_________________________________________________________________________
Volume 2, Number 3, July 1996
_________________________________________________________________________
Lists of officers and areas covered by FADCA are available on the main page
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The President s Note
I was pleased to see my request for a response to April's notes did not go
unanswered. My thanks to Tom Ringate, K0ZXF for responding. See his
response elsewhere in this issue. Anymore out there who want to respond?
This quarter was a bit hectic. The Boca Raton switch site building was
vacated and closed by the owner. Although we had an agreement to keep the
power on for the switch until the end of May, the switch died on May 1st.
A quick check confirmed our thoughts. Immediately a call went out to area
hams for help to remove the switch and antenna from the building. Within
hours a crew gathered to accomplish our task. With the new site not yet
firmed up, we divided the equipment for storage until the new site is
ready. Lucky for us we had an alternate switch to handle the traffic while
we secured a new site and reinstalled the switch. Thank to all the hams
who assisted me in this major endeavor.
Why am I telling you all this? Well, we could have witnessed a hugh
catastrophe. We could have been the only switch in the area , with no
alternates, or it could have happened in the middle of a storm with no
alternates. We were lucky, not by prudent planning, but because we all
worked together to establish an alternate minimum switch site for emergency
use. The switch was suggested by the local RACES team. We worked together
to set up the site and as it turned out we found out how important that
move was. We too often get a link operational and then sit back and enjoy
it without looking ahead to see what could happen if we lost it. This was
a good lesson learned. I hope that we all can plan for the future and be
ready to meet any emergency. After all, aren t amateur radio operators
suppose to be ready for any emergency. Let s show the FCC that we are a
necessary, viable group and help them justify our existence to the
commercial world who want our frequencies.
See the articles in this issue about the LEOs wanting to take all, or part,
of the 2Mtr and 70cm bands. Please take time to respond to the FCC on how
important the Amateur community is to the welfare of our country. Get your
computer in gear and write your letter today.
Joe Kuntz, WB4TEM@WB4TEM.#BCRFL.FL.USA.NOAM
jjkuntz@aol.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes of previous Board meetings are available from the main page.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you visited the FADCA Home Page?
Please send me any new links, ideas, additions or suggestions so we can
keep it fresh.
Let's make this the best Home Page on the internet. Tell your fellow hams
about it.
In case any of you have not recorded the address, it is:
http://www.fadca.org
Thanks for your interest in this project,
73/Free
W1NPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the FADCA Frequency Coordinator
As our packet allocated frequencies fill up I hear the same invalid logic
quite often. Many applicants do not understand why they are refused
coordination on a frequency already in use. Their logic is packet is
designed for multiple stations on the same frequency. When one station is
transmitting, the others wait. With one exception this is valid logic.
The exception is hidden transmitters. Transceivers within 30 miles of each
other usually can hear one another well enough not to be hidden. Once
outside the 30 mile circle, more and more transceivers will not hear
transmissions from the more distant stations. They are hidden from each
other by distance or buildings or hilly landscape or a combination or these
and other hindrances. A station in the middle will hear both, and when both
try to transmit at the same time, neither gets thru... the station in the
middle usually does nothing, and we wait for one or both to try again...
If there are several stations in the circle, retries can get so bad
communication are nearly impossible. We have this problem with users, but
that's what we re here for, and most will get through. Put a second BBS 30
to 80 miles from the first and a serious hidden transmitter problem
exists... Yes, the two BBSs will probably hear each other, but they won't
always hear the other's users... So the second BBS transmits right on top
of the first BBS's users, and not much gets done. While Rose Switches &
Nodes seem innocent enough,
devices used to extend range, they too can worsen the problem FADCA
requires 85 mile separation, which means the center point between stations
set at 85 miles, is 42 2 miles, where a station could be a hidden
transmitter to both of the other stations. It becomes obvious why
multiple operations on the same frequency only slow down communications.
Lets look at antenna height vs power, assuming an omni directional antenna.
