RadioBanter - View Single Post - We Need a BANDWIDTH-BASED Frequency Plan - NOT Mode-Based.

January 29th 04, 05:29 PM

(Expeditionradio) wrote in message ...
==WE NEED A BANDWIDTH-BASED FREQUENCY PLAN==
FOR THE FUTURE OF AMATEUR RADIO

Bravo! for the new ARRL proposal in the works for code-free
license restructuring. It is long overdue, and it is a
great step forward!

The ARRL proposal has some good points ("NewNovice") but
it also has some bad ones (free upgrades for almost 60%
of existing hams).

ARRL: Thank you for all your work...

What work?

Please consider that, due to recent radio technology and
the proposed changes to licensing structure, we desperately
need a better frequency plan than the olde "Novice Refarming
Proposal" from the 1990s that was pulled off a dusty shelf.

That was also an ARRL proposal. I commented against it to FCC.

Did you?

Instead, we need a "Bandwidth-Based Frequency Plan" for the
next decade or more.

Agreed. But not just for a decade, but indefinitely.

Bandwidth is a better demarcation than the current rules
that limit digial/data modes.

DIGITAL MODULATION IS THE FUTURE
Digital modulation and processing is changing the way we
communicate and coexist in the HF frequency spectrum.
With the multitude of new digital and analog modulation
schemes, including "digital voice", there are compelling
reasons to integrate voice, CW, data, image, and
keyboarding "modes".

WHOA!

What exactly do you mean by "integrate"?

Hams want to be able to use existing technology to
simultaneously keyboard, exchange multimedia files,
and talk by voice with each other on the same frequency...
something our present rules prevent on HF.

They also want to be able to use various modes without
undue interference.

MODE IS NO LONGER A VALID DEFINITION
Due to technology changes, the old definitions of what
a "mode" is are now blurred beyond recognition.

No, they're not. The old rules simply need to be
changed to fit new modes.

Existing band/mode rules are stifling creativity.

ARE WE NOT COMMUNICATORS?

We're amateur radio operators.

One example of how our present plan stifles communication
is by keeping USA amateurs segregated and actually
preventing us from communicating with the rest of
the world on the 40 and 80/75 meter bands.

How? I've worked quite a bit of DX on those bands.

Hams want to be able to communicate via voice
internationally on the 40m and 80m ham bands.

They can! It's done all the time. Look at the results
of the DX contests and DXpeditions on those bands.

HF FREQUENCY PLAN BY EMISSION BANDWIDTH - NOT MODE
If we are to continue to advance amateur radio into
the future, we need MODE FLEXIBILITY.
Otherwise, we will be faced with the need to be
constantly generating new proposals to the FCC to
accomodate new technology. The simplest and best
way to solve this problem is to divide the HF bands
according to "emission bandwidth" for better
distribution of spectrum activity.

Agreed!

This will not only encourage new research and
development in modulation techniques, but it will
help amateurs to communicate with each other by
breaking down the frequency/mode/band barriers
which have confounded us on some bands for the
past 40 years.

? What happened in 1964?

Here is a better HF Frequency Plan for Amateur Radio in USA.

Let's take a look

MODE-BASED HF FREQUENCY PLAN USA

kHz
1800 to 2000 any mode 500Hz bandwidth

Why 500 Hz? That leaves out a number of
digital modes already in use.

1830 to 2000 any mode 3kHz bandwidth

So you would outlaw AM and NFM? Why?

3500 to 4000 any mode 500Hz bandwidth
3600 to 4000 any mode 3kHz bandwidth

You want to widen the 80/75 meter 'phone band
by 150 kHz? Not a good idea!

5MHz channels - mode 2.8kHz bandwidth

Won't work. NTIA will object. It's USB only for now.

