Posts Tagged ‘FCC’
LHS Episode #164: Ancient Antenna Modeling
March 14th, 2016 | 
Author: 
We're done with the editing of Episode #164 and here it is for your listening pleasure. In this episode, your hosts tackle topics from Bugbook computers to permanent amateur radio licenses, from Turing phones to Raspberry Pi computers and from antenna modeling software to lobster on pizza. We hope everyone will find something to enjoy. Please let us know by sending us feedback. We'd love to hear from you.
73 de The LHS Crew
Ten Year Trends in US Ham Licenses
In November 2005, I took a look at some statistics on FCC amateur radio licenses. At that time, I compared the number of ham licenses to such things as the US population, number of cell phones in use and the number of birdwatchers in the US. Interesting stuff.
Ten years later, we can take a look at the how the composition of FCC licenses has changed. The total number of licenses has grown to over 733k, increasing 11% over 10 years. This is a small growth rate, only 1% Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR).
| Extra | Advanced | General | Technician | Novice | Total | |
| Nov 2005 | 107,177 | 74,351 | 135,023 | 317,839 | 26,882 | 661,272 |
| 16% | 11% | 20% | 48% | 4% | 100% | |
| Nov 2015 | 139,515 | 48,272 | 172,239 | 362,580 | 10,988 | 733,594 |
| 19% | 7% | 23% | 49% | 1% | 100% | |
| % Change | 30% | -35% | 28% | 14% | -59% | 11% |
Source: www.ah0a.org
No surprise that the number of Advanced and Novice licenses has decreased because the FCC stopped issuing those licenses. Technicians represent about half of the licenses, a proportion that has remained steady over the decade, increasing 1 point. The percent of Generals increased by 3 points, to 23%. Similarly, Extra Class licenses increased by 3 points to 19%.
I reported the ARRL membership as approximately 152k in 2005. The 2014 ARRL Annual Report shows 165,663 members resulting in a growth rate of about 9% over 9 years (not ten). I’ll go ahead and “spot them” another point of growth in the tenth year and call it 10% over ten years. So it seems that ARRL membership is roughly keeping pace with the growth in amateur radio licenses, put probably not gaining on it.
Another question is how are amateur radio licenses keeping pace with US population growth? During the period of 2005 to 2015, the US population grew about 9%, which means that the number of FCC licenses is actually growing slightly faster than the overall population. Source: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/
At this point, many of us will ask how many of those FCC license holders are actually active in ham radio. Hard to say…perhaps a topic for another post.
73, Bob K0NR
The post Ten Year Trends in US Ham Licenses appeared first on The KØNR Radio Site.
This Spewed Out of the Internet #31
This is another update on important stuff spewing forth from the interwebz. It has been a while since I’ve done this, so we’ve got some catching up to do.
The KØNR Radio Site has expanded to Facebook. “Like” us there.
There is a statewide email list available to Colorado radio amateurs. Join us there to stay informed about regional events.
Grid locators are important for VHF/UHF operating. I came across this web site that does a good job of mapping the grids. I wrote a Shack Talk article over at HamRadioSchool.com that explains Simplex, Duplex, Offset and Split. Stu WØSTU posted a very helpful article explaing NVIS (Near Vertical Incidence Skywave) Antennas.
In June, Keysight Technologies donated some professional measurement software to the ARRL. Yeah, I had something to do with that.
From the Cheaters Gonna Cheat Department:
- CQ Magazine busts UT5UGR for padding his log in CQ WW contest
- The FCC fines David J. Tolassi, W4BHV, for failing to identify properly
- The FCC also went after Michael Guernsey, KZ8O, with a $22,000 fine. Ouch.
- The FCC also fined Daniel R. Hicks, KB8UYZ, for malicious interference to VHF repeaters.
The Ham Hijinks crew contributed some outstanding literary works to the ham radio community. Recently, they’ve latched onto the theme of hams using cheap radios to not make any contacts on VHF:
- Club Votes: Bob Should Buy New Radio
- No One, Anywhere, Having Good VHF QSOs
- Optimistic 6m DXer Ready for Opening of the Year
- New Ham Unsure If He Really Needs to Stand When Told To Stand By
Dodge uses Morse Code in one of their car commercials. Speaking of cars, check out Wired’s article: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway.
