolink and IRLP nodes are popping up on 2m out here, as I'm sure they are elsewhere. No one seems to know quite how to classify them and there even a question as to whether they are legal (see below). Do we have an "official" position on the classification of this activity? Is there an NFCC position on coordination of this activity? 73, Walt W0CP ----- Original Message ----- From: Douglas Sharp (EWU) <mailto:Douglas.Sharp@ewu.ericsson.se> To: 'Jeff Ryan' <mailto:Jeff.Ryan@wcom.com> ; W0CP Walton <mailto:wstinson@listenup.com> Stinson Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 2:51 PM Subject: RE: Interference on 2m simplex frequencies; Still more info I'm not sure that I completely agree with the interpretation below. Some thoughts for you guys ... I pulled Part 97 from the ARRL web page. The first section of interest is §97.113 Prohibited transmissions: 97.113f - No amateur station, except an auxiliary, repeater or space station, may automatically retransmit the radio signals of other amateur stations. IRLP nodes mainly operate under Automatic Control (unattended). So they must then fall into either auxiliary or repeater operation (obviously not space so I'll ignore that one). So, what defines each? §97.3 Definitions. (a) The definitions of terms used in Part 97 are: (7) Auxiliary station. An amateur station, other than in a message forwarding system, that is transmitting communications point-to-point within a system of cooperating amateur stations. (39) Repeater. An amateur station that simultaneously retransmits the transmission of another amateur station on a different channel or channels. I believe that when the FCC wrote these rules that they felt: Auxiliary is a point-to-point link. (For example: Between the CRA site on Conifer and the CRA site on Lee Hill. Communications are limited to only include these two stations.) Repeater is a traditional repeater and communications are sent "point to multi-point." (For example: 146.970 MHz on Pikes Peak.). I suspect an IRLP nodes is more a "point to multi-point", therefore might be classified a repeater. But it is not a traditional repeater, since the TX and RX are physically isolated and under different parties control, so the repeater classification may not apply. From these definitions it seems not to be auxiliary, but also not to be a repeater. So what is it? I guess I state the obvious. :-) On a side note, I'm also concerned that if classified a repeater, then CCARC might have to coordinate every IRLP and EchoLink node in Colorado. (Not something I am looking forward to do!) Regardless, I think this is something that we need to determine and resolve. I am pressed for time today, thus wrote this very quickly, so I hope my comments above make sense. :-) How do we get to the bottom of it? 73, - Doug -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Ryan [mailto:Jeff.Ryan@wcom.com] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:12 PM To: Doug Sharp; W0CP Walton Stinson Subject: RE: Interference on 2m simplex frequencies; Still more info Doug / Walt: John Hennessee, ARRL's regulatory information specialist has responded that it is his position that simplex links to IRLP nodes fall under 97.219-- they are "message forwarding systems". What follows is my interpretation / expansion on John's statement. Part 97.221 tells us that if the message forwarding system transmits RTTY or data, it can be automatically controlled. Since IRLP simplex links are transmitting voice, they do not fall under 97.221, so they may not be automatically controlled (unattended). A control operator must be present at the control point at all times the link is forwarding messages (e.g., the link is active), either locally or remotely. If the control operator is present locally, transmission (message forwarding) on 2 meters is permitted. If the control operator is present remotely, then the remote location is an Auxiliary Station and control of the radio that interfaces to the IRLP node must conform to 97.201(b) and ensure the 'link' frequency is 1.25 meter and shorter wavelengths. Another point about auxiliary stations is that the operation can not be "open" to just anyone--- each operator must be specifically authorized to act as the Control Operator. Insofar as the specific operation of the N0MFB IRLP simplex link, the messages I have received do not indicate specifically