Extra Class question of the day: 60m operation

August 16, 2012 by 2 Comments

The 60 m band is one of the oddest amateur radio bands. One of the reasons for this is that the 60 meter band is the only amateur band where transmission on specific channels rather than a range of frequencies is permitted. (E1A07) Also, the rules for operation on the 60 meter band state that operation is restricted to specific emission types and specific channels. (E1A06)

The rules for power output are also a bit arcane. The maximum power output permitted on the 60 meter band is 100 watts PEP effective radiated power relative to the gain of a half-wave dipole. (E1A05) The rules are written this way to minimize interference between amateur radio operators, who are secondary users of this band, and the primary users, which are primarily government radio stations.

Filed Under: Extra Class Question of the Day, Rules, Regulations, Enforcement

Extra Class question of the day: Frequency priviledges

August 15, 2012 by 1 Comment

When using a transceiver that displays the carrier frequency of phone signals, the highest frequency at which a properly adjusted USB emission will be totally within the band is 3 kHz below the upper band edge. (E1A01) So, with your transceiver displaying the carrier frequency of phone signals, you hear a DX station’s CQ on 14.349 MHz USB. Is it legal to return the call using upper sideband on the same frequency? No, the sidebands will extend beyond the band edge. (E1A03)

The reason for this is that the USB signal extends from the carrier frequency, which is the frequency that the transceiver is displaying, up 3 kHz. When you set the transceiver to 14.349 kHz, the upper sideband will extend up to 14.352 MHz, and because the amateur radio band stops at 14.350 MHz, some of the transmission will fall outside the band.

A similar thing happens, but in reverse, when you operate lower sideband, or LSB. When using a transceiver that displays the carrier frequency of phone signals,the lowest frequency at which a properly adjusted LSB emission will be totally within the band is 3 kHz above the lower band edge. (E1A02) With your transceiver displaying the carrier frequency of phone signals, you hear a DX station calling CQ on 3.601 MHz LSB. Is it legal to return the call using lower sideband on the same frequency? No, my sidebands will extend beyond the edge of the phone band segment. (E1A04)

The lower sideband will extend down 3 kHz from the carrier frequency. So, when your transceiver is set to 3.601 Mhz, your signal will extend down to 3.598 MHz, which is outside the phone band.

This is also a consideration when operating CW because a CW signal occupies a finite bandwidth. (C) With your transceiver displaying the carrier frequency of CW signals, if you hear a DX station’s CQ on 3.500 MHz, it is not legal to return the call using CW on the same frequency because the sidebands from the CW signal will be out of the band. (E1A12)

Filed Under: Extra Class Question of the Day, Rules, Regulations, Enforcement

Extra Class question of the day: stay in band

February 7, 2012 by Leave a Comment

When using a transceiver that displays the carrier frequency of phone signals, the highest frequency at which a properly adjusted USB emission will be totally within the band is 3 kHz below the upper band edge. (E1A01) So, with your transceiver displaying the carrier frequency of phone signals, you hear a DX station’s CQ on 14.349 MHz USB. Is it legal to return the call using upper sideband on the same frequency? No, the sidebands will extend beyond the band edge. (E1A03)

The reason for this is that the USB signal extends from the carrier frequency, which is the frequency that the transceiver is displaying, up 3 kHz. When you set the transceiver to 14.349 kHz, the upper sideband will extend up to 14.352 MHz, and because the amateur radio band stops at 14.350 MHz, some of the transmission will fall outside the band.

A similar thing happens, but in reverse, when you operate lower sideband, or LSB. When using a transceiver that displays the carrier frequency of phone signals,the lowest frequency at which a properly adjusted LSB emission will be totally within the band is 3 kHz above the lower band edge. (E1A02) With your transceiver displaying the carrier frequency of phone signals, you hear a DX station calling CQ on 3.601 MHz LSB. Is it legal to return the call using lower sideband on the same frequency? No, my sidebands will extend beyond the edge of the phone band segment. (E1A04)

The lower sideband will extend down 3 kHz from the carrier frequency. So, when your transceiver is set to 3.601 Mhz, your signal will extend down to 3.598 MHz, which is outside the phone band.

Filed Under: Extra Class Question of the Day, Rules, Regulations, Enforcement

Changes to Euro EMC Directive Could Include Ham Kits

December 19, 2011 by Leave a Comment

On the International Amateur Radio Union (IARU), Region 1 website, Thilo Kootz, DL9KCE, Chairman EUROCOM Working Group, writes:

As part of the NEW LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK (NLF) ALIGNMENT PACKAGE the European Commission is reworking some directives. One of the affected directives is the EMC directive including some major changes. Most of them are neutral or even good from an amateur radio operators perspective. However there is one slight change pickaback carried, which very much affects us.

