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@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@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.