With two meters, the higher the antenna, the greater area covered, and the
greater the chance of stations in the fringes being hidden transmitters to
several operations. More power on the other hand will increase range, but
not as substantially as height increase. More power (up to a point)
actually helps increase the chance of fewer errors during packet
communication. With great height stations on the fringe will hear but not
be able to reliably communicate with the high station, attempts to do so
will only clog the frequency. We only have 19 frequencies in the Two
meter band allocated for packet. One of FADCA's main jobs is to try to make
sure we make the best possible use of those 19 frequencies.
Roger Edwards - KB4GBS - Tampa
KB4GBS@KB4GBS.#TPA.FL.USA.NA
kb4gbs@cftnet.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FADCA MEETING
The FADCA meeting will be held on Saturday, July 27, 1996, at 11:30 at
Stacey s Restaurant in Altamonte Springs, just North of Orlando. The
restaurant is located in the Wekiva Shopping Center at the intersection of
Route 436 and 434. If you are arriving on Interstate I-4, get off at exit
48 and proceed west about 4 miles on Route 436 to Route 434. Go through the
intersection and turn right into the shopping center. Stacey s is located
at the extreme West end of the business section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amateurs Mobilize Against Threat to 2 meters, 70 cm
ZCZC AG12
QST de W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 32 ARLB032
From ARRL Headquarters
Newington CT May 30, 1996
To all radio amateurs
SB QST @ ARL $ARLB032
ARLB032 Band threat
The American Radio Relay League is asking radio amateurs across the United
States to help defeat a threat to the two most heavily used amateur VHF and
UHF bands.
An industry working group known as IWG-2A that is preparing draft US
proposals for the 1997 World Radio communication Conference has before it a
list of ''candidate bands'' for low-earth orbit mobile satellites (''little
LEOs'') that includes, among a number of others suggested for
consideration, the 144 and 420 MHZ bands. Little LEOs are intended mainly
to offer commercial paging and other low-data-rate messaging services. The
list of candidate bands was submitted by little LEO industry
representatives at a meeting of IWG-2A on May 7. ARRL Technical Relations
Manager Paul Rinaldo, W4RI, was present and objected strongly to the
inclusion of these two bands. He was told that objections should be
submitted in written comments, and the ARRL did so on May 15. At the same
time the ARRL advised the industry participants in IWG-2A along with its
chairman, Warren Richards of the Department of State, that if we did not
receive assurance that the bands would be dropped from the list of
candidate bands we would have no choice but to advise members in July QST
that the bands were under threat. No such assurances were forthcoming.
Instead, we were told that as long as little LEO allocations requirements
remained unsatisfied, everything had to remain on the table.
This response was not acceptable. Accordingly, when July QST went to
the printer on Tuesday, May 28, it included the following editorial.
The editorial speaks for itself, but it is worth emphasizing that there is
no reason for panic. What we are dealing with is an ill-considered industry
effort that is in its early stages, there is no reason to believe there is
any government support for any move against these two amateur bands. Our
mission is to quash the idea before it goes any further. An outpouring of
thoughtful comment by amateurs, explaining why the public interest would
not be served by the introduction of commercial services into these bands,
will go a long way toward ensuring the desired outcome.
The editorial may be reprinted in its entirety with the credit line,
''Reprinted with permission from July 1996 QST.''
Write Now. Get out a pen and paper, or boot up your computer. There's work
to be done. Your help is needed to defend two meters and 70 cm. Yes, that's
right--the two most popular and crowded amateur VHF/UHF bands. But don't
panic, and don't ''go ballistic.'' Here's what's happening, and what you
can do about it.
The United States is preparing for the 1997 ITU World Radio communication
Conference, WRC-97. In the past, the public has been able to participate in
the preparations for such conferences by responding to FCC Notices of
Inquiry. In March, the FCC announced a streamlining of its International
Bureau's preparatory processes for WRCs. Under the new scheme, the NOIs
have been eliminated in favor of increased emphasis on WRC Advisory
Committees.
For WRC-97, a series of Informal Working Groups (IWGs) of the Advisory
Committee has been created to address specific agenda items. The output of
each IWG will go directly to a joint FCC-NTIA-Department of State
Steering Committee of the Advisory Committee. There, draft proposals as
received from the IWGs will be reviewed and forwarded to the FCC for
possible release as preliminary U.S. proposals for public comment.