In detail:

The definition of the term ‘electromagnetic disturbance’ will include the wanted signal of a radio as a possible source. This is not in line with the radio regulation of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and not in line with the vocabulary of the International Electrotechnical Committee (IEC).

IARU Region 1 will respond to it with a letter soon.

However we strongly suggest, that you contact your local MEPs and tell them about this change in the EMCD, that is neither in line with the reasoning of the New Legislative Framework, nor does it help to improve protection of radio services or equipment.

The full text of Directive 1999/5/EC can be found here.

What always interests me in these cases is why these changes are being proposed. Do ham radio kits really generate that much EMI, or is some commercial interest behind this?

Filed Under: EMI/RFI, Rules, Regulations, Enforcement

60m band rule changes coming

November 22, 2011 by 4 Comments

The FCC has released a new Report & Order (R&O) that will change rules for the 60m band. An article on the ARRL website summarizes the changes:

  • The frequency 5368.0 kHz (carrier frequency 5366.5 kHz) is withdrawn and a new frequency of 5358.5 kHz (carrier frequency 5357.0 kHz) is authorized.
  • The effective radiated power limit in the 60 meter band is raised by 3 dB, from 50 W PEP to 100 W PEP, relative to a half-wave dipole. If another type of antenna is used, the station licensee must maintain a record of either the antenna manufacturer’s data on the antenna gain or calculations of the antenna gain.
  • Three additional emission types are authorized. Data (emission designator 2K80J2D, for example, PACTOR-III), RTTY (emission designator 60H0J2B, for example, PSK31) and CW (150HA1A, i.e. Morse telegraphy by means of on-off keying). For CW, the carrier frequency must be set to the center frequency. For data and RTTY the requirement to transmit “only on the five center frequencies specified” may be met by using the same practice as on USB, i.e. by setting the suppressed carrier frequency of the USB transmitter used to generate the J2D or J2B emission to the carrier frequency that is 1.5 kHz below the center frequency.

The rules will take effect 30 days after they are published in the Federal Register.

Filed Under: Rules, Regulations, Enforcement

American Morse Illegal on the Ham Bands?

November 2, 2011 by 8 Comments

As I’ve mentioned here, I’m half-heartedly trying to learn American Morse Code. Why? Well, while ham radio is keeping International Morse Code alive, there is not as big an outlet for American Morse. The Morse Telegraph Club (MTC) is perhaps the only organization keeping American Morse alive, but there are far fewer members of MTC as there are amateur radio operators who use Morse Code.

Now, I had heard of some amateurs using Americian Morse on the air, but not only are they few and far between, the American Morse that you would hear on the air is not the same as clicks and clacks of a telegraph sounder. And, now, on top of that, it is apparently illegal for amateur radio operators to use American Morse Code on the air.

This was recently brought to my attention on MTC mailing list, slowspeedwire. Chip, N3IW, noted:

Also, for US amateur radio operators we cannot legally use American Morse on the air. That’s because the FCC has defined the CW mode as using International Code only. There is no legal mode that can use American Morse on the air because of that definition.

Being curious about this, I tried to find out where this was so defined, but was unable to and asked for a clarification. In response, Jim, WB8SIW, MTC president, said:

The issue of the legality of American Morse on the ham bands is a fairly recent development. As I understand it, the issue arose when someone at the NCVEC conference asked a representative of the FCC if the use of American Morse Code on Amateur Service frequencies was legal. The FCC representatives present considered the question and stated that, in their opinions, the use of American Morse was illegal because Part 97 defines telegraphy as the standard International Morse Code.

This statement was reiterated and supported by Gary Johnston, W3BE, who writes a FCC rules column for the QCWA and perhaps other publications. Mr. Johnston has gone on record as being unequivicolly opposed to the use of the Amercan Morse Code on the ham bands. While he is retired from the FCC and his opinion has no official weight, the fact that he has pronounced it illegal influenes many radio amateurs.

I had some correspondence with Mr. Johnston in which I outlined the history of the use of American Morse on the ham bands and argued a contrary opinion. The result was essentially a terse note in response, which, in my opinion, I can only describe as being intended to “put me in my place.”

A couple of points are probably in order, however:

First, no one has ever tested the opinion that American Morse is illegal through a test case under the Administrative Law process. However, I suspect few of us have the time or money to do so if we received a Notice of Apparent Violation.

