C4 - HF Matters Consultation

Discussion in 'C4 - HF Matters' started by RSGB Forums, Jan 9, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RSGB Forums

    RSGB Forums Administrator

    This is a general topic for raising issues other than those relating to Band Planning, Operating Standards and WRC15 HF matters, where separate topics have been created.

    The C4 Committee covers all of the above topics as well as Region 1 HF Contesting matters, Technical Standards, etc, so suggestions for other HF Topic should be posted here.
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 14, 2014
  2. g6jyb

    g6jyb Moderator

    To spur on the process, below are the outlines gathered by our HF Manager. When commenting please be clear as to which one you refer to. However do also remember that we are still in Stage-1 of the process (Open Call) so you are also free to propose your own outlines on other HF topics at this point. If a particular topic gets busy, we will give it its own thread.

    One other thing - please ensure that either via your UserID/profile or posting, that you clearly identify both Name/Callsign

    regards

    Murray G6JYB

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    1) Band planning

    7MHz Band Plan - Information Paper
    Region-2 is now aligned with Region-1. Data modes should start at 7040kHz and not below. As use of data modes expands, activity should spread up in frequency, noting that data modes are allowed also in the 2700Hz all modes segment.

    28MHz Band Plan - Proposal
    Proposal to expand the 6kHz bandwidth segment downwards to 29.0MHz from its current 29.1MHz, in order to encompass some traditional AM / FM activity on these frequencies. [is there really FM activity there?, our understanding is that it’s largely AM]

    1.8MHz Band Plan - Information Paper
    The Region-2 band plan has data modes at 1800-1810kHz. The paper would highlight that this is outside the Region-1 160m allocation, so data mode operation here is illegal.

    2) Operating Standards
    Proposal -
    Inform about an initiative from CDXC to partner with the RSGB in providing education and training on HF DX operating in an attempt to improve operating standards on the HF bands. Call for ideas on how to improve HF DX operating standards, other than through education and training.

    3) WRC15
    5MHz: A future ITU allocation still needs formal support from national administrations on WRC15 Agenda Item 1.4 - especially at CEPT where there remains significant opposition. The availability in some nations of national permits, is no guarantee of support for an allocation at International Level / WRC15. The paper would highlight this to encourage maximum support/engagement.
  3. G4FSU

    G4FSU Moderator

    Remote operating is becoming more and more popular and raises both licensing and ethical issues, but is a godsend for amateurs with no capability for external aerials or those plagued by high noise environments. It's also an interesting and challenging technical subject with great experimenter appeal.

    Are there any thoughts or inputs on this that need to raised to an IARU level? The issue of using TR61/01 (the CEPT reciprocal licensing agreement) for remote operation has been well covered and it is clearly not allowed, but are there other issues that need to be discussed?
  4. G3SXW

    G3SXW New Member

    No, I don't think so, Ian. There is a major issue about awards (especially DXCC) but I guess that ARRL would take the lead on that, and it's not for IARU anyway. 73 de Roger/G3SXW.
  5. John G4SWX

    John G4SWX Moderator

    I don't think so Ian.
    However, as given my talk on remote operation to various radio clubs around the East of the UK there is a lot of misunderstanding as to what is allowed and what is not. This has not been helped by surveys that do not explain the very different aspects of remote station operation.

    In my book; remote control of a station within the terms of the UK Licence is a good thing and could open up amateur radio to many that are no longer able to put up antennas or are restricted in some way. There is no reason why such a station(note; station not necessarily operator) should not qualify for awards and enter contests. I am sure that many contesters would prefer all of the operations to sit for the duration with the equipment but this is not a licence requirement! I am quite in favour of permitting others to remotely operate club stations in contests as long as the station fulfils all of the terms of the UK amateur licence.
    This is also why I have pushed back in earlier discussions at some that would prefer the callsign of the operator to be used rather than that of the remote station installation (individual or club).

    Remote station technology is abused, particularly by some, operating across national borders, not using the callsign of the station being operated etc. Such operation is clearly not acceptable for contests and awards and where identified should be flagged to the licencing administrations concerned as a possible breach.