In announcing the streamlined WRC preparatory process, the FCC tried to
reassure those who might be concerned about reduced opportunities for
public participation: ''Interested parties should note that input to the
Advisory Committee may be sent at any time directly to the Chair of the
WRC-97 Advisory Committee, the Chairs of the Advisory Committee's Informal
Working Groups, Cecily C. Holiday, the FCC's federal officer of the WRC-97
Advisory Committee, or to Damon C. Ladson, the alternate federal officer.''
Hold that thought while we shift gears to the substance of the issue.
One of the WRC-97 agenda items includes consideration of possible
additional frequency allocations for the mobile-satellite service. So-
called ''little LEOs,'' low-earth orbit satellites below 1 Ghz, already
have allocations. Their proponents claim these are inadequate and are
trying for more. The needs of little LEOs are being addressed in IWG-2A,
chaired by Warren Richards of the Department of State. The ARRL technical
relations staff participates in IWG-2A to represent Amateur Radio
interests. At the May 7 IWG-2A meeting, an industry representative
proposed a list of ''candidate bands'' for little LEOs. The list includes a
number of bands that would negatively impact existing services, and does
not include others that would be technically more feasible but to which
strong objection from incumbents could be expected--the point being that
some political, rather than purely technical, judgment already has
influenced the list. Incredibly, 144-148 and 420-450 MHZ were included on
the list. This is the first time in memory that another service has been
proposed for the two-meter amateur band. We must
make sure it is also the last time.
We do not need to explain to ARRL members the extensive use that is made of
these bands by amateurs. The two bands provide the backbone of our local
public service communications effort. Voice and data, mobile and fixed,
even television--the list of present amateur uses is a long one, and of
future uses is even longer. Both are already used for satellite services
and for moonbounce and extended-range terrestrial operations requiring
extremely sensitive receivers and high levels of effective radiated power.
Apparently we did need to explain all this to the little LEO industry
representatives, so we did just that--both at the meeting and in a follow-
up letter on May 15. We also explained that we had to
regard the matter as extremely serious. No one with the slightest
background in radio communication could possibly believe that a mobile-
satellite service could be introduced into either band without disrupting
existing and future amateur operations. Therefore, we said, if we did not
receive assurance that they would be taken off the list of candidate bands
by the deadline for this issue of QST, we would have no choice but to bring
the matter to the attention of the entire membership.
The response we received was unsatisfactory. In effect, we were told the
little LEO industry would consider our views but that until their spectrum
needs are satisfied, all bands must remain under consideration.
So, this is a call to action. We must get across to the industry and
government participants in IWG-2A that the 144-148 MHZ and 420-450 MHZ
bands cannot be considered as candidates for mobile-satellite services. We
need to drive the point home so forcefully, with so many grassroots
responses, that no one is ever tempted to try this again. Which brings us
back to that invitation
for ''interested parties'' to send input ''at any time.'' There's no time
like the present. Here are the key addresses, including those of the
mobile-satellite industry folks who seem to have started the ruckus:
Cecily C. Holiday, International Bureau, FCC, Washington, DC 20554,
choliday@fcc.gov
fax 202-418-0748.
Warren G. Richards, Chair, IWG-2A, Department of State, CIP 2529,
Washington, DC 20520, richardswg@ms6820wpoa.us-state.gov, fax 202-647-7407.
Tracey Weisler, FCC Rep, IWG-2A, International Bureau, FCC, Washington, DC
20554, tweisler@fcc.gov, fax 202-418-2824.
Mary Kay Williams, Final Analysis, Inc, 7500 Greenway Center, Suite 1240,
Greenbelt, MD 20770
fax 301-474-3228.
Do comment. But be civil. Don't abuse people who are simply doing their
jobs. We have to get across that casting covetous eyes on amateur bands is
counterproductive, and contrary to the public interest. To accomplish this
we need a lot of comments, including yours. But remember that the objective
is to educate and persuade, not to intimidate. We don't need to. The facts
are on our side.
To monitor the FCC's ongoing WRC-97 preparations, visit its WRC-97 home
page at:
http://www.fcc.gov/ib/wrc97/.
Write now. Right now.
David Sumner, K1ZZNNNN
/EX
The editorial may be reprinted in its entirety with the credit line.