Second, the old rule of government regulation stands. When one asks a government agency to rule on a hypothetical issue, one will nearly always obtain the most restrictive opinion. Someone made the mistake of asking if it was legal, and, as a result, we have now been told that it likely is.

Still, I was not satisified, and because some of Johnston’s proclamations on the rules irk me so much that I can’t bear to read his column anymore, I searched again through the rules. This time, I found references to International Morse Code in 97.307(f)(9) and 97.307(f)(10), and those parts referred to the use of International Morse Code by Novices and Technicians. I also found part 97.305(a), which says, “An amateur station may transmit a CW emission on any frequency authorized to the control operator.” It does not, however, specify that the CW emission be in International Morse Code.

After posting this, to the mailing list, N3IW did point me at the correct parts. He wrote:

The definition of CW and MCW are found in Part 97.3(c)(1) and 97.3(c)(4):

Part 97.3(c) The following terms are used in this part to indicate emission types. Refer to Sec. 2.201 of the FCC Rules, Emission, modulation and transmission characteristics, for information on emission type designators.
(1) CW. International Morse code telegraphy emissions having designators with A, C, H, J or R as the first symbol; 1 as the second symbol; A or B as the third symbol; and emissions J2A and J2B.
(4) MCW. Tone-modulated international Morse code telegraphy emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H or R as the first symbol; 2 as the second symbol; A or B as the third symbol.

So, there you have it. These two parts conclusively define CW and MCW as being International Morse Code. It seems kind of silly to me that American Morse is not allowed, given that it’s such a well-defined code and that the rules allow the transmission of far more exotic codes using the digital modes. Anyone want to draft a petition to change the rules?

Filed Under: CW, Rules, Regulations, Enforcement

Are You in Control?

June 23, 2011 by Leave a Comment

With Field Day just two days away, I thought it might be a good idea to review the concept of the control operator. It seems to me that there’s some misconceptions out there about this topic, and a lot of amateur radio clubs get a little loosey-goosey with the concept of the control operator on Field Day.

So, the question is what constitutes a control point? How close does a control operator need to be?

I liked the reply of Tim, N9PUZ. He wrote:

I can provide one opinion.

I am the trustee for W9SPI, the call sign for our local ARES group. One of our board members is a volunteer ARRL legal counsel, and his opinion is that since ultimately I am responsible for operations carried out under that call sign, I and I alone have the final decision on how to interpret what constitutes a “control operator.”

It is my position that a control operator needs to be able to monitor/observe first hand how the particular station is being operated and be close enough that he/she can immediately take it off the air if there is a problem with either equipment or the person physically operating. As for “how close?”, I like to see the CO close enough that they can reach across the table, walk across the room or tent, reach down and disconnect the power, etc. If they need to go to the porta-potties, head out to their car, go to the food tent, etc. then someone else with the appropriate level of license needs to become the CO for a while.

I think it’s perfectly okay for there to be a lot of control operators and just note who is in charge if it changes a lot.

I’ve seen some pretty loose interpretations of “control operator” at some Field Day events. I have heard some clubs say that as long as there is one Extra class operator within the circle (1,000 ft?) that everyone on site can operate with Extra class privileges. Not on my watch.

Another ham expressed a more practical viewpoint:

Many control operators trust the operators that are operating stations under their supervision. If I’m trustee, and I know that I’ve got a bunch of people that I trust either operating or watching over other operators, I feel that I’ve fulfilled the requirements of the regulations. Do I feel that I can adequately stop transmissions if I’m a half mile away in an adequate time? Sure.

There’s not that much difference in the control of an HF station and the control of a repeater station. As long as everyone is operating within the designated parameters, the FCC stays happy.

This has been discussed and fought over thousands of times for many years, and I’ve yet to hear a control operator or trustee chastised by the FCC for any reason, except for flagrant and repeated violation of the rules.

He’s quite right to say that no one’s been cited for a rules violation, at least I can’t think of anyone who’s been cited, but I’m not sure that make it “right.”

The relevant rules are 97.103(a) and (b). They read:

Station licensee responsibilities. -
(a) The station licensee [In the case of a club callsign, the licensee is the trustee...Dan] is responsible for the proper operation of the station in accordance with the FCC Rules. When the control operator is a different amateur operator than the station licensee, both persons are equally responsible for proper operation of the station.
(b) The station licensee must designate the station control operator. The FCC will presume that the station licensee is also the control operator, unless documentation to the contrary is in the station records.

