Talk:60-meter band

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Amateur radio (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Amateur radio, which collaborates on articles related to amateur radio technology, organizations, and activities. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Dead Link[edit]

The link http://www.dxwatch.com/dxsd1/5.php is a dead link, I don't know what it's supposed to point to, otherwise I'd update it myself, but someone needs to fix it. Laytonsmith14 (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I fixed it. Sv1xv (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

5 MHz outside UK & USA[edit]

  • Should we expand the page to include 5 MHz allocations in countries other than UK and USA?
  • Are there any reliable web links with this kind of information?

Sv1xv (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes this needs to be done, and also the USA section expanded. But it needs users from those countries to do it. The article has been well visited by UK amateurs after I linked it to on the ukfivemegs reflector but others may not be aware of its presence. I will try and add some links from other amateur articles to spread its existence.
Many thanks for all the work you have been doing here, it is appreciated. Work still needs to be done to make its format more in keeping with WP policies (ie references linked within the article rather than just at the bottom) but it is definitely getting there. Dsergeant (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I fixed the references per Wikipedia policy. 73. Sv1xv (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, excellent. Dsergeant (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Frustration[edit]

Oh, very good. The usual Wikidetails but no explanation as to WHY this band was allocated and WHY it is channelized and WHY the US allocation doesn't have all the same chanels as the UK. What's Near Vertical Incidence Skywave? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

See Near Vertical Incidence Skywave. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 00:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Map[edit]

blue=allocation; green=experimental; red=emergency only; cyan=limited licenseholders

Hi, I started a map showing different regions where 60m band allocations exist. I'm not sure it is complete, so please let me know if there are any corrections to be made. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 00:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Style[edit]

Please use bold typefaces where absolutely essential. You may use italics for emphasis. Sentenses should be in third person, it is an encyclopedia after all, not a manual.

Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style or WP:STYLE for formatting guidelines. SV1XV (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Bold Typeface[edit]

Having read the nearest applicable section


Emphasis

   Italics may be used sparingly to emphasize words in sentences (whereas boldface is normally not used for this purpose). Generally, the more highlighting in an article, the less its effectiveness.

My only intention in using bold typeface on the Wiki 60m meter band page is not so much to emphasize, but to assist in quickly finding specific operational information in what is otherwise a quite long and detailed article. Although possibly not quite Wiki 'style' in some people's eyes, quick and easy location of specific information is surely not inconsistent with any encyclopedic endeavour ?

Paul Gaskell (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Finding specific operational information easily can be best achieved by organizing it in tables (see for example Radio propagation beacon), without creating an ugly text with too much bold typefaces. SV1XV (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with SV1XV. The article was hard to read due to too much bolding, and it was not an efficient method of providing quick access to details. I removed the bolding and created tables for the items of interest. Also, Wikipedia is not an operational guide. While operational information may be of interest to some readers, going into much detail is going outside of Wikipedia's scope. There are other wiki projects detailed operational information would be appropriate for. -Sparkgap (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

HISTORY heading[edit]

I have removed the 'HISTORY' header for two reasons. The first and main one is that it had been in place for over a month and no-one had contributed to it - not even the person who posted the header. It therefore wasn't creating a very good impression of the page.

Secondly, 5 MHz/ 60m is NOT at present a worldwide amateur band. It is effectively a 'work-in-progress'. Different INDIVIDUAL countries permit operation under varying conditions, therefore each country's 'history' is different, so you can't give one cumulative history of the band, plus the scene continues to change - even as I write this, critical discussions are taking place at the ITU WRC 2012 Conference with regard to placing 5 MHz/60m on the Agenda for the next WRC in 2015.

I think the best time to re-visit the topic of a dedicated History section for the 5 MHz/60m Band is once worldwide ITU status of 5 MHz/60m as an Amateur Band has been achieved and not before. This appears to be the policy that has been followed for some of the other newly-ratified Amateur Bands. In the meantime I feel that the amount of 'history' included in the text of each country's 5 MHz concession adequately addresses the subject and in addition to this there are other historical documents referenced in the 'Notes & References' and 'External Links' sections of the 5 MHz/60m Band Page.

