| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Extension of PSK segment
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:48:38 CST, LA4RT Jon Kåre Hellan
wrote: Our regulations are very short - less than 2 1/2 pages when printed by Firefox. http://www.lovdata.no/ltavd1/lt2004/t2004-1-10-65.html, if anybody is curious. I am. Are they available in English? -- Phil Kane Beaverton, OR |
Extension of PSK segment
|
Extension of PSK segment
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 18:02:45 CST, "
wrote: Mike, you've seen enough other licensed radio amateurs by now to understand that, technically, they are rather conservative in adopting "new" things. My own opinion is 'uber-conservative' but that is just personal. :-) Some of it is just economic. I'll be damned if I'm going to buy an $800 ICOM D-Star VHF/UHF digital radio that operationally doesn't give me any more than my existing VHF and UHF ICOM "rice boxes". Especially since I just invested $2K in an Elecraft K2/100 HF rig with all the bells and whistles. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Extension of PSK segment
Phil Kane wrote in
: On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:37:57 CST, "Dee Flint" wrote: Another thing to keep in mind that as our infrastructure becomes stronger, hams will only really be needed in the absolutely worst disasters. There will always be a need because no matter how strong the infrastructure is, situations will arise that exceed that capability. Design of public safety communication systems is the specialty of my engineering firm and I'm all too painfully aware of the real-world limitations Infrastructure by it's very nature becomes more fragile the more there is of it. disasters by their nature tend to occur when multiple problems happen. Seems like a "duh" statement, but we see it all the time. We going to put satellites up to do emergency Operations? Right away I see some issues. Those birds aren't cheap, so we'll probably put a lot of stuff on them. We'll probably have a lot if interacency "patching" available, trunking of course. It will probably be an awesome piece of technology. Maybe it will work. Fortunately no satellite has ever failed.... ;^) - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Extension of PSK segment
|
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 18, 8:18�pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Phil Kane wrote : On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:37:57 CST, "Dee Flint" wrote: Another thing to keep in mind that as our infrastructure becomes stronger, hams will only really be needed in the absolutely worst disasters. There will always be a need because no matter how strong the infrastructure is, situations will arise that exceed that capability. Design of public safety communication systems is the specialty of my engineering firm and I'm all too painfully aware of the real-world limitations * * * * Infrastructure by it's very nature becomes more fragile the more there is of it. disasters by their nature tend to occur when multiple problems happen. Seems like a "duh" statement, but we see it all the time. We going to put satellites up to do emergency Operations? Right away I see some issues. Those birds aren't cheap, so we'll probably put a lot of stuff on them. We'll probably have a lot if interacency "patching" available, trunking of course. It will probably be an awesome piece of technology. Maybe it will work. Fortunately no satellite has ever failed.... ;^) Mike, PART of the "infrastructure" includes radio amateurs. Back after the 17 Jan 94 Northridge earthquake here, the existing infrastructure was behaving just fine and FEMA brought in a bunch more communications equipment, some of it used to show continuous video of family/friend messages. For all of FEMA's highlighted "faults," they were equipped to handle comms as needed. By now the Los Angeles Communications Auxiliary (run more or less by the LAFD) is equipped and able to roll with comm-center bus/RV modifications. I took my exam at one such Aux station now still called "Old Fire House 77" despite it being re-assigned from fire fighting to communications. Some members of that Aux group are also licensed radio amateurs and can operate from fixed as well as mobile station locations. Things really aren't so scarce/rare insofar as comms are concerned in this big city complex of 8 million plus. It may be that much smaller areas have scarce facilities but that is up to those locations. I'm proud that this area I live in has beefed up its communications in the 13 years since the Northridge quake hit. What it has done can be a model of integration for other areas. Just a view a bit different than most others in here. 73, Len AF6AY |
Extension of PSK segment
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message 36... Phil Kane wrote in : On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:37:57 CST, "Dee Flint" wrote: I didn't explain myself very well on my comments on infrastructure and hams in emergencies. What I was trying to say was that the smaller disasters will need hams less and less as the normal infrastructure becomes more robust despite its complexity. Therefore when the big disasters hit that do compromise the infrastructure, there will be a lower percentage of people with training and experience available. Dee, N8UZE |