So, in the end, from a practical point of view, if you are the trustee of a club call sign being used during Field Day, I think it’s a matter of how much you trust the operators that will be using the call sign. In none of the Field Day operations that I’ve been part of has the trustee designated specific control operators, nor have the control operators been recorded anywhere.

That being the case, the full responsibility falls on the trustee. Should something bad happen, he or she would be completely responsible. That’s something to consider if, like me, you’re the trustee of a call sign being used on Field Day.

Filed Under: Rules, Regulations, Enforcement

FCC Fines Ham $4k

May 18, 2011 by 4 Comments

In an article on pirate radio broadcasters being fine, Radio World threw in this report about a Philadelphia amateur radio operator also being penalized:

Another fine is in a ham radio case. The commission affirmed a proposed fine of $4,000 against Jose Torres for operating his amateur station on an unauthorized frequency, 26.71 MHz. Torres is the licensee of Amateur Extra Class station N3TX in Philadelphia. The agency says he’d been warned about not operating on that frequency and fined $4,000 in 2009. He asked that the fine be reduced or cancelled, telling agents he wasn’t home during the alleged unauthorized operations in 2008 and submitted cellphone records to support his claim; Torres also submitted three years of federal tax returns to bolster his argument of an inability to pay. The FCC didn’t buy his arguments; field agents say they heard his voice on the unauthorized transmissions and that the cellphone records don’t prove he wasn’t at home, only that he wasn’t using his landline at the time.

I wonder why he was operating on 26.71 MHz. That’s not even in the Citizen’s Band.

Filed Under: Rules, Regulations, Enforcement

Should Amateur Radio Licenses Be Good for Life?

April 29, 2011 by 10 Comments

The ARRL reports that

The Anchorage VEC — one of 14 Volunteer Examiner Coordinators in the US — asked the Commission to give permanent credit to radio amateurs for examination elements they have successfully passed. This would, in effect, create a license exam credit that would be valid throughout an amateurs’ lifetime, never expiring.

I’m not exactly sure of the reasoning behind this, but it seems to me that instead of granting a lifetime credit, we should be going the other direction and asking for re-examination.

Now, I know that the logistics of doing this might be too cumbersome, so I’m not seriously proposing this, but the lifetime credit just doesn’t make sense to me. Just because someone passed a test at some point doesn’t mean that he or she could pass it again. That’s especially true for those who have been out of the hobby for some time (which they would have to be if they’d let their license expire and then not even renew during the two-year grace period).

I’m not sure when they changed the rule, or if they ever enforced the rule, but back in the old days, to renew your license you had to provide proof that you were active by producing your station log if asked. Showing that you’re active doesn’t necessarily prove that you could still pass a test, but it does show continuing involvement. I kind of like having that as a requirement for license renewal.

Perhaps that’s another responsibility that could be given to VECs. In addition to administering the tests, they could be tasked with ensuring that an amateur has been active before allowing a license renewal. And those that don’t qualify for a renewal based on activity would be required to take an examination.

I know this is still a partly-baked idea, but what do you think?

Filed Under: Classes/Testing/Licensing, Rules, Regulations, Enforcement

FCC News: Man Fined $7,000, Spread Spectrum Rules Revised

March 13, 2011 by 2 Comments

The ARRL Letter, a weekly e-mail newsletter from the ARRL, reported this week on two actions by the FCC. In one case, a CB radio operator is fined $7,000 by the FCC for refusing to allow them to inspect his station. The second item is a rule change that allows amateurs to use higher power from spread-spectrum communications.

CBer Fined $7,000
One of the questions on the Tech test reads, “When must the station licensee make the station and its records available for FCC inspection?” The answer: “Any time upon request by an FCC representative.” When I discuss this question, I always joke that I’ve never heard of the FCC requesting an inspection. That’s no longer the case.

The FCC not only requested an inspection of a Merced, CA man’s CB station, but fined him $7,000 when he twice refused to let them do it. Not too smart, unless he was trying to hide other stuff that would have gotten him into even more trouble.

FCC Changes Spread-Spectrum Rules
In a Report and Order released March 4, 2011, the Federal Communications Commission has eliminated the requirement that amateur stations transmitting Spread Spectrum use Automatic Power Control (APC) to reduce transmitter power. At the same time, the Commission has reduced the maximum power of a Spread Spectrum emission from 100 W PEP to 10 W PEP.

This should make it easier for hams to experiment with spread-spectrum techniques. I’ll look forward to seeing a QST or QEX article on this topic sometime soon.

Filed Under: Rules, Regulations, Enforcement
«Older Posts
Newer Posts»