HF Bands Digital rules changing January 8th, 2024

From the ARRL:

SB QST @ ARL $ARLB035
ARLB035 Bandwidth Limits Replace Symbol Rates on the HF Bands, Other Bands Open for Comment

ZCZC AG35
QST de W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 35 ARLB035
From ARRL Headquarters
Newington CT December 11, 2023
To all radio amateurs

SB QST ARL ARLB035
ARLB035 Bandwidth Limits Replace Symbol Rates on the HF Bands, Other Bands Open for Comment

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published new rules adopted last month that replace the symbol rate restrictions on the HF bands with a bandwidth limit of 2.8 kHz. The new rules go into effect January 8, 2024.

Please see
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/12/07/2023-26770/amateur-radio-service-rules-to-permit-greater-flexibility-in-data-communications
for further details.

The bands and band segments affected by the rules change are those authorized for data transmission between 160 and 10 meters, exclusive of 60 meters (where no change was made).

In adopting a bandwidth limit in place of the baud rate limit the FCC agreed with ARRL that some limitation is necessary because “without a baud rate or bandwidth limit, data stations using a large amount of spectrum for a single emission could do so to the detriment of simultaneous use by other stations using narrowband emission modes.”

ARRL has advocated for this change for a long time. The move opens amateur data communications to faster and more modern modes and restores the incentive for amateurs to experiment with and develop faster and more efficient data methods. Previously, ARRL obtained waivers to the symbol rate rules on a case-by-case basis to facilitate communications during situations like hurricane responses. These delays will now be removed, permitting drills to be conducted with the faster modes and more timely responses when needed.

The FCC also requested comment on removing similar symbol rate restrictions in the rules governing 135.7 – 137.8 kHz (2200-meter band), 472 – 479 kHz (630-meter band), and the very high-frequency
(VHF) and ultra-high frequency (UHF) bands.

The VHF bands with baud rates are the 6-meter band, 2-meter band, and the 1.25-meter band. The single UHF band with a baud rate is the 70-centimeter band (420 – 450 MHz). The Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (FNPRM) proposes to maintain the existing bandwidth limits in the Commission’s rules for these VHF and UHF bands but seeks comment on whether they should be kept, and if so, whether the bandwidths should be changed. The Commission also sought comment on whether bandwidth limits should be adopted for application to the
2200 and 630-meter bands, and if so, what an appropriate bandwidth limit would be.

Public comments on these additional issues are sought in the FNPRM.
The comment period is open until January 8, 2024. Replies to comments are due no later than January 22, 2024. If changes are later adopted, the rules will go into effect in the same manner as they did for the other bands — after notice and publication in the Federal Register.
NNNN
/EX

For the K9ZW’s operations this means that the extra capabilities of my new SCS DR-7800 P4dragon Modem will be usable four week from now. That should include PACTOR 4 at all of its speeds.

73

Steve
K9ZW

Emcomm Security or Not?

It has been a while since I have addressed some if the issues with formal Emcomm, and still unresolved is simple plain old personal physical security.

A lot of the explicit “no weapons allowed, whether or not you have a Concealed Carry Permit or other Authorization” language of ten years ago has disappeared from the publicly available ARES/RACES documentation, though there hasn’t been any gains in a commitment or open plans to provide physical security for operators.

Active ARES/RACES folk continue to tell me that their leadership continue to say “no way” to operators being armed.

I reached out to Kyle Schaefer, KC9SDK, Section Emergency Coordinator (Wisconsin) as I’ve known Kyle & his family for years and as the SEC I’d be certain to get the straight information.

Alas I’ve never heard back from Kyle KC9SDK WI SEC.  Thinking a week would be enough to either answer or acknowledge the information request?  

So time to role up one’s sleeves and do research.  

Seems the ARRL ARES/RACES world moved through a cycle where perhaps 15 years ago personal weapons were a personal responsibility, then including some fairly in-your-face language it went to a No Weapons Allowed policy, and after years of push back appears to have relented to allowing what is legal.