how he is using the link. I did notice on one of the IRLP node maps/web pages that there are many other 2 meter simplex frequencies listed-- but this fact doesn't make it legal. An example of another area that is replete with misunderstanding and misuse is the operation of so-called dual band radios in "cross-band repeat" mode. There are many hams across the U.S. that simply do not understand some of the guidelines that must be followed and operate illegally because they: -- fail to identify all transmissions emanating from the cross-band 'repeater'; -- use 2 meters from an HT or other mobile into the x-band radio -- fail to provide a method for shutting off the x-band radio should the control link fail (no time-out timer) In a manner similar to these issues, it is my contention that many IRLP node operators with a simplex link don't understand the rules under which they should be operating. The ARRL is planning on including a 'sidebar' about IRLP operation in the next edition of the Rule Book when published-- but I don't think that will solve the problem. (ARRL ran an article about cross-band 'repeater' issues but there are still dozens--if not hundreds-- of people still violating Part 97 because they don't know any better). So... this is my take on the issue. If you see any flaws in my logic, or disagree with my conclusions, please let me know. 73, Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Doug Sharp [mailto:doug@dougsharp.com] Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:38 AM To: W0CP Walton Stinson; Jeff. Ryan@WCom. Com Subject: FW: Interference on 2m simplex frequencies; Still more info Walt, As we discussed, IRLP nodes are coming on-line every day. Here is another example of a node (right here in Boulder) that came on-line on a non-standard channel on the two-meter band. Thankfully this guy was willing to work with me (informally) to move him on-bandplan, but all are not as cooperative! :-) Although he is also requesting a UHF repeater coordination, he stated that he wanted to leave his node on VHF to give it more access to all. As we discussed, I am unsure of these unattended simplex nodes are proper on two-meters. It appears that Jeff has also asked someone at HQ for an opinion. I look forward to hearing that opinion. I thought I'd forward his e-mail to you since we discussed this item at the last hamfest, and you may be also inquiring. Thanks & 73, - Doug Doug Sharp Longmont, CO doug(a)dougsharp.com k2ad(a)dougsharp.com -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Ryan [mailto:Jeff.Ryan@wcom.com] Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 6:39 PM To: Gary Geissinger Cc: Skip Cubbedge; Mike Lewis; Gary Mattie; K2AD(a)arrl.net Subject: RE: Interference on 2m simplex frequencies; Still more info Gary: The CCARC Frequency Coordinator spoke informally with N0MFB about the IRLP node on 146.560. At this time it is still unclear whether or not this is a matter for which the CCARC would be involved which is why the discussion is categorized as informal; nevertheless, N0MFB has indicated he will move his operation to 146.565 to comply with the Colorado band plan. This should eliminate any interference to 146.550. I have requested the ARRL Regulatory Information folks give me their opinion as to whether or not running a simplex IRLP link is auxiliary station operation. (It is my opinion that a simplex link to an IRLP node is a remote base, which falls under Auxiliary Station operation). If it is, then N0MFB must move his operation to a frequency above 222.15 in order to comply with FCC rules Part 97.201(b). I'll keep you posted. 73, Jeff, K0RM ARRL Section Manager, Colorado -----Original Message----- From: Gary Geissinger [mailto:ggeissinger@digitalglobe.com] Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 4:14 PM To: 'Jeff Ryan' Cc: Skip Cubbedge; Mike Lewis; Gary Mattie Subject: RE: Interference on 2m simplex frequencies; Still more info Jeff, Here is some additional research. N0MFB has an IRLP node. It is advertised to be on 146.560. See: http://status.irlp.net/IRLPLowCPU.php3?option=3 <http://status.irlp.net/IRLPLowCPU.php3?option=3&refresh=-1> &refresh=-1 Well, what is the ARRLs position on this activity and the 2 meter band plan? I'll tell you this; if he stays on 145.560, then both local simplex frequencies are going to be useless. Thanks and 73's, Gary