Reprinted with permission from July 1996 QST,
Please note the following update.
ZCZC G17
SB QST ARLB037ARLB037 2m/70cm/WRC update
Hams respond to band threat with flood of comments, FCC sets up central
comment address.
Hams have responded in force to defend the 2-meter and 70-cm bands against
a treat from the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS). Over the past week, hams
have directed more than 1000 comments by letter, e-mail, telephone and fax
to representatives on Informal Working Group 2A (IWG-2A), which is
preparing draft US proposals for the 1997 World Radio communication
Conference. The IWG-2A s list of candidate bands for low-earth orbit
mobile satellites ( little LEOs ) includes the 144 and 420 MHZ bands, among
others suggested for consideration. Little LEOs are intended mainly to
offer commercial paging and other low-data-rate messaging services.
The list of candidate bands was submitted by little LEO industry
representatives at a May 7 IWG-2A meeting. ARRL Technical Relations
Manager Paul Rinaldo, W4RI, was present and objected strongly to the
inclusion of these two bands. He was told that objections should be
submitted in written comments, and the ARRL did so on May 15. Despite the
objections, the two ham bands remained on the table prompting ARRL
Executive Vice President David Sumner, K1ZZ to issue a call to action in
his July 1996 QST editorial. The editorial--circulated far and wide by e-
mail and packet radio--generated so many responses that the FCC has had to
modify its procedures to cope with the deluge.
Instead of directing comments to the list of individuals distributed in an
earlier bulletin and included in the pre-press
version of K1ZZ s editorial, send comments by e-mail to wrc97fcc.gov. Send
written comments--an original plus one copy--to Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. Each comment
should include at the top, Reference No. ISP-96-005 and Advisory
Committee Informal Working Group 2A. The FCC staff says comments will be
given prompt consideration. All written and electronic comments from
Amateur Radio operators received at the Commission have been included as
part of the public record on WRC-97.
Again, for the most expeditious and efficient consideration of your
comments, the FCC asks amateurs to not send comments directly to the chair
of the WRC-(&Advisory Committee, to the chairs and vice-chairs of the
Informal Working Groups, to individual FCC staff members or to private-
sector participants in the Advisory Committee process. Spread the work
about this new commenting procedure.
The ARRL Web Site has complete information on the band threat situation at:
http://www.arrl.org/
and will update the information to reflect further developments.
/EX
For those who are at a loss for word on how to respond, a sample letter
follows.
From: arden@teleport.com (Arden Eby)
Newsgroups:
rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Subject: BAND THREAT: Sample Letter
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 03:02:58 GMT
I have composed the following letter to the appropriate individuals in
regard to the threat to our 2 meter and 70 cm bands. I am placing the
letter in the public domain. Feel free to use it in any way you will. You
may sign your own
name to the letter or you may edit it to more clearly reflect your own
opinions. But whatever you do, PLEASE write the appropriate individuals at
the following addresses:
Cecily C.Holiday
International Bureau
CC, Washington, DC 20554
choliday@fcc.gov
fax 202-418-0748.
Warren G. Richards, Chair, IWG-2A
Department of State, CIP 2529,
Washington, DC 20520
richardswg@ms6820wpoa.us-state.gov
fax 202-647-7407.
Tracey Weisler, FCC Rep, IWG-2A
International Bureau, FCC,
Washington, DC 20554
tweisler@fcc.gov
fax 202-418-2824.
Mary Kay Williams, Final Analysis, Inc, 7500 Greenway Center, Suite
1240, Greenbelt, MD 20770,
fax 301-474-3228.
I recommend a fax, an e-mail and a surface mail edition if possible.
[LETTER FOLLOWS]
To: Warren G. Richards, Chair, IWG-2A
Re: Amateur Band Reallocation
Date: June 3, 1996
Cc: Tracey Weisler, FCC Rep, IWG-2A, Mary Kay Williams, Final Analysis,
Inc
Cecily C. Holiday
International Bureau, FCC
It has come to my attention that the IWG-2A is preparing draft US proposals
for the 1997 World Radio communication Conference. It has further come to
my attention that the IWG-2A has before it a list of ''candidate bands''
for low-earth orbit mobile satellites (''little LEOs'') that
includes, among a number of others suggested for consideration, the 144 and
420 MHZ bands, that is, the 2 meter and 70 cm bands currently allocated to
the Amateur Radio Service. The fact
that these bands are even being considered is outrageous in the extreme.