Steve WGØAT created another SOTA video, this one with Clay NF1R on Mount Herman.
I heard this song by Phil Collins on a the radio recently and I’m convinced its about the heartbreak of trying to work a rare DXpedition. Give a listen.
And then there’s this…a very well done video about ham radio that has lots of people talking.
Well, that’s all for now.
73, Bob K0NR
The post This Spewed Out of the Internet #31 appeared first on The KØNR Radio Site.
LF/MF Moving Closer For U.S. Amateurs
With all commentary periods for the FCC's 'Notice of Proposed Rulemaking' (Docket 15-99) now closed, it appears that one of the last comments to be filed may contain the most powerful arguments in favor of swift implementation.
In its extremely detailed 42-paged submission, the ARRL states, in no uncertain terms, the reasons why access to both the 2200m LF band and the 630m MF band should not be held back and that service rules should be 'finalized'. Indeed the powerful arguments stated in favor of implementation should go a long way in making this happen sooner rather than later.
The FCC's position is that there is little to no evidence to indicate that amateur radio operation on either band would be incompatible with power company PLC systems, going as far as stating that at distances of 1km or more from PLC lines, "there is no chance of interference". Further supporting their claim, the thousands of hours of experimental operation were offered as powerful proof and that the ARRL was “unaware of any reports of interference to PLC systems arising from that operation conducted pursuant to numerous Part 5 experimental licenses…in the large band utilized by PLCs.”
In addition, the ARRL had harsh words regarding the FCC's attempt to legitimize the growing number of fish-net beacons in the 160m band, and pulled no punches regarding their position in this matter.
"There is no indication that these buoys are compatible with other uses in the band, no track record of interference avoidance or resolution, and certainly no indication that the current operators can be relied on for compliance with the Commission’s rules."
"The Commission is urged to avoid enacting rules that it has no effective ability or intention to enforce. That fishing vessels have, with impunity, illegally deployed radio buoys in this band on a widespread basis (whether or not due to misrepresentations of the importers and retailers of these devices or due to a disregard of the Commission’s rules generally) without even nominal enforcement actions by the Commission, provides no basis for assuming that there will be compliance with any deployment limitations (including geographic deployment restrictions) on these buoys going forward. Nor is there any basis for the assumption that there will be any enforcement action taken with respect to continued illegal operation of the buoys if and when interference is caused. Spectrum planning by the Commission in this context has to be based on ex ante determinations of compatibility rather than mere assumptions, especially where the record indicates such a low level of historical compliance."
A summary of the comments can be read here in the ARRL News while all comments filed for the NPRM be found here temporarily, while the FCC site is down for maintenance.
ARRL Bulletin 25
SB QST @ ARL $ARLB025
ARLB025 FCC Universal Licensing System, Other Applications to be Down for Maintenance
ZCZC AG25
QST de W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 25 ARLB025
From ARRL Headquarters - Newington CT August 25, 2015
To all radio amateurs
SB QST ARL ARLB025
ARLB025 FCC Universal Licensing System, Other Applications to be Down for Maintenance
FCC website maintenance in early September will make the Universal Licensing System (ULS), the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), the Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) and other public applications unavailable for more than 5 days. The Commission said the outage will begin at 2200 UTC on Wednesday, September 2, and continue through the Labor Day weekend. The maintenance work should be completed by 1200 UTC on Tuesday, September 8. During the ULS outage, it will not be possible to file any Amateur Radio applications.
"[M]ost Commission resources normally accessible through the Commission's website, including access to all electronic filing systems and electronic dockets, will be inaccessible for the same period, with the exception of the Network Outage Reporting System (NORS), the Consumer Help Center (CHC), and the Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS), which will remain available," an FCC Public Notice said on August 20. "The Commission's website will remain available, but with reduced content and limited search capabilities." According to the Public Notice, the FCC will follow its normal schedule of operation during the maintenance period, but voicemail will be offline, and most Commission staffers will not have access to e-mail. Static content webpages on the fcc.gov domain, such as the FCC consumer guides, should remain available during the outage.
