[CW] 600 Meter Amateur Band for CW?
K0HB
k-zero-hb at earthlink.net
Fri Jun 6 10:39:19 EDT 2008
Other than a nostalgic hangout for old sailors like you and me (not a
particularly good argument in a regulatory proceeding) 600 meters doesn't
strike me as a good candidate for an Amateur Radio band.
73, de Hans, K0HB
--
><{{{{*> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~k0hb
> [Original Message]
> From: David Ring <n1ea at arrl.net>
> To: CW Reflector <cw at mailman.qth.net>
> Date: 6/6/2008 2:21:55 PM
> Subject: [CW] 600 Meter Amateur Band for CW?
>
> 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 years out of date.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
> > -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> CW at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
More information about the CW
mailing list