Extension of PSK segment
|
Extension of PSK segment
Phil Kane writes:
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:48:38 CST, LA4RT Jon KÃ¥re Hellan wrote: Our regulations are very short - less than 2 1/2 pages when printed by Firefox. http://www.lovdata.no/ltavd1/lt2004/t2004-1-10-65.html, if anybody is curious. I am. Are they available in English? I have written and asked. 73 de LA4RT Jon, Trondheim, Norway |
Extension of PSK segment
"Steve Bonine" wrote in message ... wrote: On the con side, a real disaster is the worst possible scenario for trying to get this technology to work reliably. You're potentially in a high-noise low-signal poor-antenna situation. The equipment required is fairly complex, and you need a fair amount of technical knowledge to set it up. When I build a mental image of someone at a shelter trying to set up this gear, it's hard for me to see success. Finally there's the issue of what data gets sent; some of it probably is not appropriate for transmission using amateur radio. A way this works with WinLink (and what we are implementing in MA) is that you put full-up WinLink stations, with both HF and VHF capability, in a few hardened (state-owned) EOCs. Local EOCs and shelters use AirMail (the WinLink client) with VHF TNCs to communicate with the state EOCs, with forwarding over the Internet if it's still up, or HF otherwise. A VHF-only WinLink client station can be quickly set up in a temporary EOC or shelter, and can even be used mobile. - Dennis Brothers, N1DB |
Extension of PSK segment
|
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 16, 10:30 pm, wrote:
On Mar 15, 7:44 pm, wrote: . Sounds like a clear message from the market to me! Actually I suspect it is a clear message from the embedded "gentlemen". 73, de Hans, K0HB Yet those were the ones who cared enough to take the time and effort to comment. There was nothing stopping the proponents from commenting. If they didn't care enough to comment, they don't have much room to complain. |
Extension of PSK segment
|
|It strikes me that the contribution of ham radio operators in a disaster |is changing. There are localized emergencies. There are regional and national disasters. Two different animals that require different levels of response. I don't see the need for extra radio channels going away anytime soon. Those fancy DHS grant mobile communications centers on wheels are neat. Typically they bring together fire, EMS, police comms at a single site with an interoperatability black box to tie it all together..... When the action is nowhere near a working Nextel tower or public service repeater site and the satellite links are maxxed out and the local telco can not climb a pole to jack them into the Internet or POTS Amateur Radio technology will see action. The biggest problems with the roving radio comm centers is desense. With all the antennas ganged up on the roof of such a small area they take each others radios out every time the other one transmits. Steve N2UBP |
Extension of PSK segment
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:16:42 CST, Steven Stone
wrote: The biggest problems with the roving radio comm centers is desense. With all the antennas ganged up on the roof of such a small area they take each others radios out every time the other one transmits. You've noticed......! g -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Extension of PSK segment
Phil Kane writes:
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:48:38 CST, LA4RT Jon KÃ¥re Hellan wrote: Our regulations are very short - less than 2 1/2 pages when printed by Firefox. http://www.lovdata.no/ltavd1/lt2004/t2004-1-10-65.html, if anybody is curious. I am. Are they available in English? I got hold of an unofficial translation and put it up at "http://jk.ufisa.uninett.no/la4rt/hamregs.pdf" 73 de LA4RT Jin, Trondheim, Norway |
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 19, 4:55 pm, Jon Kåre Hellan wrote:
I got hold of an unofficial translation and put it up at "http://jk.ufisa.uninett.no/la4rt/hamregs.pdf" Essentially it says "Here are your bands. Mind your bandwidth. Have a nice day." I love it! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Extension of PSK segment
Jon Kåre Hellan wrote:
I got hold of an unofficial translation and put it up at "http://jk.ufisa.uninett.no/la4rt/hamregs.pdf" 73 de LA4RT Jin, Trondheim, Norway I'm impressed. Especially when I think about how I would react if someone asked for US regs in Norwegian. Of course, I could probably take the FCC prose and ask Google to translate it; it would be just as opaque in the machine-translated version as it is in English/legalese. grin Thanks, Jin. 73, Steve KB9X |
