Hacker News Reader

Comment by chmaynard | Hacker News Reader

Another open issue is the threat to limit amateur radio access to the 60-meter band (shared with commercial interests).

https://www.arrl.org/news/deadline-extended-to-november-28-2...

Well we're not really being kicked off, the FCC is proposing to change the allocation to match what was agreed to in WRC-15. This page summarizes:

http://arrl.org/60-meter-band

The power limit would be 15 W EIRP under that provision. It's basically useless to amateurs

That's around 10W with a dipole. With some modes (even FT8, not just stuff like WSPR), that's enough to reach around the globe.

I support less limitiatons for ham radio operators, but 15W eirp is really not that useless.

> With some modes (even FT8, not just stuff like WSPR), that's enough to reach around the globe.

I semi-routinely spoke to Japan with SSB using improvised antennas in the field with 10W.

Elecraft KX3 + Buddipole Deluxe. Doubt I was very efficient, though I did try to get a couple good counterpoise wires going.

That's not really the point. You can work the whole world with 100mW on FT8. We don't need another low power band for digital only. If this is the route they want to go, make it unlicensed experimental operation and just limit the power to 1 W transmitter power. The whole point is having an amateur band is that it can be used for operation which might otherwise be problematic because I've agreed to work with the FCC if interference arises.

I always thought it was weird and unnecessary to use EIRP power limits on 60m vs transmitter output power (before feedline losses and antenna gain) as on every other band.

The TX power limits were primarily driven by builder/operator safety - higher power requires higher amplifier voltages. If there is a lower requirement for a band to avoid interference with shared uses, why not just specify a lower power level? Why add a requirement that involves antenna and near-field environment modeling?

~10 watts into a dipole is plenty for both CW and modern data modes. SSB is harder but still doable. ARRL is right it probably limits its use for emergency interop, and I do support their proposal to keep the 100w limit. However, if the FCC goes with its original proposal I won't lose any sleep. Perhaps it can be a haven for QRP operations. The propagation on 60m is quite good day and night.

I think that's probably because 5MHz already has shared military use in some countries.

Also to remember what I was told: it's a privilege not a right. Limitations are to be expected.

Doesn’t this kind of rub you the wrong way? The government telling you “hey, private citizen, we decided we are going to manage the EM spectrum, so you'd better follow our rules if you want to transmit anything.” I understand it’s to help coordinate everything and make the space better for the largest amount of people, but referring to transmitting as a privilege, not a right, seems asinine

It's critical infrastructure and it can be abused. What's controversial about this?

I'd love to hear a description of your utopia with a totally unregulated spectrum space.

Or perhaps your thinking is "I wish it was open, and everyone just mutually respected it".

Which is great. Everyone agrees. But most people realize that their mass mutual collaboration ideas will never work by the end of high school. "If we all stopped stealing we wouldn't need locks!"

Great, then you'll have no issue if the government hands me the rights to a band around 430 THz then (red visible light)? You'll soon forget that you used to be able to own red stuff.

That's very obvious reducto ad absurd. The FCC has a clear mandate with regard to radio regulation. Visible light is clearly outside that domain.

Whether the FCC has the authority to regulate visible light wasn't particularly the point, though it is an interesting question. This article [1] was pretty interesting; the Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not restrict their authority by medium in several locations. If the medium is used for telecommunications, they may already have the authority to regulate it. The article in question is talking about lasers, but the same thing would apply to visible light if it were used for telecommunications.

The point I was trying to make is that these are practically the same thing just shifted around in wavelength. That it's somehow reasonable for the FCC to regulate some wavelengths of EM, but "reducto ad absurd" to propose that they could regulate others.

I agree, it would be absurd for the FCC to regulate visible light. I just think it's also absurd for them to plant their flag in another wavelength. I don't think anyone can "own" a wavelength anymore than they can own a particular level of gravity or voltage.

1: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?...

I mean it does feel right for the government to regulate visible light? The same way you can't have flashing lights on the road or have a massive blinding beacon in your backward, you can't yell on the airwaves. I'm sure if visible light could be seen from halfway across the globe, we would also have that regulated.

hahaha you dont want to be the last person to buy the lead house once the gov't upgrades that badboy to radiation frequency

Asinine is to suggest society does not need rules and boundaries.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com