[CW] USA News FCC Seeks Changes in MF Amateur Band (160m)

[Donald Chester]

Whether or not we have sub-bands and sub-sub bands on 160 as we do on 
the HF bands, or what kind of activities amateurs are using the band 
for, those are not issues the FCC is soliciting in this proposal. The 
matter at hand is finally getting rid of that secondary status on 
1900-2000.  Amateurs already have de facto exclusive use of the band, 
since the radiolocation beacons have virtually all gone dark, except for 
a few low-power fishing net beacons in international waters, which are 
likely are not licensed anyway.  This proposal, if enacted, will not 
have any immediate effect on our day-to-day operation for the 
foreseeable future, but under the existing secondary status, all it 
would take would be for someone to dream up some new form of 
"radiodetermination" to have the FCC license them to operate inside the 
amateur band.

For those who operate CW exclusively, this could still have a great 
impact on your operation.  Granted, 1900-2000 is almost entirely used 
for voice modes, but if amateurs were ever to be displaced from that 
segment by some new ill-conceived "radiolocation" technology (remember 
the BPL debacle?), phone stations would be packed much more tightly into 
1800-1900, which would put even more pressure on the informal CW 
segment, and mode incompatibility would be greatly exacerbated.

We don't want a sub-bands debate to detract from the FCC's apparent 
willingness to restore primary status. Remember the 60m "band" we were 
promised, and that discussion in amateur circles had devolved to whether 
the new band would have sub-bands or be set up like 160?  Then 9/11 
happened and suddenly the 5 mHz region regained alleged "strategic" and 
"homeland security" importance and NTIA vetoed the FCC's plan, 
ultimately tossing us those crumbs in the form of the present five 
highly restricted channels.

We need to concentrate right now on getting this proposal accepted in 
its current form by the Commission, and save the sub-band and 
contesting-vs-ragchewing debates until after we have regained a more 
secure status in the band.  The most likely way to achieve this is for 
the amateur community to submit a flood of well thought-out comments 
loaded with convincing arguments to the FCC. Last time I checked, there 
was only one comment regarding the 160m proposal.  We have yet to see 
what kind of arguments Radiolocation interests might submit to the FCC 
in opposition to the proposal.

As a final note, in winter months, 1850-2000 is often packed full of AM 
and SSB signals even on non-contest nights.  No-one could truthfully 
argue that the band is insufficiently occupied, in order to justify the 
displacement of amateurs.


Don k4kyv



> On a contrary note, I think that experience on 160 has demonstrated 
> that dynamic sharing between modes is workable and that hams have 
> proven their ability to fairly self-allocate bandwidth among the 
> various modes.  I'm not proposing an extension of the 160 model to 
> other bands (yet), but I heartily support retaining the current open 
> nature of the top-band.
>
> 73,
>
> de Hans, K0HB