Paul, G4MWO

Editor, The 5 MHz Newsletter

UK GB2RS RSGB News Service 5 MHz Newsreader

Member of Original RSGB 5 MHz Team (2002)

Paul Gaskell (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

moved from User talk:86.143.39.13

Chris, What is the problem that the 60 meter band page needs a 'clean -up'? Could you be more specific please. So far as I'm aware everything is up to date - unfortunately, in the case of some items, like Canada, for instance, the process is quite long-winded, so it isn't easy to be concise without omitting facts/history. The long frequency list tables were not my idea I think the format I use in the Worldwide 5 MHz/60m Allocation Chart in the 'External Links' is a far easier one to follow

Paul Gaskell ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.39.13 (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Paul. I added the reasons to the wikify template. Let me reproduce them for you here:
  • lacks wikilinks in many paragraphs
  • uses external links where wikilinks should be used
  • current citations formatted as external links should use <ref> formatting and appropriate :templates ({{cite news}}, etc.)
  • includes a primary source in-line
  • general compliance with the manual of style
The only content issue is the use of a primary source document in-line. Most of the cleanup needed is about formatting, internal links, and citations. Cheers. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Chris,

If by "primary source in line" you mean the WRC 2015 Agenda Item 1.4 Amateur Service 5 MHz Allocation Proposal, then two issues are in play here. The first is that so far as I'm aware at the minute, there is no direct formal ITU page link available for this. You can BUY a copy of the WRC2015 Resolutions etc, but this point in time, this particular text comes from within the Amateur Radio Community. Believe me, I know Colin Thomas, Hans-Blondeel Timmermann and Tim Ellam personally and a lot of bloody hard work has gone into getting this proposal. The second element is that surely as a radio amateur yourself, you must realise that this piece of text is in fact the 'raison d'etre' of the Wiki 6o meter band page! It's hard to think of anywhere else one could put it - it's crucial to the development of the page ! The text is long by virtue of its being an offical ITU document, but because it's open to the amateur world there don't appear to be any copyright restrictions on the text itself. No, I feel the Item 1.4 text is part and parcel of the 60 meter band page and it would be doing a dis-service to the page to place it anywhere else. The small amount of accmpanying text tries to describe very briefly the process for attaining amateur allocations and changes at ITU level.

As to other links, I have tried to include as many internal Wikilinks as possible, where that Wikilink contained sufficient information to illustrate a point, but by the nature of the beast in a page like this, some of the links are unavoidably external. I have tried, by the way, working with ref and cite, but find them a real pain to work with, particularl;y when I was updating the GAREC wikipage with the latest conference details (in fact I included the chevrons when typing ref just now and lost the rest of the text following it !). Trouble is, you need a separate Wikipedia, to explain the Wiki-ese !

Cheers

Paul Gaskell (G4MWO) Editor The 5 MHz Newsletter (see 60 meter band page 'external links') Member of Original RSGB 5 MHz Team (2002) RSGB GB2RS Newsreader on 5 MHz 86.143.39.13 (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the WRC agenda item, wikipedia does not require that a source be present on the internet or be available for free. It per perfectly acceptable to cite a book, including one that is no longer in publication, or a journal article that is behind a paywall. As for this particular material, I found it online at hamnews.ch [1] with commentary in German. As for the copyright status, under the Berne Convention, all works become copyrighted automatically. Public access does not indicate no claim of copyright. I hadn't even considered the copyright concern, but was rather thinking about the wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and not primary sources. Perhaps we can link to the hamnews.ch copy instead.
I don't wish to detract from the WRC12 proposal (actually I am excited at the prospect of an internationally recognized 60m allocation), but the inclusion of the full text isn't appropriate based on policy.
As for links, citations and formatting.. yes, I recognize that there is a usability issue here. One of the reasons I think the cleanup templates are useful is because others may notice them and attempt to join the effort to reformat and clean them up. Cheers. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