This appears to mean that the individual complies with the situational rules, rather than an across the board prohibition.  As an ARES/RACES operator is not made into a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) by ARES/RACES they wouldn’t gain any LEO rights, such as firearm carry authorizations where civilian carry is prohibited.

Nor does the ARRL ARES/RACES specifically appear to Authorize the individual operator to exercise their legal firearms/weapons rights.  They seem to have largely pulled their hands off of the “third rail” of broad brush firearm prohibitions.

Your Mileage May Vary (YMMV) and my post isn’t the legal advice you need to make your own decisions.  

But it does seem that the strongly worded across the board prohibition has softened.

73

Steve
K9ZW

Action by ARRL Life Members needed to keep their Print QST Magazine

Buried in the new ARRL Dues/Rates page is this gem:

Current Life members as of July 2023 may choose to continue receiving printed QST or OTA at no additional cost by contacting ARRL between September 1, 2023, and June 30, 2024.

It seems the ARRL is canceling the mailed magazine for Life Members, unless that life member performs a specific action – requesting their mailed magazine.

The ARRL seems to have found itself in a bind, where the funds paid in for Life Memberships were neither sufficient nor were invested with enough return to overcome inflation and cost escalations to provide the commitments made to prospective “Life Members”  at the onset.

That longevity has increased, meaning the duration of providing mailed magazines on an aggregate has grown longer, further accentuates the shortfall.

Organizations set Life Memberships based on formulas predicting the forward costs vs the value of a larger one-time payment.  In the most simple form they figure out what a new life member might cost the group, setting the Life Membership fee above that cost.

Checking several national organizations Life Memberships tend to range from 20x to 30x their basic membership annual cost, with many in the 22-26x range.

Smaller clubs, especially those who provide few services to members, might use a 10x or 15x multiplier.

Seems the ARRL might have used too small of a multiplier or its costs over ran projections.

Here is the ARRL’s page:  http://www.arrl.org/2024-dues-rates

Fixes basically fall into a couple categories:

• Cut Costs (seems to be what the ARRL is doing)
• Ask for a Top Up Payment or “Special Assessment” (this is what my Sportsman Club did)
• Promote Life Members “upgrading” their membership to a yet higher class (some National Groups have Life, Life Endowment, Life Benefactor… reflecting higher levels of contributions)
• Set the new Life Member’s fee high enough to “make up” on the past shortfalls (somewhat a Ponzi Scheme idea, and one that some local clubs have used)

Perhaps a mixture of a bit of each option will carry the day?

Circling back – After September 1st 2023 and before July 1st 2024 existing ARRL Life Members need to let the ARRL know they wish to continue to get their mailed magazine, or the implied default action is that they will be converted to a “Life Digital Member” to save the ARRL printing and postage costs.

73

Steve
K9ZW

Preaching to the Choir – An FCC Scold to the Wrong Team

I wanted to let this silly ARRL and FCC thing simmer a while before pointing out that these folks are “preaching to the choir.”

In case you missed this when they put it out:

Dear ARRL Central Division Member,

I have received a number of inquiries asking why the statement from ARRL HQ titled ” The ARRL on the Purpose of Amateur Radio”
had been sent this afternoon. The online web version can be seen here;

http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-on-the-purpose-of-amateur-radio

Please take a look at the other news piece that was posted today on the ARRL.org Website. The attached link has the Enforcement Advisory posted by the FCC today, Sunday 17Jan21.
Hopefully this will provide the context for the letter sent today from the ARRL HQ.

http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-issues-enforcement-advisory-radio-users-reminded-not-to-use-radios-in-crimes

73, Kermit Carlson W9XA

 

Here is a direct link to the original FCC scold – https://www.fcc.gov/document/amateur-personal-radio-users-reminded-not-use-radios-crimes

This whole thing is silly and misses the point that FCC-Licensed and ARRL-affiliated hams should be considered to always be “wearing the white hat.”  Hams=Good Guys, not the problem.