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7900] Re: Ideas
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 24 Oct '02

24 Oct '02

RE: 7 MHz It has never been our intention to seek an expansion of the 300 kHz that amateurs in Region 2 presently have on 40 meters. Our objective has been to clear the upper 200 kHz of the broadcasting stations in Regions 1 and 3 that reduce the utility of the allocation here in Region 2. That's what's in it for us; amateurs in the rest of the world obviously have more to gain because they're starting out with less. Conversely, as Joel says, we have more to lose. For everyone but the amateurs of Region 2, realignment of the allocations around 7 MHz would most easily be done by making the ham band 100 kHz worldwide. As for how we're doing, I reported in ARRL-ODV:7758 on September 3 that we face heavy going in Region 3. There's a CEPT meeting going on right now in Mainz, Germany where we'll find out if the problems we have there are undermining the support we'd built up in Europe. (IARU Region 1 is covering this meeting; we are neither staffing nor paying for it.) Canada has just floated a proposal in CITEL that would meet our objective of 300 kHz worldwide but would not meet the broadcasters' objective for 250 kHz worldwide. Next month there will be a CITEL meeting in Quito where Canada will try to build support for its proposal. At this point the US is not supporting or opposing the Canadian proposal or any other proposal for 7 MHz. At least for now there's a deadlock between the FCC, which represents the non-government spectrum users and supports the proposal (our proposal) that has been endorsed by its WRC Advisory Committee, and the government side which since last September 11 has decided it prefers the status quo in order to maintain its options in teh event of a national communications disruption. We're trying to change the government view. It's worth noting that the broadcasters aren't getting any encouragement from the government side, either. One of the most strident supporters of the status quo in this frequency range is Australia, which normally is a solid supporter of amateur radio. They cite defense and other national requirements for maintaining the fixed service HF allocations. Ironically, one reason the Australian amateurs have not been able to get support from their administration for a 300-kHz worldwide amateur allocation is that Australia already allows its amateurs to use the full 300 kHz, the top 200 kHz on a non-interference basis. So the Australian administration's response is, "You already have it." Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Harrison, Joel (1st Vice President) Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 1:15 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7899] Re: Ideas The money we have spent on 40 meters (very well spent in my opinion) will hopefully keep us from LOSING spectrum there, not necessarily gaining any since we already have 300 KHz. If the rest of the world gains some...we win. Joel -----Original Message----- From: W5JBP(a)aol.com [mailto:W5JBP@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 12:03 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7898] Re: Ideas In a message dated 10/24/2002 11:04:27 AM Central Daylight Time, frenaye(a)pcnet.com writes: How are we really doing on 40m for WRC-2003? How about the VLF and 5 MHz Well, Tom there are two answers to the 40 meter question. I had rather address the VLF and 5 MHz in that my feeling is we have much more of a chance to get something there than 40 meters. We have spent a lot of money on 40 and I don't see anything happening (that has been available to me) that will benefit us. Oh, regions 1 and 3 might get an additional 100 KHz, and that in itself will help the amateur community to work DX easier. Moving the BC stations out of 40? Not going to happen. Jim H.

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:7899] Re: Ideas
by Joel Harrison 24 Oct '02

24 Oct '02

The money we have spent on 40 meters (very well spent in my opinion) will hopefully keep us from LOSING spectrum there, not necessarily gaining any since we already have 300 KHz. If the rest of the world gains some...we win. Joel -----Original Message----- From: W5JBP(a)aol.com [mailto:W5JBP@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 12:03 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7898] Re: Ideas In a message dated 10/24/2002 11:04:27 AM Central Daylight Time, frenaye(a)pcnet.com writes: How are we really doing on 40m for WRC-2003? How about the VLF and 5 MHz Well, Tom there are two answers to the 40 meter question. I had rather address the VLF and 5 MHz in that my feeling is we have much more of a chance to get something there than 40 meters. We have spent a lot of money on 40 and I don't see anything happening (that has been available to me) that will benefit us. Oh, regions 1 and 3 might get an additional 100 KHz, and that in itself will help the amateur community to work DX easier. Moving the BC stations out of 40? Not going to happen. Jim H.

1 0