Although it might appear, at first blush, that these frequencies might
serve the LEO service well, there are a number of reasons why it is the
best interest of the IWG-2A to look elsewhere:
1) These are the most heavily used bands in the Amateur service used by
nearly all of the approximately 700,000 US amateurs as well as the 10
million operators world-wide;
2) In addition to normal voice communications, these frequencies already
house a gigantic international digital packet radio network similar to the
Internet;
3) These frequencies serve the internationally acclaimed amateur satellite
service and as such are used by a plethora of satellites funded by common
citizens donating millions of dollars toward their construction and
deployment;
4) These bands are heavily used by a number of public service
organizations including:
- ARES, the Amateur Radio Emergency Service,
- RACES, The Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service which is coordinated
through state and local disaster relief organizations,
- MARS, the Military Affiliate Radio Service which provides familial
communications for hundreds of thousand of US service personnel and
coordinates with the military during communications emergencies and
- Handi-Hams, and agency that
providing technical education for handicapped citizens. Indeed the
preceding only scratches the surface of educational and public service
activities that are conducted on these bands these range from the
coordination of the Boston Marathon to local astronomy networks.
Please understand that if this proposed reallocation were to occur,
millions of individuals would see the value of their property reduced to
nothing. While the reallocation of these bands to little LEO service would
entail horrendous problems for millions of citizens, it would be
unmanageable by industry as well. The public outcry against this action
will clearly be felt by congress. Right now, hundreds of thousands of
letters similar to this one are arriving at the FCC as well as all
congressional delegations. The clout of even a well-heeled industry group
such as yours cannot hope to compete with the pressure brought to bear by
hundreds of thousands of concerned voters. For you, this could only be an
exercise in frustration. It is clearly in your best interest to look
elsewhere.
Even if you were somehow able to have these frequencies reallocated, they
would be almost impossible to manage. Imagine trying to conduct paging
operations on frequencies for which millions of multi-mode transmitters and
antennas are already in the hands of individuals who
believe that they have been robbed. Not that I would endorse illegal
activity. Far from it the vast majority of amateur radio operators are
strictly law-abiding. But clearly this reallocation would create an
unusually complex as well as emotionally tense situation that would be
difficult to police and painful to all concerned, even if it directly
involved only a tiny minority.
Please do the industry as well as the American public a favor and make sure
that the amateur 2 meter and 70 centimeter bands are excluded from
consideration for reallocation to little LEO service.
Editors note:
I have included the sample letter as I received on packet. Write your own
letter or make your changes to this sample. Please send your letter to the
individuals as listed in the ARRL update bulletin.
Response to Editors Notes
To: jjkuntz@aol.com
Subject: Internet impact on amateur radio
Joe, I read your article in the FADCA BEACON about the "death of amateur
radio".
I do think the Internet will have a significant impact on amateur radio. I
know personally I was very active in packet radio here in the Tampa area,
but for the past year I have all but abandon packet for the Internet. To
be honest, the bickering, complaining, and constant abuse a SYSOP or NODE
op gets just does not make the hobby that much fun. On the Internet, you
can do anything you would like, and no one is there to complain, the cost
is much less than what a single HF rig costs, so there certainly are some
points for the Internet.
The one thing I do like about amateur radio is the friendship that each of
us develops in our activities. It's too bad we can't all behave
responsibly when using amateur radio, but there is always a fraction of
every group that can't play by the rules. The same is true with the
Internet, but there you can just ignore them since you don't spend hours
and hours trying to keep that network running.
I think The Internet will draw away some of the movers and shakers from
amateur radio, but there will still be plenty to go around. I still write
code for packet, and still manage the switch configurations, but it's now
just a side job, with little enjoyment.
I don't think amateur radio will die, because there are still many areas of
amateur radio that nothing else can take the place of. We need some new
applications to come along so we can keep the interest up.
73 Tom, K0ZXF
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to the FADCA homepage
