[Lowfer] It's time that everyone hears this...>very long

Sun, 6 Jan 2002 04:06:22 -0600


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
Behalf Of John Davis
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 1:39 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Lowfer] It's time that everyone hears this...

Yes, I reckon it IS time for everyone to hear this.  Condensation for
benefit of the group:  Basically, the WC2XSR experimental license granted by
the FCC on December 7, 2001, after amendment to withdraw the MF frequencies
previously authorized, gives 36 ham stations the privilege of zapping a 6kHz
wide segment centered on 166.5kHz with 400W TPO and/or 200W ERP.  (This is
more than some of the high-power NDBs actually radiate).
>We are allowed 1500w output on the amateur bands does everyone use it??? I
don't have an amplifier, I run 100w on HF and find that I can build a decent
antenna and even work long distances on 160-meters<
And apparently they want more of the band than that!  (See Mike's detailed
response to me, below.)
>I don't need it. I don't know what the others are thinking<
SHMRG is formally known as The 600 Meter Research Group.  As type of
applicant, it is not listed on the application as a corporation, nor even an
association, which would at least imply formal bylaws and structure.
Organizationally, it is apparently simply a group of individuals;
ironically, not unlike the LWCA itself.
>The administrator is paying for all the associated costs out of his own
pocket. No dues for anyone<
I don't mean to be cynical about this, but with so many hams and groups of
hams applying here under Part 5, rather than working for a grant of
privileges under Part 97, a better name might be "Sooners."  Worried what
hams running 2W ERP might do to present day QRP activities?  Think what up
to 200W will do!
>I stumbled upon the group and thought hey this could be fun. If they wanted
to tick off the Lowfers, they would have asked for an allocation in the top
of the band. They intentionally didn't do that. I guess this is called
sharing a band with others<
Mike, I am glad that you are personally committed to running only the power
necessary to do the job.
>Although I am a part of the other group, I still want to hang out with the
Lowfers too. I plan on beaconing part time and having a stepped power output
from 10mw to something I don't know yet<
But I am greatly puzzled why even more bandwidth would possibly be needed in
this segment to meet the objectives of the experimental program as
represented to the FCC (development of improved low SNR communication
techniques; development of more efficient, smaller, and/or "field expedient"
antennas; testing of feasibilty of providing emergency communications in the
range of 50-200 miles)?  In addition, this all sounds very much like what
would happen under a ham allocation anyway.
>I am not sure why a few in the group want more bandwidth. 6kc is fine for
me. I guess the difference is that the transmitter can sit on my desk.
Anyone want to try and build a portable Saint Louis Vertical style antenna
for LF??? I'll do it, but I might need a bit more power to radiate enough
signals for reliable communications. Part-5 permits allow me to do this. I
do have the parts here to build this antenna<
I'm puzzled, given the capabilities this license affords, why you would use
it to engage in beacon operation very much like we have now, except without
the antenna limitation?  Doesn't this come across more as pre-allocation ham
band activity than an ORGANIZED developmental/research program normally
expected of a Part 5 licensee?  And why LowFER-like calls ("RW" and "WE,"
for instance) with these beacons?  Doesn't Part 5 require you to at least
periodically identify with the call letters assigned by the FCC???
>I am going to run a Part-15 beacon until I get the go ahead to run with my
transmitter in the shack and a 55' vertical with a big tophat. I want to
someday work other stations on CW on the band. Someday it will be an amateur
band, but at least now I can enjoy a bit more freedom running under Part-5.
Yes the group must ID with the full callsign. A short beacon ID is easier in
my opinion to identify than a long callsign. This isn't supposed to be a
typical ham band QSO session with going on about everything we did last week
or the weather here is cloudy, my dog bit me today, and so forth<
And finally, I'm not clear how communication between a licensed service (you
all) and an unlicensed service (the rest of us) would further the
experimental objectives, even in the unlikely event it is ever allowed.
>I don't know either, but it would still be fun to communicate with the
Lowfers about all the great technical innovation the years have taught them<
Would it not simply be better to press for a full-fledged ham allocation and
be done with it?
>I think this is already covered by the ARRL. Maybe the FCC will see these
operations going on without interference and just come out and allocate it
and other bands to the amateur service<
Please pardon this barrage of questions, but I'm sure other folks will have
even more in the coming days.  Thanks for any clarification you can provide.
>Your welcome. I just want to experiment, that is why I worked so hard to
get my amateur license. I want to try different bands, and maybe discover
something myself someday. If I wanted the easy way out, I would still be on
HF working with much smaller antennas. There is a challenge on the MW, LW,
and lower bands. I want to have fun with my experiments. If someone can
offer me a chance to work on a different band with whatever limits, I'll say
yes thank you. Not everyone will or can be happy with whatever goes on in
this world. Enjoy what you do, and please respect my choices, as I will
respect yours<
Thanks and 73's to you all. I hope to be a friend, not a foe.
73,
John

--------------------------------------------------------