7000 to 7300 any mode 500Hz bandwidth
7075 to 7300 any mode 3kHz bandwidth
10100 to 10150 any mode 500kHz bandwidth
10115 to 10150 any mode 3kHz bandwidth
14000 to 14300 any mode 500Hz bandwidth
14075 to 14350 any mode 3kHz bandwidth
18068 to 18168 any mode 500Hz bandwidth
18080 to 18168 any mode 3kHz bandwidth
21000 to 21450 any mode 500Hz bandwidth
21100 to 21450 any mode 3kHz bandwidth
21350 to 21450 any mode 10kHz bandwidth
24890 to 24990 any mode 3kHz bandwidth
28000 to 29700 any mode 500Hz bandwidth
28100 to 29700 any mode 3kHz bandwidth
28600 to 29700 any mode 10kHz bandwidth

I see a pattern here - you want to drastically
widen the 'phone bands and eliminate AM and NFM
below 28.6 MHz. Why?

If the 'phone bands are widened as you propose, many of the
foreign 'phones will go still lower in the band to get away
from American hams calling them. They're already way down in
bands like 40 - and your proposal would push them even further
down, on top of CW and digital QSOs. No thanks.

NEW AMATEUR EXTRA - ALL FREQUENCIES - ALL BANDS.

Nothing new about that - been that way since 1951.

"NEW GENERAL" and "NEW NOVICE" BANDS
ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING FREQUENCY PLAN:

kHz
1800 to 2000 GENERAL
3510 to 3600 GENERAL AND NOVICE
3650 to 4000 GENERAL
3700 to 4000 NOVICE
5MHz channels GENERAL
7010 to 7075 GENERAL
7025 to 7075 NOVICE
7100 to 7300 GENERAL
7150 to 7300 NOVICE
10100 to 10150 GENERAL
14010 to 14075 GENERAL
14025 to 14075 NOVICE
14150 to 14350 GENERAL
14250 to 14350 NOVICE
18068 to 18168 GENERAL, NOVICE
21010 to 21100 GENERAL, NOVICE
21100 to 21450 GENERAL
21250 to 21450 NOVICE
24890 to 24990 GENERAL, NOVICE
28000 to 29700 GENERAL, NOVICE

I see another pattern here. You're proposing to
drastically cut down the amount of spectrum
gained by getting an Extra. Why? If anything,
the spectrum gained by upgrading should be greater,
not less.

You're proposing reducing the Extra CW/narrow data spectrum
from 100 kHz to 40 kHz and giving Novices more voice than
Extras have now. No thanks!

BY YEAR 2010, 30% OF ALL HAMS WILL BE NOVICE OPERATORS

How do you know?

Right now there are less than 35,000 Novices out of about
683,000 US hams. That's about 5%. To reach 30%, we'd need
to reach 205,000 Novices in less than 6 years from now.

How is that going to happen?

Under the new ARRL proposed license restructuring plan,
the number of amateur radio operators on HF will
increase dramatically.

How do you know? Where will the 205,000 Novices come from?

This is good.
We need this to preserve our frequency allocations.

Agreed.

We will see a vast increase in the number of "New Novices".

Again - how do you know? And why do you think they'll stay Novices?

The new Novice operators will be valuable emergency
communicators, so we need to make room in our bands
for them to communicate.

So do existing hams and existing modes. And there also need to be
incentives to upgrade.

Dividing the bands by bandwidth rather than content is a good idea.
But your implementation of it will have many bad effects.

A much better plan is to divide the bands into three segments: CW
only, digital, analog voice/image. CW allowed everywhere but
encouraged to stay in
its subband. Division to be about 15-20% CW only, 20-25% digital,
50-60% voice/image. The limitation on digital bandwidth would be about
1 kHz - any mode that fits in a ~1 kHz bandwidth could operate there.
Modes from 850 shift FSK RTTY to some forms of digital voice could be
used in the digital subband, but not any analog voice modes.

Drastically widening the voice subbands will not encourage development
of
digital modes. Indeed, it will do exactly the opposite. Your plan
*rewards*
the use of spectrum-inefficent modes at the expense of
spectrum-efficent modes.

And while I hope we do get lots of new hams, your predictions of 30%
Novices
are wildly optimistic.

73 de Jim, N2EY

ARRL member since 1968