Let the Hams in ?

[matauwhi]

G'day again, Penceler. Remember, ICOM is getting a hefty margin profit on their 802. Believe me, if they wanted the FCC's blessing on the ICOM 706MKIIG they would have pursued it and got it. IMHO, they want to retain their margin, the reason for only offering up one radio.

If the FCC is really serious about spurious emissions, they can head over to China and insist the Chinese shutdown the over horizon radar. They do more harm with spurious emissions than all the ham radios used on marine frequencies combined! Thanks again for generating the discussion.

[btrayfors]

Frequency stability is only one of many parameters required to pass muster for equipment certification in the maritime service.

Erik: I don't know why the new Yaesu isn't marketed in the US as a marine rig, but is elsewhere. Maybe they are awaiting certification. Maybe they didn't apply, for whatever reason. There are radios which pass U.S. certification -- like the Icom 802 -- but which cannot be installed in the EU or in Australia (where the more costly Icom 801 is required).

The point is this: equipment standards for use in the maritime services are carefully worked out by the ITU, the IMO, the cognizant government agencies, etc., etc.

Most countries incorporate the IMO standards by reference. These are really features, not technical standards.

In the U.S. the Institute for Telecommunications Sciences in Boulder, CO publishes standards for MF/HF radio equipment in the various services. The ITS is the research and engineering branch of the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) -- a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

For anyone interested, here's a frequency spectrum chart of allocations in the U.S. as of October 2011: United States Frequency Allocation Chart | NTIA

...and

here's the writeup on technical standards for MF/HF equipment, among others:

Federal Standard 1045A: HF Radio Modems

This document address much more than frequency stability.

Bill

[Penceler]

Originally Posted by btrayfors

Frequency stability is only one of many parameters required to pass muster for equipment certification in the maritime service

But on uninspected cruising yachts, isn't it the only one that impacts other users of the band?

[Penceler]

Come on Matauwhi, I may have alluded to that country in an earlier post but was trying to be politically correct!

[btrayfors]

Originally Posted by Penceler

But on uninspected cruising yachts, isn't it the only one that impacts other users of the band?

No, it's not. And, as a ham you must have some notion of spectral purity, intermodulation distortion (IMD), improper adjustment of mic levels or ALC or compression as well as other related factors which can cause a SSB signal to distort and/or bleed over/splatter onto other adjacent frequencies or other out-of-band frequencies.

BTW, the term "uninspected vessel" refers to charter vessels carrying 6 or fewer passengers for hire.

Bill

[Penceler]

Work with me here - this is a discussion not an argument. Again, I am not advocating anyone transmitting beyond the limits of their license. I am questioning the wisdom of type certification as it impacts cruising sailors - a growing user of the marine band and as such one that has a right to decide how that band is regulated.

As one poster commented, ham rigs can include anything from a home brew to something NASA would drool over. Practical implementation is an entirely different and complicated issue.

[btrayfors]

Originally Posted by Penceler

.....I am questioning the wisdom of type certification as it impacts cruising sailors - a growing user of the marine band and as such one that has a right to decide how that band is regulated.......

This is where we part company. I dispute vigorously the notion that because there are more cruising sailors using the marine bands they have, ipso facto, the right to decide how that band is regulated.

That's simply preposterous. The regulation of the HF spectrum isn't a freedom or a democracy thing. To believe -- or worse -- to act otherwise is to court mayhem on the marine bands and make them less valuable for all users.

IMHO,

Bill

[CarinaPDX]

Using a modern ham radio for comparison is skewing things badly. And then setting up home-brew sets as a straw man is equally flawed. Most of the ham sets in existence (not for sale new) that might be used on boats, certainly the great majority, don't have TCXOs (temperature compensated crystal oscillators for the non-technical) and have far more drift than allowed on the marine band. When I first set out I quickly learned that my Yaesu 757GX drifted as it warmed up - not even close to a marine radio. It is my understanding that this drift is one of the ways ham sets were identified (and fined) for operating on the marine bands. The only way performance could be assured to be up to marine standard on a ham set is to have them tested to that standard; oh wait, isn't that what Type Acceptance is all about?

The marine band is intended for use by non-technical operators, and thus the hardware must restrict operation to sensible limitations. The ham band puts the onus on the operators who have demonstrated some technical ability, and requires them to operate whatever hardware they please in a legal manner. Great theory. Too many hams either don't understand the technology, or are just plain rude in its use. I for one don't want to see the marine bands become more like the ham bands, with folks stepping all over each other.