Hi again, Chris, The sources for the Item 1.4 proposal are actually given at the end of that text on the 60 meter band page - IARU and RSGB websites - http://www.iaru-r1.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=183&Itemid=136 and http://www.rsgb.org/news/articlelinks.php?id=0292 Some of the content of this proposal is in part of ITU reports/work for WRC2015, but it's so submerged in acres of other stuff that it wouldn't be practical to give a URL for it. The ideal solution I think would be if there was a copy of it as a document with official headers and footers; then it could be set up in a sidebar/picture box as an enlargeable png/jpg or the like, but we may have to wait a little while yet - I'll see if i can make some enquiries. The trouble with Wiki style policy is that it tries to make 'one size fit all' which doesn't always work - OK you need a standards framework, but it needs some flexibility built in. I guess 90% of Wiki readers are more interested in the accuracy of the information, rather than style. As I also edit a quarterly newsletter which may possibly be read by administrations I need to ensure as far as possible that my sources are verifiable, so naturallly this also counts for my 60 meter band page contributions

Cheers Paul Gaskell G4MWO PS Just out of curiosity, what's your amateur call, Chris? 86.143.39.13 (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I think linking to those locations should be fine. We've already attracted some help with building references and formatting, so I think we are making progress. Please forgive me if I don't list my call here for privacy reasons, but you will find it if you put my surname into the usual ham site. 73. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Emboldening Countries Edit[edit]

Hi 86.145.222.234

Nice to see some UK input. I wholeheartedly agree with emboldening the Countries. The only thing is - how long will it last?

I did a substantial edit/update must be some 18 months ago and was roundly castigated for overusing Bold typeface, according to 'Wikistyle'

I did so to make it easy to quickly pick out information for a particular country and also highlighted the frequency range appropriate to it. Instead, emboldening was all but removed and tables/lists of frequencies substituted, which are far longer and more cumbersome to consult (but it's supposedly Wikistyle)

Faeroes/Faroes according to Encyclopedia Britannica are both acceptable spellings; Faeroes is nearer to the Danish apparently

Cheers

(G4MWO)Paul Gaskell (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Greece[edit]

The temporary license issued to SZ1SV has expired and there is no current activity in Greece. SV1XV (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

60m Map - UK Status[edit]

Following the UK Amateur Licence revision earlier this year, The UK 5 MHz/60m allocation is now written into the UK licence schedule for Full licensees (ie NoV no longer required), so I now think we can safely say that it is an official, rather than an experimental, allocation. 19:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Paul Gaskell (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Map is updated, along with other overdue changes.
Sparkgap (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Sparkgap Paul Gaskell (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Honduras[edit]

Many thanks for spotting this, Sparkgap. I'm sure the IARU WRC15 team will be pleased to hear. There appears to be a bit of confusion between what's said in the CONATEL public website news about it and the actual official document itself as regards power and centre frequencies, but it is obviously clearer in the official document and that is what goes !! It isn't quite clear whether or not their Gazette notice has yet been published. On this side of the 'pond' the Dutch will soon get 60m , probably around Autumn when their documentation is complete, plus I'm double-checking about the Hungarians at the moment. In both cases it's a band allocation of 5350 - 5450. However I'm not going to publish anything until I'm 100% sure they're legally active. Cheers 73 G4MWO Paul Gaskell (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Having had a second look at the official consultation document, it would appear that Honduras already had a 60m allocation based on the 'old' US 60m frequencies and power level and that at the conclusion of the document the proposal is for the 'new' US allocation ie - with a replacement channel and increased power level of 100W.Paul Gaskell (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Implementation of WRC15 Decision[edit]

As I write, it's around seven weeks before the WRC15 60m allocation 'officially' becomes active - Jan 1 2017. Some countries have already implemented the WRC15 decision on its own, some have added the WRC15 allocation to other channels already allocated and often not contiguous to it. The bottom line seems to be that a mixture may be ensuing.

Can I give you an example - Portugal has just issued a new 60m licence, it includes the new WRC15 Allocation, drops their 5380. 5 and 5288.5 Channels, but retains 5371.5 an 5403.5 - in other words, a mixture of 'band' and 'channel' - so where do we put them ?

For some years on this page we have had several different columns - 'Band' allocations, 'Channel' Allocations and 'Block' Allocations. Given the last sentence of the previous paragraph and the current format, that would then imply that we should start a 'Mixed' Allocation column. However, aren't we in danger of making the page top-heavy with columns, making navigation through the material more complex and time-consuming ?

Surely a simpler ( and more flexible ) way to go would be to revert to having all the Allocations in a SINGLE Column/List ?

