Talk:2200-meter band

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.rsgb-spectrumforum.org.uk/Papers/Spectrum%20Forum%20Website%20Version%20(0606).htm
 * In 136 kHz on 2011-05-23 02:56:55, 404 Not Found
 * In 136 kHz on 2011-06-01 14:51:03, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Alternate link to this pdf paper located and added. Dsergeant (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Article name
I had renamed the article "136 kHz" to "2200-meter band" believing it would be a non-controversial move; however, I later found an objection to the renaming on my talk page. I agreed that I would open the matter for discussion here.

The primary reason I thought the move would be non-controversial is based on a prior consensus, reached by WikiProject Amateur radio, on how amateur radio bands should be named. The results of this discussion are also summarized under the WikiProject's announcements. It called for the renaming of many band articles to the format "x-meter band". I thought this article was somehow overlooked during the changes made, and for consistency, I thought the name should match the names of other band articles. Given that "2200" is the most commonly mentioned wavelength for this allocation, I used "2200-meter band".

Now, the objection to this name change is that the UK was the first country to formally receive an allocation in the band, and in the UK it is referred to as "136 kHz" not "2200 metres". Another point raised is that mostly US sources refer to it as the "2200-meter band", but it appears that few European sources do. It was also noted that the US does not have a formal allocation, but it does have amateurs with experimental licenses operating in the band.

I would like to hear discussion from interested editors on what should this article's name be and if another move is necessary. If I have missed any important points in this summary, or misunderstood any of them, please feel free to note such here.

-Sparkgap (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't look at the LF bands much, but I've never heard of a reference to a 2200-meter band. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's some semi-randomly selected search engine hits:
 * IARU-R1: 135.7 – 137.8 kHz: the 2200 meter band
 * Belgian ham page
 * QST: The Transatlantic on 2200 Meters
 * IARU: Spectrum Requirements for the Amateur and Amateur-satellite Services (Page 5)
 * Australian Amateur Band Plans (Page 3)
 * Southgate: New Greek amateur radio frequency allocations announced
 * WD2XKO Experimental Radio Transmitting Station
 * Many more references to the band do exist, some more notable than others. –Sparkgap (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To keep the numerical value to a reasonable size, we might use the term "2.2 km band". ("2200 m" suggests 4 digits of precision, which is not correct.) Amateur practice in the HF/VHF bands, at least, has remained with meters and centimeters. Let's be consistent with naming of other bands, i.e., meters (if not km).  This is not only a question of popular usage, but of consistent presentation.--Albany45 (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "2.2 km band" would appear more stylistically consistent, but there are no known references that call the band such. –Sparkgap (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If we're referring to the band otherwise referred to as "The 136 kHz Band," then we're working with 3 significant digits. In order to comply with the standard "Meter" unit and keep the number to three significant digits, a proper alternate nomenclature would be "The 2.20 x 10^3 Meter Band."   Another option is to accept -- or look the other way -- at the informality of allowing trailing zeros when there is no intention to denote additional precision, but rather to simply maintain the standard traditional units without the awkwardness of adhering to scientific notation rules.  For instance, this encyclopedia strives to provide information as efficiently as possible, and there is not much downside to continue referring to the band as 2200 kHz, as it is already being referred to, especially now that it is being transformed into a little Ham radio band and Hams are enthusiastically adopting it as their own.  (Maybe not as enthusiastically as if the power were not limited to 1 Watt isotropic...) Nei1 (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this discussion. On the HF and most VHF/UHF bands calling them as metre bands (ie 15m) has become accepted, though some, particularly the WARC bands, are also often called by their frequency, eg 17m and 18MHz, or 10MHz and 30m are pretty interchangeable. Historically 136kHz has always been referred to as that by the vast majority of its users, and you will find far more references for that - my own site, which was one of the first 136 sites, but can hardly be used as a WP reference... There are now quite a few operators in Europe at 9kHz, and I shudder what that is in m/km! Consistency is OK to a point, but not when it goes opposite to normal usage. Dsergeant (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The standard name in use by the nations that have an amateur allocation on the 136KHz band is "the 136KHz band". "136Khz" and "73KHz" before it is the term that has been used since these LF bands were first made available to licensed amateurs. "136KHz" is the key search term that would be used in looking for information on this activity of amateur radio community that are licensed to use the band. To change change the term from the one in active use by the community to meet some criteria set by a community that are not licensed to use the band is to say the least presumptuous. Stewart/G3YSX/AF6XD — Preceding unsigned comment added by G3ysx (talk • contribs) 09:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Irregardless what the article's title is, a search for "136 kHz" will still direct the user to this article. Via redirects, and the wording of the intro, any search term which could refer to this band, can technically be made to result this article.  As of this writing, Wikipedia's search, Yahoo, and Google all return this article as the top result for the term "136 kHz", even though the title is currently "2200-meter band".
 * Also, "2200 m" is used in non-UK communities with active licensees. Some UK-users even make the reference
 * –Sparkgap (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Also we have a "500KHz" band available under NoV (special permit) in the UK. Note it is the "500KHz" band and not the "600m" band. This aligns with the term being used by the regulator and at WARC. Finally, please note that there is work under way on 8.9KHz under NoV, and no one calls that the 34000M band. Stewart/G3YSX/AF6XD — Preceding unsigned comment added by G3ysx (talk • contribs) 09:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Though I think the names of bands, which currently lack an permanent international standing, have little relevance to this article's name, I do have comments on them:
 * From what research I have done on "500 kHz" / "600 m", Only four countries have an official, amateur radio allocation, Belgium, Netherlands, New Zealand, and Norway, and half these allocations are explicitly denoted as temporary.  NZART refers to the band as "600 metres".  Also, I have found no published materials from the WRC-12 proceedings which indicates a name preference.  If you are aware of any, I would be curious to see a reference.  Interestingly enough, it appears that if a new MF amateur radio allocation comes out of WRC-12, it will likely be centered around 472 to 478 kHz, and it will not include 500 kHz or higher frequencies.  This band is still in the making, and what might be a common name for it today, may change in the near future.
 * There are no proposals to make an international amateur radio allocation below 9 kHz, as far as I could find, and it appears no country has an amateur radio allocation below 9 kHz. A NoV is a special permission, not an allocation.  A special permission is temporary in nature, and thus it is arguably not notable enough under Wikipedia's guidelines to merit its own article.
 * –Sparkgap (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