I am reminded of visiting a friend's boat to see his new ham installation (he had a new General ticket). He dialed up WWV and then pushed the "tune" button on his Icom set. I was speechless at first, then told him to not do that. He repeated the feat on a BBC frequency, when I started to lose it. He had no idea that he was transmitting whenever he pushed the "tune" button, and that this was interfering and illegal. To be fair, someone could do the same thing with a marine set; the point is that it makes sense to limit the damage an operator can do on the marine bands with hardware limitations. And that having a ham license doesn't assure proper usage by a long shot.

My 2¢.

Greg, KF7BW

[Penceler]

Again, I am NOT advocating that anyone transmit beyond the limits of thier license.

To suggest that the growing demographic of a particular band should have a say in how that band is regulated is preposterous????

John

[CarinaPDX]

This thread started asking why ham radios shouldn't be used on the marine bands; I think there have been sufficient reasons given as to why they are not allowed. The interesting question is the other way around: why shouldn't marine radios be allowed to be used on the ham bands? The Americans on this thread are forgiven for thinking that there is no question as it is allowed by the US authorities; that is far from universally true.

The treaty underlying worldwide amateur radio specifically bans using a ship's radio for amateur communications. The US interprets that as meaning the compulsory radio, usually on commercial vessels, and not the optional radio on a pleasure vessel. The EU interprets that as covering all ship's radios, compulsory or not. The Icom 700/710 radios were widely reprogrammed to open them to the ham bands (and more) and this affected a lot of EU radios. I believe that is at the heart of the distinction between the Icom M802 (sold in the US, and easy to open all bands by the operator) and the M801 (sold in the EU and not able to be opened). At least some EU countries require the model and serial number for licensing, so no more less expensive, more capable, US spec radios.

I currently have an M802; it is a nice radio. While bench testing may not put this radio at the top of the heap, in practice it seems to do the job well enough. But as others have said the user interface is pure awful. Think the complete reverse of an iPad: little if anything is intuitive, so the (barely adequate) manual needs to be kept close by. It would certainly benefit from a new user interface, including a better way to manually scan a ham band. I don't expect that to happen as this is not a large or expanding market that will attract competition to force up the quality. <sigh>

[s/v Jedi]

So... HAM radio's will never be allowed on marine bands? I agree, not under the current rules.

But... rules can change. Let me give another p.o.v. : how about they completely drop marine SSB. Just erase it.

or, how about they drop SSB for IMO registered vessels (ships) and allow the bands to be used by any maritime mobile with any radio that is either FCC or CE approved (or any other nation's comparable institute) for some lowish standard of spectral purity etc.

It sounds a bit like morse code for HAM exams to me ("they will never drop that" until they actually did)

The authorities don't think about pleasure craft often when they define these codes for shipping, and I don't feel much love for SSB in commercial shipping anymore.

ciao!
Nick.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

So... HAM radio's will never be allowed on marine bands? I agree, not under the current rules.

But... rules can change. Let me give another p.o.v. : how about they completely drop marine SSB. Just erase it.

or, how about they drop SSB for IMO registered vessels (ships) and allow the bands to be used by any maritime mobile with any radio that is either FCC or CE approved (or any other nation's comparable institute) for some lowish standard of spectral purity etc.

It sounds a bit like morse code for HAM exams to me ("they will never drop that" until they actually did)

The authorities don't think about pleasure craft often when they define these codes for shipping, and I don't feel much love for SSB in commercial shipping anymore.

ciao!
Nick.

This could happen if Inmarsat modified the isatphone to be GMDSS compliant. This would give small compulsory fit vessels the ability to comply for sea area A3/A2. Then the spectrum could be released. I suspect though that hams would be the last on the list to get anything.

Dave

[fairbank56]

Originally Posted by btrayfors

Erik: I don't know why the new Yaesu isn't marketed in the US as a marine rig, but is elsewhere. Maybe they are awaiting certification.

With it's 1 ppm TCXO, it will not pass the frequency stability certification requirement. This is why US certified marine ssb's have OCXO reference oscillators.

Eric

[fairbank56]

In fact, I have the service manual for this radio and the spec's for frequency stability are ±4 ppm for the first minute to one hour that the radio is powered and ±1 ppm after one hour @25°C. I don't see how that could pass certification in the US. The worst case deviation during the 802 certification test was 6hz and that was at 27Mhz. During testing at 1.6Mhz and 12.2Mhz the deviation was less than 2hz over the entire temp range of -30 to +60C.

Eric

[s/v Jedi]

Do we realize that 1 ppm is 1 Hz deviation for every MHz of carrier bandwidth?

cheers,
Nick.