The scold should have reserved for non-licensed activists openly carrying HTs while doing social mischief.  These activists appeared to be using Chinese HT’s and web sources suggest that these HTs were reprogramed to obscure their unlicensed use.

And the licensed ham should have been encouraged to use their capabilities to monitor and if possible record/identify/locate those misusing Amateur and other frequencies.

Our amateur radio community basically self-polices itself for the FCC, largely self-administrates its testing process, and has a century of goodwill working with the government.

Remember that is a government we elect and fund – a government drawn from the people including Radio Amateurs.

It usually is counterproductive to punish, which includes shaming, the innocent.

Wiser would have been to have engaged the Radio Amateur community to assist in solving the problem.

It is very curious that the ARRL rolled-over rather than pushing back and on its own encouraged a positive ham participation in solving the problem.  As a group we directly pay to represent our hobby they fell short of expectations.  It seemed like the ARRL response was mostly about liability reduction than stepping up be a positive influencer.

I think we can do better – so let’s go for it.  Taking cue from the OO (Official Observer) concepts of the past, it is time to monitor and report to the FCC and law enforcement the interlopers.

73

Steve
K9ZW

The Fifty-Dollar Filter – FCC’s Proposed $50 for Ten Year Ham License Fee

Somehow our government has figured out that to maintain a radio amateur’s license costs $5/year and is proposing to recover that cost from each of us.

Actually Congress passed legislation directing expense recovery by user fees.

Well I say the numbers are rubbish.

In the past the vanity-license fee was assessed on a similar basis resulting in a $x.xx/per year fee.  Numbers like $4.17 or $2.13 in form, not a rounded even dollar.

When the true incremental costs above a regular license were used, the the ongoing yearly fee disappeared.  Once established there was no significant difference to carrying either a sequential or a vanity listing.

Of course the previously collected faux-fees were retained rather than refunded.

Afraid our Amateur Radio community is being railroaded again.

The question being put to us is not whether the amount of the fee is accurate.

Instead we are being asked to comment on a feel-good exercise as whether the legally required expense recovery is legitimate.

Personally the proposed fee conceptually amortized at $5 per year as a user fee will not interfere with my pursuit of our hobby.

But I do expect some of my sons who have Tech and General class licenses but are seldom on the air to join the ranks of “former amateur licensees” as they won’t be bothered to jump through the renewal hoops and pay for a license they presently are not using.  I anticipate our all-licensee family will drop from Five licensed amateurs to 1 or possibly 2.  I will certainly renew, but the wife and our sons won’t, expect perhaps one son who earned his general a while back.

This weeding out of the inactive or lightly active will have dual impact – a continued decline in overall licensees which will politically be used against the amateur radio hobby for frequency and support grabs.

And you can expect the fees to treble or more as the total expense is reallocated over a smaller groups of licenses.

So brace for this $50 per 10-year fee becoming $150+ per ten-year period after the first 6-7 years of fees, and then continuing to escalate in years after that.

With enough decline in fee paying licensees it isn’t unreasonable to anticipate a $50/year ($500 for the ten year) levy or higher within the next 15-20 years.

Some hams are noting the ARRL’s opposition and attributing it being self-serving for the ARRL as an organization, which may be part true.

But unless we push hard to get to keep this Pandora’s Box from being opened it will be our wallets that suffer, our feeder system of lightly active amateurs who some later embrace the hobby in a bigger way, and the barrier to entry for new hams that will cause the real damage to our hobby.

73

Steve
K9ZW

K9ZW LoTW Updates

Over the years I have been an on-again/off-again LoTW participant. Really my uploading logs is more about helping others than any sort of personal effort.

I’ve never gone through the process of adding in what paper DX QSLs and logs could be added to my LoTW totals. Hard to get interested enough to dedicate the hours to sort this out.

My paper QSLing is way behind, and I am currently in the midst of having my cards redesigned with the updates to my current QTH.

I am intrigued with nearly 50% of my QSOs uploaded to LoTW having been confirmed.  Guess that show the system does work.

73

Steve
K9ZW