In general, most of what I'm seeing as a preference for "136 kHz" is its usage in the United Kingdom as well as a dislike of saying large numbers. I do have some concerned that this preference might be a systemic bias for the UK's usage, as not much has been said on what term is used internationally. On a more personal note, I don't think "one [hundred] thirty-six kilo-hertz" is any harder or easier to say than "twenty-two hundred meters". If I have misunderstood the main points for "136 kHz", please correct me and elaborate. –Sparkgap (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have found and reviewed Wikipedia's Principal Naming Criteria since starting this discussion, and there is some relevant material there to consider:

"Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by."

Given that an average web-site is not a reliable WP source, and that published material about the band is hard to find outside of amateur radio circles, I looked at which term was commonly used by reliable and notable, amateur radio organizations, since WRC-07. This is what I found:

Also considering Wikipedia's principal naming criteria:

Are there any follow up comments on the above? –Sparkgap (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * All you have done is shown that there is considerable variation in what the band is called throughout the world. and on your basis either version is equally valid. But Wikipedia relies on editors with direct knowledge of the subject being edited. Among those who actually operate or have a direct interest in the band it is UNIVERSALLY called 136kHz. Personally I can never myself accept this name change. Dsergeant (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Demonstrating that either name is valid, is a key part of way this discussion was started. 2200 m was objected to as an invalid name, but both 136 kHz and 2200 m are used by published sources and by band users.  It is not universally called by 136 kHz by band operators, and I have already provided some evidence for this in the links above.  Many operators do say 136 kHz, but not every operator uses that term exclusively.  Evidence of this is not hard to find via web searching, but for quick reference, here is a sample of material written by band operators who use both terms or only 2200 m:
 * Australian operator
 * Belgian operator
 * Canadian operator
 * Canadian operator
 * Canadian operator
 * Please also note that all of these operators are in countries with official allocations for the band.
 * –Sparkgap (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In Footnote 4, "FCC 47 CFR Part 5 Rules...," the FCC discusses the history of its proposals for the band and the rulemaking which it has not yet finalized, and refers to it variously as the "2200 Meter Band" and "Amateur 2200 Meter Band." Also, Hams (and SWLs) usually refer to the different bands by their Meter wavelength. Historically, Part 15 Lowfers referred to the band by its frequency, but Part 15 operations will probably be halted when the band is allocated to Amateurs. As an aside, most Lowfers are also Hams, so there won't be too many people forced to shut down their 2200 Meter operations when the band finally officially becomes a Ham band. Nei1 (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2200-meter band. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ref-union.org/images/stories/ARCEP/2013_1515.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110127112547/http://jarl.or.jp/English/6_Band_Plan/JapaneseAmateurBandplans20090330.pdf to http://www.jarl.or.jp/English/6_Band_Plan/JapaneseAmateurBandplans20090330.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)