    Our IARU position should be built along these lines and we should push back against those that would want to impose restrictions that do not fit with the UK amateur licence that many have worked hard to keep flexible with technology.

    73
    John G4SWX
  6. G3WKL

    G3WKL Administrator

    John knows that I have a personal view on this matter and that I would feel bound to rise to his bait! We have a friendly disagreement on a part of this remote operating subject. In posting I am not doing so to spark a discussion between us in public, but more so to put the alternative view and see what others think. Much of this has already been covered in the earlier Licence Review: Remote Operating RSGB Consultation anyway. My comments are really focused on HF operating, though I could imagine having some fun with a well located station capable of operating on 6m and above.

    I consider that there are two ways forward, not one. Both have their benefits, and in my view both need implementing. One is as John describes, the other is where one operates a remote station but using one's own call sign. For me the real value in using one's call sign is to provide to those living in urban areas, where local noise is an increasing problem, a chance to operate with an effective station using a call sign that is known to their friends and regular contacts. This facility might also provide the enjoyment of operating to those who live in modern developments that almost preclude HF operation, sheltered accommodation and old-people's homes, as well as the elderly and disabled. I have a large garden by most people's standards but I would love to be able to experience more effective DXing on 80m and 160m but are limited by local noise and neighbours (and even my wife!) as to aerials.

    Whether remote operating should allow working towards Awards or participation in contests is a matter for the organisations and groups organising those events. Whilst I agree with John's view there is perhaps a case for special categories in some awards to provide operators the fun of personally working towards an Award in this way. Maybe, too, even special categories in some contests. After all, overall success is a mix of the station's capability and the operator's skill. Operating a remote station with one's own call sign is not much different from someone guest operating someone else's station.

    It's arguable whether John's preference for remote operating is allowable under our current licence, as my interpretation is that 3rd party access to a station isn't permitted; certainly what I would like to see isn't allowed currently. We have urged Ofcom to include the matter in their Licence Review, expected in a few months time. Perhaps the only relevance to IARU Region 1 is to encourage different countries to share the same vision of remote operation, so that we don't finish up with differing licence conditions in different countries - but maybe it's already too late.

    73 John, G3WKL
  7. Don

    Don New Member

    Ian - in response to your question about remote operating, here's my view.

    a) The Society's objects include the words: To promote the general advancement of the science and practice of Radio Communication or other subjects allied thereto, and to facilitate the exchange of information and ideas on these subjects among its members and to obtain the maximum liberty of action consistent with safeguarding the interests of all concerned, and for this purpose.

    In my view, this means in the context of remote operation, that the opportunity should be maximised for using remote facilities. There should not be any legislative impediment to exploiting remote technology, subject, of course, to appropriate security arrangements for avoidance of unauthorised use. I think this is effectively a national issue - country by country - but a general encouragement from IARU to MS to obtain the maximum liberty of action might be appropriate.

    b) There are, as Roger says, some "grey" areas surrounding awards. In my view, these need to be resolved with a view to the future, not the past. Remote operation is a fact of today's world. The award systems need to recognise this and not practice unfair discrimination. But this is not an IARU matter other, perhaps, than to encourage award-managing entities to ensure their awards systems do not unreasonable discriminate against remote operations.

    FWIW

    Don, G3BJ
  8. g6jyb

    g6jyb Moderator

    For info - over in C5(VHF+) we have such a change in sight for the IARU-R1 ATV contest rules - which should in future permit remote (and 'Rover' ops too) to boost participation - Murray G6JYB
  9. Paul Gaskell G4MWO

    Paul Gaskell G4MWO New Member

  10. Paul Gaskell G4MWO

    Paul Gaskell G4MWO New Member

    Hi All,

    Guess this is the point for raising a subject not already raised, so here goes
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    IARU R! Meeting 2014 Bulgaria


    Proposal to the meeting for the Universal Use of Upper Sideband


    INTRODUCTION


    Amateur radio has been recently trumpeted by a prominent European national amateur radio society (RSGB) as being “A 21st Century Hobby”. In some areas of our hobby, this is true, but in others we are in danger of lagging behind in even long-established developments.