Paul Gaskell, G4MWO, Editor, The 5 MHz Newsletter Paul Gaskell (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This article now carries a fair amount of historic baggage and could do with a tidy up. The arrival of the WRC-15 band with effect from 1/1/2017 is a good opportunity to do this. Not sure what was done earlier.
Maybe we could list the allocations in a table. The first column would contain the countries' names in alphabetical order. The second would contain a comma-separated list of the band, bandlet or channel allocations in frequency order. Bands or bandlets greater than 3 kHz wide would be shown as a band, and 3 kHz channels would just have the lower edge. So e.g. Portugal could be 5351.5—5366.5, 5371.5, 5403.5. Columns 3-5 could contain permissible modes, power limits and notes/remarks. Somewhere in this we'll need to preserve the references to sources.
Incidentally, the official ITU designation for the conference is WRC-15 with a hyphen, not WRC15. (See 'Note by the Secretariat' at the beginning of the 2016 Radio Regulations.) I suggest we stick to the same convention. Harumphy (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Finland WRC-15 Update[edit]

Hi 176.72.136.45 - Many Thanks for the latest Finland update; have just done a little bit of cross-referencing between Band and Channel Allocation sections. Paul Gaskell (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

About Uruguay[edit]

The band in Uruguay is limited to the "A1" (Superior) category. It is NOT allowed for the use of "General" category.

The article 4.3 of the new Regulation says:

"4.3 The AMATEUR RADIO OPERATOR or RADIO CLUB which has a "General" category may operate in the frequency bands of one hundred sixty (160) meters, eighty (80) meters, forty (40) meters, fifteen (15) meters, ten (10) meters, six (6) meters, two (2) meters, one hundred twenty-five (125) centimeters, seventy centimeters (70), thirty-three centimeters (33) and twenty-three centimeters (23) (...)"

The fact that after that on article 15.2 gives the General category a maximun power of 15w is an error of the regulation text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.57.63.130 (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear ! Thank you. I guess a corrected version of the new regulations will appear in the future ? Paul Gaskell (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

On monday April, 3rd, we will have more information about how the Authority will solve that error. I will inform about here.

Please take note, that the band is legally operated since 24/02. All the contacts made before that date are ilegals (some used the band in this lrregularly form on April 2014 and other were using it from last Feb. 1st to 23th also irregularly). And the allocation of the band only responds to the implementation of the WRC-15 allocation of it, and nothing else. That is the reason, it was not available before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.57.65.229 (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


National Frequency Allocation Tables[edit]

REATRACT1;Although you obviously have the best of intentions, I have reverted your latest set of updates. Unfortunately I nearly fell into the same trap myself, but I realised that the fact that WRC-15 is mentioned in a country's National Frequency Allocation Table (NFAT) DOESN’T NECESSARILY MEAN IT’S AVAILABLE TO RADIO AMATEURS IN THAT COUNTRY – UK is a classic example of that; WRC-15 is listed in the latest UK NFAT but Ian, G4FSU, the RSGB HF Manager assures me the position with the MoD and WRC-15 is no change (hence the recent item in The 5 MHz Newsletter). Similarly, I’m in contact with the Austrian HF Manager; he’s waiting to hear from their regulator BMVIT, although the WRC-15 allocation is listed in their NFAT. Moldova and Azerbaijan also show WRC-15 and I’ve emailed them to find out what their position is, but I’m still waiting to hear. On balance, in the interests of maintaining accuracy I think it's better to wait until 60m/5 MHz activity is confirmed by a country's national amateur radio society or one of its officials. Paul Gaskell G4MWO Editor, The 5 MHz Newsletter Paul Gaskell (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

If so, then Australia should be deleted from the band allocation list:). May be enough only to mark these countries separately, then you can see what's next. BR, REATRACT1 REATRACT1 (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone else made the Australia entry and I decided to let it ride because they said "however Australian Full licence holders should get access to the 60m band during 2017." But since then nothing else has been heard. I think the reason a lot of these NFATs are showing the WRC-15 60m allocation is because all the WRC-15 changes come on stream at the start of 2017, so it's not just 'our' 60m allocation that is updated. Paul Gaskell (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Re-working of US Channels Chart[edit]

Thanks for your work on the US Channels chart, Zeneky - looks much clearer now.Paul Gaskell (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)