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

January 31st 04, 07:55 PM

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

Imagine a mode that is a combination of PSK-31 and
SSB voice, with the PSK carrier where the SSB carrier
would be. Send data and voice at the same time. Interesting?
Yes! Possible? Of course! Legal? No.

After reassessing the idea in these terms, I stand corrected.

I have changed my mind. This DOES make more sense.

Only if it's done right!

I have 52 DXCC entities on 75m phone and 87 on CW. I have 85 DXCC
entities on 40m phone. I am two shy of DXCC on 40m CW. Not bad for
low power and wire antennas close to the ground.

dayum!

Tain't nuttin...My best friend (K4YJ) has numerous single-band
DXCC, WAZ, 5BWAZ, etc, with nothing mroe than the driven element of an
old butterfly beam in the attic of his townhouse in suburban Atlanta.
I thought I was doing pretty good till the shoeboxes full of QSL's at
his shack fell on me! =)

Gotta get me one o' them K4Yx calls...

HF FREQUENCY PLAN BY EMISSION BANDWIDTH - NOT MODE
If we are to continue to advance amateur radio into
the future, we need MODE FLEXIBILITY.

After one reads through this post they will see that ALL you
suggest, in the end, is dropping specific modes by name. The result,
however, is just an expansion of the U.S. phone bands.

It gets worse...

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that we can afford to
expand our phone allocations. However YOUR premise is that we enact
your ideas to deter "stifling" of experimentation.

I say widening the 'phone bands as much as is suggested is not a good thing
at all.

In the long run, you're wedging more efficient narrowband modes
into smaller and smaller subbands to the preference of the less
efficient wideband modes...Specifically, SSB voice.

Bingo.

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.
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.

All you've done is change the language. The application will be
unchanged.

Sort of.

As I said, I've changed my mind. This is a good idea.

Only if it's done so as to not simply crush the CW/digital folks under a wave
of SSB. The basic concept proposed is OK, the implementation is awful.

5MHz channels - mode 2.8kHz bandwidth

No change here. This is exactly what we have right now.

No it isn't! We're allowed USB voice *only* - nothing else - because
NTIA says so.

And that's all they're likely to say, unless there is a proposal
put forth that makes it more efficient to do so.

Too soon to do that. We've had 60 m for how long? How many hams use 60?

My idea for 60 meters?

Limit ALL Amateur access to this band to persons participating in
ARES, RACES or other RECOGNIZED emergency service organization or
agency. This would include drills and nets of both Amateur and
non-Amateur organizations for practice purposes.

That's a step backwards. Would generate less interest in the band.

Takes steps to enact NTIA regulation changes to make this the
defacto liasion band between disaster relief agencies, both civil and
military.

Possible. In any event, we'd have to match their modes!

The band here is only 50kHz wide to start with, yet you suggest
we allow phone operations to take up 80% of the band which means fewer
stations on the band at the same time. How is that an improvement?

It isn't.

And I thought it was just me! =)

It isn't.

24890 to 24990 any mode 3kHz bandwidth

Why no protection for narrowband modes? PSK, AMTOR, RTTY, and
yes...CW.

One guess why CW isn't mentioned...

=) Do I get THREE guesses...?!?!

Do you need more than one? ;-)

There's more to it than that, Steve, but the proposed solution creates
more problems than it solves.

I really do hope we get lots of newcomers, but 30% Novices in 6 years
is kinda optimistic.

Waaaaaaaaaaaay optimistic, I'd say...Hopeful, but optimistic.

Let's be wildly optimistic and say the proposal results in 40,000 newcomers per
year. Let's also say that each year 30,000 (about 4%) of those licensed today
drop out.

Then in six years we'll have 60,000 more hams than today - about 744,000. Of
these, 240,000 will have joined in the intervening 6 years. That's about 30% -
but *only* if none of the newcomers comes in as anything but a Novice, and
*only* if not one of them upgrades!

73 de Jim, N2EY