The FCC will extend filing deadlines for all regulatory and enforcement filings that fall during the maintenance period. Filings due on September 2, 3, 4, or 8 now will be due on Wednesday, September 9. "Except for the due dates specified herein, we are not automatically extending the deadlines for any other comment or filing periods that will be running during this time period, but requests for extension of time will be considered consistent with the Commission's normal practice," the FCC Public Notice said. "To the extent the due dates for filings to which reply or responsive pleadings are allowed are affected by this Public Notice, the due dates for reply or responsive pleadings shall be extended by the same number of days."
In a blog, "Modernizing the FCC's IT," FCC CIO David Bray said that with the world and the technology we use are changing rapidly, "the information technology used by the Federal Communications Commission must change as well." Bray said the FCC has "made significant progress to upgrade and modernize our infrastructure, and we continue to work on modernizing the FCC's legacy IT systems with the resources we have available."
"We understand that this temporary downtime before and during the Labor Day Weekend may be inconvenient for some FCC stakeholders," Bray added.
NNNN /EX
72 de Larry W2LJ
QRP - When you care to send the very least!
ARLB025 FCC Universal Licensing System, Other Applications to be Down for Maintenance
ZCZC AG25
QST de W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 25 ARLB025
From ARRL Headquarters - Newington CT August 25, 2015
To all radio amateurs
SB QST ARL ARLB025
ARLB025 FCC Universal Licensing System, Other Applications to be Down for Maintenance
FCC website maintenance in early September will make the Universal Licensing System (ULS), the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), the Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) and other public applications unavailable for more than 5 days. The Commission said the outage will begin at 2200 UTC on Wednesday, September 2, and continue through the Labor Day weekend. The maintenance work should be completed by 1200 UTC on Tuesday, September 8. During the ULS outage, it will not be possible to file any Amateur Radio applications.
"[M]ost Commission resources normally accessible through the Commission's website, including access to all electronic filing systems and electronic dockets, will be inaccessible for the same period, with the exception of the Network Outage Reporting System (NORS), the Consumer Help Center (CHC), and the Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS), which will remain available," an FCC Public Notice said on August 20. "The Commission's website will remain available, but with reduced content and limited search capabilities." According to the Public Notice, the FCC will follow its normal schedule of operation during the maintenance period, but voicemail will be offline, and most Commission staffers will not have access to e-mail. Static content webpages on the fcc.gov domain, such as the FCC consumer guides, should remain available during the outage.
The FCC will extend filing deadlines for all regulatory and enforcement filings that fall during the maintenance period. Filings due on September 2, 3, 4, or 8 now will be due on Wednesday, September 9. "Except for the due dates specified herein, we are not automatically extending the deadlines for any other comment or filing periods that will be running during this time period, but requests for extension of time will be considered consistent with the Commission's normal practice," the FCC Public Notice said. "To the extent the due dates for filings to which reply or responsive pleadings are allowed are affected by this Public Notice, the due dates for reply or responsive pleadings shall be extended by the same number of days."
In a blog, "Modernizing the FCC's IT," FCC CIO David Bray said that with the world and the technology we use are changing rapidly, "the information technology used by the Federal Communications Commission must change as well." Bray said the FCC has "made significant progress to upgrade and modernize our infrastructure, and we continue to work on modernizing the FCC's legacy IT systems with the resources we have available."
"We understand that this temporary downtime before and during the Labor Day Weekend may be inconvenient for some FCC stakeholders," Bray added.
NNNN /EX
72 de Larry W2LJ
QRP - When you care to send the very least!
U.S. LF Bands – Rulemaking Ruminations (Part 2)
(...cont'd)* TWO: We need more technical showings this time, with as many solid
details as possible. I hope the Part 5 licensees are prepared to crunch
numbers, but those of us who only monitored are also able to contribute.
(Much more on this in future correspondence, I expect.) In par. 169. the FCC enquires: "to meet our goal of providing for the coexistence of amateur services and PLC systems in these bands, we seek detailed comment on the technical characteristics of both the PLC systems and the amateur stations.
This information will allow us to set an appropriate separation distance."
The very next sentence, though, I recognize as a somewhat worrisome bit of FCC-speak: "Although the Commission in the WRC-07 NPRM inquired into the technical rules and methods that would assure coexistence, commenters provided little in the way of concrete information." Read that as said with a slightly scolding tone, but with a facial expression that says they're keeping an open mind.
