[CW] 600 Meter Amateur Band for CW?
David Ring
n1ea at arrl.net
Fri Jun 6 10:21:42 EDT 2008
Hello CW gang,
There is an interesting discussion going on at
http://groups.google.com/group/radio-officers?hl=en
It is about a proposal for a new amateur band at 600 meters. I'm
trying to incorporate the wishes of five groups world wide who are
seeking to bring back stations on 500 kHz of "commercial
radiotelegraphy coast stations" including one group in France who is
proposing a volunteer distress back up system on 500 kHz.
Here is a taste of the conversations:
Glenn,
I'll have to check and see if I can find the ITU regs, mine are ten
years out of date. In the USA ships are still authorized the band 410
to 512 kHz. We have six coast stations still authorized 500 kHz as
well as one or two working frequencies - all but one are off the air
on MF and HF.
This proposal and compromise is the ONLY way that I can see this group
as a whole moving forward and supporting and initiating this project.
The other option is for those who are amateurs or those who would
rather have amateurs on 500 kHz to write to their National Amateur
Radio Organization and say: "I support an amateur radio band at 500
kHz."
Right now in the USA, the amateurs who are operating near 500 kHz
cannot operate ON 500 kHz because it is a marine radio frequency for
WT.
If this group had a "VOTE" button, I'd put this up to a vote.
I have received many emails off the list saying this is a sound and
fair proposal for all concerned, but I get a few who say that any
mention of 500 kHz and museum stations is proposterous.
With the addition of museum stations, we HAVE their support and we can
support them - and by using them both for national emergency
communications - we strengthen the entire argument.
Anyone want this job? It is up for grabs!
73
DR
On 6/6/08, Glenn VK4DU <vk4du at hf.ro> wrote:
>
>
> David,
>
> As I have said to you on this list and directly, of course I want to reach a
> compromise.
>
> However, if said compromise flies in the face of reality, then it is just
> not going to get up.
>
> Whilst I have the utmost respect for the dedication of KPH, we can not put
> up a proposal that has no basis in law.
>
> 500 is no longer a distress frequency. 500 is no longer restricted to CW.
>
> FACTS.
>
> No one, regardless of what kind of a station they operate, can propose
> compliance with provisions of the RR WHICH NO LONGER EXIST.
>
> If we put forward a proposal which calls for re-instatement of the W/T
> distress system on 500, it will completely wreck our credibility.
>
> IMO have only to quote the GMDSS, and the proposal is sunk, without a trace.
>
>
> I look back fondly on my days of operating on 500...and I would love to hear
> lots of CW there again.
>
> The ONLY way to achieve this is to combine forces with the amateurs. There
> is no international association of R/O's which has status with ITU.
>
> Amateurs outnumber ex-R/O's by a vast majority. Operational coast stations
> used for historic purposes are located in the US only.
>
> Exactly how many stations of the "The New 500 kHz Network" are ready to come
> up on 500, right now? An effective MF coast station can hardly be
> constructed overnight.
>
> We have to be pragmatic......the opposition is very strong, very well
> resourced, extremely well connected politically at IMO and ITU and cares
> NOTHING for the history of 500.
>
> As you know, amateurs have been pushing the boundaries at 500, with QSO's of
> thousands of miles using milliwatts.
>
> I haven't heard much distress traffic on 5 ton of late....
>
>
> 73
> Glenn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radio-officers at googlegroups.com
> [mailto:radio-officers at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Ring
>
> Sent: Friday, 6 June 2008 19:31
> To: radio-officers at googlegroups.com
> Subject: [Radio Officers, &c] Re: 600 Meter Band Proposal - First Draft
>
>
> 1.) The use of SITOR on 500 kHz is because of the proposal of "The New 500
> kHz Network" out of France. This is what they are proposing.
>
> 2.) 500 kHz will be restricted to A1, A2 and F1 FEC and ARQ for ships and
> coast stations. Again the F1 FEC/ARQ is for the "New 500 kHz Network" out
> of France. I have no problem with the amateurs using any mode that they
> want elsewhere.
>
> 3.) Distress, Urgent, Safety - these are retained for the requirements of
> both present coast stations, Museum stations and the needs of the "New 500
> kHz Network".
>
> 4.) Any frequency can be used for distress. If the "New 500 kHz Network" is
> sucessful at their proposal, this language is there for them to offer their
> services.
>
> 5) The Museum stations and others have mentioned that having general access
> to 500 kHz without professional CW proficiency would not be good. These
> stations are comitted to NO access for radio amateurs and the proposal has
> reached a compromise that allows the amateurs use of 500 kHz. Moreover,
> with 500 kHz being open to amateurs a new reason for both amateur
> involvement, and the existance of current and museum stations arises:
> Communications during national or international disaster including ship and
> aircraft distress.
>
> Glenn, what I want to do is to find something we can go forward on.
> Have you been paying attention to the objections of the Museum stations and
> those associated with them, and with Sweden's suggestions?
>
> 73
>
> DR
>
> On 6/6/08, glenn at gmdss.com.au <glenn at gmdss.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > David
> >
> > Sorry, but there are a couple of shortcomings with this proposal.