    Many, many years have passed since the first use of Amateur Radio Single Sideband, with LSB below and USB above10 MHz. This may have some historical origins from the very early days of Single Sideband when additive and subtractive mixing was used with a single VFO but this is still unclear. However, the vast majority of today’s generally available Amateur equipment has far surpassed this, with the availability of both LSB and USB (and other modes) on any frequency.


    Surely we have now reached the stage where one overall Single Sideband standard can be applied and surely this should follow the commercial and military norm of Upper Sideband – USB.


    REASONS


    Some newer bands/channel allotments, such as 5 MHz, require obligatory use of USB


    A significant number of Data modes coming into use now obligatorily require the use of USB


    Of the 10 HF amateur radio bands now in use, only 3 – 1.8, 3.5 & 7 MHz - use LSB as the primary SSB mode – all VHF , UHF and higher bands use Upper Sideband


    There does not appear to be any specific technical criteria as to why USB can not be used on 1.8, 3.5 &7 MHz, as opposed to LSB


    During communications emergencies, amateurs often have to interface with other commercial/maritime/military/aviation users (or in some circumstances even utilize such equipments on amateur bands), whose equipment invariably uses the professional USB standard. Whilst on higher frequency bands above 10MHz this usually does not present any problem, on frequencies below, where the decreed amateur ‘norm’ is LSB, this would require sideband switching and occasionally re-tuning. In addition, use of USB makes interoperability with and use of commercial/military HF equipment for AR Emcoms far easier, increasing the pool of available equipment and also makes it far easier for other HF users in an emergency scenario to monitor AR Emcom traffic.


    From a broader viewpoint, surely it is likely to encourage more respect of the Amateur Service by the rest of the radio communications entities if we update ourselves and assume a consistent standard for basic communications ?


    That is NOT to say we discourage use completely of Lower Sideband (LSB) – there are times when it is prudent to be used – to get a message through in an emergency communications scenario where there is no other option, for instance or communicating via an amateur radio satellite transponder where the passband needs to be inverted – but these are worthy exceptions to a general 21st century standard that should be implemented, lest some major aspects of the Amateur Service be branded as Antedeluvian [apologies if this term is difficult to translate in a wider language context, but I am sure its relevance will be realised]


    Paul Gaskell, G4MWO, QTHR

    Editor,
    The 5 MHz Newsletter, Worldwide 5 Mhz Amateur Allocations Chart, Wikipedia 60 Meter Band Page

    Emcomm Advisor for the original RSGB 5 MHz Experiment Process

    Former RSGB Board Member for Emergency & Public Service Communications

    Former RSGB Radio Communications Voluntary Services National Coordinator

    GAREC Attendee 2005, 2006

    ---------------------------------------------
    Yes, I know it has to be a overall IARU worldwide decision, but you have to start a Region at a time. Now's the chance for RSGB to take the lead on this subject !

    Cheers,

    Paul Gaskell G4MWO
  11. G4FSU

    G4FSU Moderator

    Hi Paul,

    An interesting idea and I certainly agree, there is no reason to use LSB - it's purely convention from many years back.

    Just to take one issue: it's not obligatory to use USB on 5MHz - it was an agreement to maintain compatibility with other services. But there's nothing in the NoV that says you cannot use LSB. I don't think it would be very good operating practice to do so, but is is allowed.

    73 Ian G4FSU
  12. Paul Gaskell G4MWO

    Paul Gaskell G4MWO New Member

    Hi Ian,

    And Thanks for your supportive response - regarding USB on 5 MHz, whilst I'm aware that it's not obligatory in our NoV, I was thinking more globally in that in the US, for instance, on 5 MHz (60m) the FCC makes use of USB man-date-o -ree, as they say....

    Cheers

    Paul G4MWO
    ===================
  13. g6jyb

    g6jyb Moderator

    The current consultation is now closed. Thanks for the suggestions and feedback - C4/HF papers on 28MHz and Malicious-QRM have now been finalised and submitted - Murray G6JYB
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page