The utilities, IMO, provided no concrete technical information at all. ARRL
cited the 1985 NTIA study on which the 1 W EIRP and 1 km separation idea is based, but the FCC is concerned whether that's still valid. Well, one would hope that any changes made to PLCs over the past 30 years would be toward making the system more robust, not more vulnerable to evildoers, accidents, and natural disasters, but this could prove an area of contention. That may be something the big guys have to fight out; I don't know how much we as individual licensees or observers can contribute. But there ARE other technical matters the FCC needs and wants to know, which we may be able to furnish.
For instance, what sort of PLC signal levels have we actually experienced in the proposed bands? How serious were their impact on licensed activity, and how have PLCs been coped with in actual operation? Also at paragraphs 171, 178, and 178, the FCC is asking for some really fundamental, crucial data.
Namely: What sort of power levels have the Part 5 licensees actually
radiated, and at what actual separations from transmission lines? What
maximum size should an amateur antenna be, and--the biggie, in my view--what is the efficiency of both "typical" and potential amateur antenna systems?
(The Commission would like us to include information from Canadian and
European hams on these issues as well. Details of amateur practice in the
rest of the world could be very helpful in formulating rules here.)
Those operators who have the capability of measuring their true field
strength are in an especially excellent position to help quantify current
practice. Those who can't do that, but are able to measure their ground
losses accurately, can make reasonable calculations to show the maximum
efficiency possible with antennas of various heights. That's likely
preferable to doing it all in NEC modeling, since not all such software is
really good at predicting ground system losses, especially at LF. I'll
gladly offer my own ground system's resistance numbers to anyone who wants to do the math, for instance, as its 32 radials of 104 to 135 ft length in 15 mS/m soil are probably representative of a fairly decent ground for
antennas up to 100 feet high...and I'll be doing another set of readings
very soon, which can include measurements at 2200 m this year in addition to the runs I routinely do at 1750 m.
* THREE: At 172, the FCC observes: "If we were to adopt our proposal to
permit amateur operations only when separated by a specified distance from transmission lines, when a new transmission line is built close by an
amateur station, the station either would have to relocate farther away from the transmission line or cease operating." Scary, huh. But they go on to ask: "How should our rules address the potential for new transmission lines to be constructed closer than the specified distance to pre-existing amateur stations? We do not want to inhibit the ability of either PLC systems or amateur services to grow and expand without imposing unnecessary burdens on either. Is it possible for utilities to refrain from geographically expanding their PLC operations within the relatively small portion of the 9-490 kHz band that we are making available for amateur operations, and is this something utilities would do on their own accord, given the Part 15 status of PLC systems? Should our rules explicitly prohibit utilities from deploying new PLC systems in these bands?"
My answer: yes, please. Look back at par. 26, in the WRC-07 R&O section
where the Commission explains their basis for adding the 2200 m allocation:
"We intend to structure these service rules to promote shared use of the
band among amateurs and PLC systems. Amateurs will not be able to use their allocation status to force unlicensed PLC operations out of the band, and utilities will have no cause to abandon or incur large costs to modify
existing PLC systems." Read that again: "Amateurs will not be able to use
their allocation status to force unlicensed PLC operations out of the band."
That's the reality of the matter, and yet I think it also works in our
favor.
So far as I know, this situation is unique in the history of radio regulation. I can't think of another example where an incumbent, but unlicensed and unallocated, user of radio spectrum has been afforded such protection from any allocated and licensed service. However, most of us who commented in the 2013 proceeding DID AGREE with the Commission that PLC technology has been a special case for a long time, and most recognized that acceptance of its existence was the only way to move the discussion off dead center and get to the point where we are now.
But I maintain this coin has two sides. If we in a licensed, allocated service are willing to accept that we cannot displace existing PLCs now or in the future, then it is ONLY FAIR that the unlicensed, unallocated users should not be able to displace the licensed users, either, now or in the future. Otherwise, it is not truly sharing.