> >
> > 1. It proposes a mixture of SITOR and CW on 500 - these modes are
> > incompatible. A distress message sent in SITOR won't be received by a
> > CW station, so you can't include a provision calling for QRT SOS.
> >
> > 2. It restricts amateurs to CW only. That will get the amateur's
> > backs up - they are using all kinds of modes at the moment.
> >
> > 3. If you use the word 'Distress' in the proposal, you are
> > effectively calling for re-designation of 500 for distress and safety
> > comms, after a WRC removed that designation.
> >
> > 4. Noting that the GMDSS was introduced in 1999 and shipowners are no
> > longer required to fit a W/T station, there will have to be a
> > seriously good reason to reverse the decision of a WRC and redesignate
> > 500 as a distress channel.
> >
> > 5. The WRC removed the distress designation for 500, and opened up
> > the channel to all data modes (including CW). Accordingly, there is
> > no longer any legislative or regulatory requirement to insist on CW
> > proficiency for access to 500.
> >
> >
> > I am only playing devil's advocate here - these are the questions the
> > opposition will surely ask.
> >
> > I understand that you are seeking compromise, and I applaud you for
> > it, however we need to be very careful with our choice of words,
> > otherwise we are just giving our opposition ammunition.
> >
> > If you leave words like distress watchkeeping, vessel in distress and
> > ships in a public proposal, it will be dismissed out of hand.
> >
> > As Fritz, Peter and others have said, let's get together with the
> > IARU are move forward - we can sort this stuff out later. I am sure
> > that amateurs will be happy to stay off 500, and leave it to the ex-
> > professionals.
> >
> > 73
> > Glenn
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jun 6, 12:14 pm, "David Ring" <n... at arrl.net> wrote:
> > > A proposal for a mixed marine, government, military and amateur use
> > of > 500 kHz and for an exclusive amateur band at 505 to 515 kHz.
> > >
> > > Knowing the value of 500 kHz for extended ground wave coverage, >
> > especially over salt water, and the importance of immediate >
> > interconnectivity between government, red cross, red star and red >
> > crescent, military and other government and non-government >
> > organizations and amateurs in the event of a national or international
> > > emergency, we current and former maritime radio officers, government
> > > radio operators, police radio operators, aviation radio officers, >
> > holders of licensed maritime coast stations, of many countries on all
> > > continents of the world with to propose the following:
> > >
> > > An amateur authorization of 500 to 515 kHz with a guard channel of
> > 496 > to 504 kHz for 500 kHz "Distress, Urgent, Safety, Maritime and
> > General > Maritime ship to ship and ship to shore calling".
> > >
> > > I propose that government and coast stations and ship stations be
> > > authorized A1, A2 > and F1 (FEC and ARQ SITOR) on 500 kHz. I
> > propose that Amateurs be > authorized A1 emission in the band 505 to
> > 515 kHz.
> > >
> > > I further propose that ONLY 1) Those with a current valid amateur
> > > radio license with current or past commercial WT / Radiotelegraph >
> > license (or employment with any government, government agency, or >
> > military service including coast guard where such a license wasn't >
> > required) who agree to be bound by the ITU Maritime Mobile Rules and
> > > Regulations 2) Any and all Coastal Marine Radiotelegraphy stations
> > or > Military, or Government Radiotelegraphy stations shall be
> > permitted to > use 500 kHz for the purpose of calling or if they are
> > a Coastal Marine > Coastal Station any other communications permitted
> > by ITU rules and > regulations. That these stations be authorized to
> > use A1, A2 > emissions for calling on 500 kHz. The amateur radio
> > operators will > agree and ensure that their transmissions be in
> > accordance with both > ITU Maritime Mobile and their nations
> > radiocommunications laws - > WHICHEVER is more restrictive.
> > Government or Coastal Marine Stations > and ships or marine stations
> > will be authorized for F1 emission for > ARQ and FEC SITOR simplex
> radiotelegraphy over radio.
> > >
> > > ANY station hearing an SOS on 500 kHz - irrespective of their being
> > > licensed or not, may after a suitable period, respond to the SOS in
> > > accordance with ITU rules and that it is understood that NO >
> > commuications is to be permitted by these stations other than to >
> > facilitate the communications with the vessel in distress. Moreover,
> > > if there is a Commercial or Historical station that is in >
> > communications with the vessel in distress, and that station >
> > communicates with any amateur station to stop transmissions, that >
> > station MUST IMMEDIATELY stop all transmissions until such time if >
> > any that the ship is UNABLE to communicate with any Commercial or >
> > Historical Coast Station at which time, they may resume distress >
> > communications and relay. Also that ANY station monitoring 500 kHz >
> > that hears an SOS be required to keep a written (or electronic) log of
> > > the communications and relay that information to their nations - or
> > > other nations Rescue Coordination Center or other Coast Guard point
> > of > contact.
> > >
> > > ===========
> > >
> > > Comments and corrections?
> > >
> > > 73
> > >
> > > DR
> >
> >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> THIS IS THE "RADIO OFFICERS, &C" MAIL LIST - UNSUBSCRIBE AND OTHER SETTINGS ARE BELOW.
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Radio Officers" group.
> To post to this group, send email to radio-officers at googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to radio-officers-unsubscribe at googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/radio-officers?hl=en
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
>
More information about the CW
mailing list