Path: utzoo!utgpu!ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca!CUVMA!SWL-L Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 18:45:17 EST Reply-To: Erik Sorgatz - Avatar Sender: Short Wave Listener's List Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was From: Avatar Subject: Re: Comments invited: ham/swbc band-sharing X-To: swl-l@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: UofToronto LAN redistribution Message-ID: <90Jan11.123426est.58582@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca> Newsgroups: bitnet.swl-l Distribution: ut Approved: devnull@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu In article <15384@well.UUCP> rh@well.UUCP (Robert Horvitz) writes: +The Federal Communications Commission has released a Notice of +Inquiry, calling for comments on matters to be discussed at the 1992 +World Administrative Radio Conference. WARC-92 will focus on +allocations issues in the shortwave (HF) and other bands. Good issue! I'll assume your interest in soliciting comments here is to formulate a unified response to the FCC from ANARC. + +The 1987 WARC for HF Broadcasting adopted a resolution (No. +641) which states that "the sharing of frequency bands by the +Amateur and Broadcasting Services is undesirable and should be +avoided; ...it is desirable to have worldwide exclusive allocations +for these services in Band 7;..." + As an Amateur I agreee. The SW broadcasters need their own space. Spectrum that is shared often sounds terrible..like 40 meters! :-) +When the member-nations of the ITU convene in 1992 to +consider new allocations for shortwave broadcasting, it is quite +possible that those sentiments will be translated into action. +At recent WARCs, the US has joined other nations in arguing +strongly for more spectrum for international broadcasting. So long as Amateur operations in the 3900-4000 KHz and 7100-7300KHz bands are unaffected, fine! That a hundred or even a thousand commercial SW ops must retune (up or down band) is trivial. That 2-3 MILLION Amateurs would have to either refit (crystal-coil-cap-etc), or in some cases, build/buy NEW gear, would be a sham. I favor having the broadcasters move, it's a lot less expensive in the global sense. + +The FCC seeks comments on these issues in Gen. Docket 89-554. I +would like to have YOUR comments HERE, to help decide what ANARC +should do. We seem to have three basic options: file comments +opposing shared allocations for international broadcasting, file +comments in favor of shared allocations, or take no position on +sharing. + Actually you have another, more intelligent option: File comments that offer an alternative. Like having SW broadcasting occupy the 4000-4500KHz and the 7500-8000KHz areas of the spectrum, exclusivly. This means that Amateur operations can continue, without broadcast QRM and that SWLers can actually hear what's being broadcast. Except when the bastards in the Soviet Union are jamming...SEP (somebody else's problem! ;-) ) +In my opinion, if we file comments opposing shared allocations, +there's a good chance that Region 2 amateurs could lose 7100-7300 +kHz a few years down the road, and perhaps 3900-4000 kHz as well. +Broadcasters could use those channels to beam programs to North and +South America, alleviating some of the congestion in other broadcast +bands. But hams would be furious at SWLs. +However, even if we take no position, it's quite possible that hams +will lose the bands they share with broadcasting and vent their +anger at broadcasters and listeners anyway. + + Almost correct on the last point, Hams would be madder still at the FCC! We've lost enough spectrum to commercial interest in the last 50 years, if it keeps up there will come a time when some people will just bootleg, no licenses, no allocations, no rules..and why not?! The broadcasters did EXACTLY THAT when they "needed" space below 200 meters! In an all out confrontation, no one would win... + +I've requested guidance from our Executive Council and the +Representatives of our clubs. Individuals can, of course, file +comments on their own. Many hams will no doubt do that. As we get +closer to the FCC's deadline, I'll post more information about how +to file. + +In the meantime, though, your ideas: what should we tell the FCC? +What we say can really make a difference. +-- SWLers and Hams must stick together on this issue, the commercial interests are only interested in MAKING MONEY! SWLers want high-quality, non domestic programming that they can actually HEAR! Hams want to be able to communicate with the DX stations - and be able to hear..it's not so different! 1) MOVE THE BROADCASTERS TO 4000-4500KHz and 7300-7500, exclusivly. 2) MAKE 3900-4000KHz and 7100-7300KHz an AMATEUR ALLOCATION, exclusivly. 3) The current users of 4000-4500 and 7300-7500 would not be impacted greatly since that space is currently used as 'high seas' space and with the influx of satellite-transponder based SITOR systems, the ships are not using the allocation. 4) Recommend World Court action for non-signatory violators! Japan is currently broadcasting in the 160 meter band - a clear violation! Yet nothing is ever said or done about it. '73 and good listening! -- -Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY +-------------------------+ Citicorp(+)TTI *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 * 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 +-------------------------+ {csun,philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix}!ttidca!sorgatz **