The only way I can see to guarantee protection to licensed users, comparable to what the unlicensed ones will have, is to incorporate within Part 15 a prohibition on any changes in power, transmission mode, and route of existing PLC systems, or installation of new ones, within a reasonable band centered on the new amateur allocations. That achieves the stated goal of not displacing existing systems or burdening the utlities by forcing any changes to them, while only removing two small slices of spectrum from consideration for future installations. That seems an entirely reasonable compromise to me.
Your comments are welcome--and essential!
73
John Davis
You can view comments as well as file your own, via the link from this page:
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=15-99
U.S. LF Bands – Rulemaking Ruminations (Part 1)
John Davis of the Longwave Club of America has been doing a good job of keeping us informed of the present 2200/630m application status for U.S. amateurs. It seems that although the NPRM has not yet been published in the Federal Register, the FCC website is open for comments on this issue. I would urge all amateurs with an interest in LF operation to file comments that address the FCC's Notice Of Inquiry (NOI), particularly if you have been operating an experimental station. As well, Canadian LFers operating on either band should consider filing comments as well, describing your system and overall operating results. You can read a full review of the FCC's concerns in three of my earlier blogs:
http://ve7sl.blogspot.ca/2015/04/lf-mf-next-step-for-us-amateurs-part-1.html
http://ve7sl.blogspot.ca/2015/05/lf-mf-next-step-for-us-amateurs-part-2.html
http://ve7sl.blogspot.ca/2015/05/lf-mf-next-step-for-us-amateurs-part-3.html
John's latest information points out what he believes are three crucial points that deserve serious thought. As he indicates, if we don't 'get it right' the first time, it might be very difficult to make any changes after the fact. Please give serious thought to John's information and to filing your own comments at the link provided.
In John's own words:
Rulemaking Ruminations
This is probably a good time to get discussion reactivated on the MF and LF ham proposals. Although I continue not to see publication of the NPRM in the Federal Register as yet, the FCC EFCS Web page for the proceeding is open and accepting filings. Until FR publication, we won't know the closing dates for comments and replies, but you can see what's already been going on at:
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=15-99
While I've been awfully tied up with other things recently, my reading of
the proposal thus far brings to mind three points I believe we earnestly
need to address with the Commission. This proceeding will set the exact US
rules for 2200 m, and very probably also 630 m, so it behooves us to make
the best case we can, now, right up front. If the initial rules are too
restrictive on amateur activity, it could be very difficult and time
consuming to get them changed. Here are my present concerns.
* ONE: In paragraph 168, the FCC states that in addition to separation
distances and power limits, "we propose to limit amateur stations to
operations at fixed locations only to ensure that this separation distance
can be maintained reliably." That's stricter than it may first sound. The
FCC's actual proposed wording for § 97.303(g)(1), for both 2200 and 630 m,
is: "Amateur stations are restricted to use at permanent fixed locations."
Permanent fixed locations. That goes way beyond my suggestion that mobile operation be prohibited. It precludes temporary fixed operation, such as Field Day activities, or tests of ground characteristics for future potential antenna sites, or other legitimate short-term experiments. In my view, this is needlessly restrictive, and could also open the door to more rigid coordination requirements that might paint us into a corner, figuratively and literally, at our original QTHes.
We need to make a strong case that hams are able to identify electric
transmission lines and maintain 1 km separation (or other specified
distance) from them. This further relates to comments the FCC seeks in par. 176: "Amateur licensees will have to determine the location of transmission lines in their vicinity to determine if they are permitted to operate stations using these frequency bands. .... High voltage transmission lines are typically attached to large steel towers that are easy to identity.
However, lower voltage transmission lines are typically attached to wooden poles. Although the wooden poles used for transmission lines are usually taller than the wooden poles used for distribution lines, we recognize that distinguishing the two types may not always be straightforward. We seek comment on whether amateur licensees will be able to identify the transmission lines in their locality."
Obviously, just glancing around a proposed operating site and saying "nope, I don't see a transmission line" is not enough. But I think we're smart enough to do responsible surveys of all lines within a mile or so in all directions, identify any substation locations, and determine which sets of poles have customer connections (practically the definition of distribution lines) and which don't (therefore assumed to be transmission lines). We need to convince the FCC that we can tell the difference.
... to be cont'd
