[Lowfer] 136 kHz Rulemaking and Daytime Tests?

[craig wasson]

I'm applaud your efforts.  Having them consider another band might be
a good thing since my understanding is that there may be PLC systems
on most all of the spectrum between 100 and 500khz.  If they move the
allocation the same problems exist.  There is a national database of
PLC allocations but unfortunately it's not public.  It would be
interesting if someone from the ham radio community could at least get
a list of frequencies in use and general geographic area for them.

I'm not sure if it is relevant, but I used to monitor carriers from
several of the broadcast channels on longware plus DCF-39 for weeks at
a time using extremely narrow filters.  As I recall I almost always
got a useable signal from many of the broadcast stations and DCF-39
over entire 24-hour periods.  I could dig up those captures if it is
relevant to show that with narrow-band techniques you can get 24-hour
worldwide coverage on frequencies below 200khz.  On some of the
longwave broadcast channels I would see many carriers and could pretty
much identify where they were by comparing their signal strength to
the known stations' local sunset as there was a prety noticible
effect.  Some of the Siberian/Mongolian stations were a little hard to
identify for sure because sunset times were pretty close for multiple
stations on the same frequency.

I realize that the stations I was listening to had much more ERP than
a ham might ever dream of, but my antenna was only about 50 feet of
wire thrown off my deck and tied to a short pine tree so with a good
receive setup 24 hour reception of a ham station should be possible
over very long distances.

Just my two cents.

Craig - N6IO


On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:23 PM, JD <listread at lwca.org> wrote:
> Haven't seen any discussion here yet of the comment filing period for the
> FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on a 2200 meter ham band.  Deadline is
> later this month (see http://lwca.org if you weren't aware of that).  There
> is one point in particular I'd like to bring to the Commission's attention,
> but it would help to have some more supporting evidence.
>
> One of the things they mentioned three times in the NPRM is that they're
> willing to consider whether some other band such as 472-479 should be
> allocated INSTEAD of the CEPT band.  This would be an easy way out for them,
> rather than dealing with the ongoing headache of PLCs.  It's no easy feat to
> keep pretending that PLCs have no official allocation status, while out of
> practical necessity, simultaneously protecting them as though they do!
> That's a contortion act akin to having your cake and eating it, on top of
> believing 10 impossible things every day before breakfast.  But hey, the
> tough job is why they make the big bucks, so I'm not willing to let them off
> the hook.  No sleight of hand, no bait and switch here, please!  Let's have
> an honest evaluation of the band on its own merits.
>
> I think the amateur service should have _both_ bands available in the U.S.
> The point I'd like to make to the Commission is that the two are not
> equivalent and are not substitutes for each other, especially in terms of
> propagation and daytime communications potential.  While groundwave
> propagation is much better at 630 m than 160 m, it doesn't hold a candle to
> 2200 m, provided you can get a signal in the air at all.  Most everyone here
> probably knows that I can see MP at high noon any day of the year that we
> don't have storms nearby.  The recent times that Jay conducted mid-day QRSS
> tests were eye-opening, as was the early afternoon sign-on by Warren a
> weekend or two ago.
>
> These instances lead me to believe that the band's well known nighttime
> potential has obscured the fact that it can still cross half the continent
> in the daytime under favorable conditions, too, which makes it valuable to
> the amateur service.  But I'd like to have more documentation before filing
> my comments.
>
> Would anyone care to do some daytime operating over the next couple of weeks
> for this purpose?  And, do you reckon it would be possible for some of it to
> be on weekdays?  According to the forecasts, we're apparently entering a
> period of increased precipitation around here (much needed) which will limit
> the times when I can be out in the field, so some weekend days will be
> impossible for monitoring.
>
> (And just for my own information, have any of you been in contact with out
> bethren on the RSGB list to solicit their comments on how administrations
> overseas dealt with any interference concerns?  And, what license classes do
> they permit to operate at LF, and what is their reasoning?  Those are a
> couple of other things the FCC appears particularly interested in.)
>
> 73,
> John
> ______________________________________________________________
> Lowfer mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/lowfer
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Lowfer at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html