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 19, 2:11�pm, Phil Kane wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:16:42 CST, Steven Stone wrote: The biggest problems with the roving radio comm centers is desense. With all the antennas ganged up on the roof of such a small area they take each others radios out every time the other one transmits. You've noticed......! *g -- I have to disagree somewhat. Having gone through an exercise in determining "closeness" of same-band aircraft radios on the same aircraft (civil aviation band at 118-137 MHz) running 10 to 20 W max AM, only five wavelengths separation was fine. That was back at a time (early 1970s) when high-third-order IM specs hardly existed. In a relatively local area, most such emergency comms will be, generally LOS, and not "working DX." There's no point in everyone running transmitters full-out in power for relatively short distances. Yes, I'm familiar with Oregon topography but NVIS techniques can also get out of the trees and the deep low spots. If there's a Power Output control on the rigs in use, it ought to be used to drop the RF output and minimize desensing of nearby radios. I'm just tossing in some things to consider in real-world conditions. It isn't anything against what anyone is doing. 73, Len AF6AY |
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 19, 3:16 pm, Steven Stone wrote:
The biggest problems with the roving radio comm centers is desense. With all the antennas ganged up on the roof of such a small area they take each others radios out every time the other one transmits. Not if the comm center is properly designed. The techniques for siting multiple transmitters/receivers in confined areas and minimizing mutual interference are pretty well established. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 19, 7:16�am, Steve Bonine wrote:
wrote: * *Things really aren't so scarce/rare insofar as comms * *are concerned in this big city complex of 8 million plus. * *It may be that much smaller areas have scarce * *facilities but that is up to those locations. *I'm proud * *that this area I live in has beefed up its communications * *in the 13 years since the Northridge quake hit. *What it * *has done can be a model of integration for other areas. * *Just a view a bit different than most others in here. I suppose that what I'm about to say will raise some eyebrows, too. It strikes me that the contribution of ham radio operators in a disaster is changing. *Not so many years ago, it wasn't unusual for all communications to be rendered inoperable when a disaster hit, and ham radio was the only link with the outside world. *We're proud of our "When everything else fails, ham radio still works" abilities. Well, that's what I've kept seeing/hearing for over half a century as an adult. I have yet to witness it first-hand. That comes from growing up in northern Illinois which had (sometimes) rather hard winters, although not to the extent of NW New York state conditions. I've been through several earthquakes in the Greater Los Angeles area plus at the edges of a typhoon elsewhere...plus a couple of river over- flows also elsewhere. I'll discount the typhoons since those were in northern Asia and I was in the Army at the time. Being aware and informed through all of those events, I just haven't seen/witnessed any case where "when all else fails, ham radio will come through" equivalent. I've never been IN a hurricane nor IN a tornado location nor a tsunami nor in the middle of a massive firestorm. However, I've seen videos (amateur photographer videos) of such events on TV news...including the very newsworthy Katrina disaster. Seeing such things on TV is very definitely NOT being "in" one or suddenly becoming an "expert" on surviving one. My last event (of being, most definitely) IN one was 13 years ago and that was quite enough, sufficiently anxiety-prone feelings despite having gone through several earthquakes of lesser shaking before, both here and in Japan. Has amateur radio actually helped handle problems caused by a disaster DURING an event or have they been relegated to emotional-support health-welfare messaging AFTER it? Those are two different conditions. Communications DURING an event have direct bearing on life-death situations while communications afterwards concern survivors, the living. I think it is important to differentiate between the two and ALSO consider what actually exists in the entire communications infrastructure that can and does survive. Example of observable condition of flooding prior to the Katrina disaster: TV news of a journalist being relayed live via satellite from the Dakotas...with a clear background image of a National Guard comms humvee with its whip antennas tied down for nevis operation. First, the TV person was getting through (with wide bandwidth) and obviously in portable operation. Secondly, the NG units use the same military radio equipment the regular military does and are far more capable of greater environmental extremes than nearly all amateur radio gear. On the newsgroups and various ham websites, everyone seemed to be giving high-fives to all hams for their marvelous communications accomplishments...without themselves being there. :-( My question has always been, who is kidding who on all this "emergency work?" It's a serious question which always seem to raise the emotional hackles of some. Did everyone get INTO amateur radio JUST to do all that emergency work? I really don't think so for the vast majority of radio amateurs. I got into it quite late in life for one reason and one reason only: To have fun with it, to enjoy it, to experiment (on a minor scale)...after spending a half century of adult work experience IN radio-electronics and enjoying all that work. I might even try PSK31 out of curiosity; I respect the work of G3PLX, Peter Martinez, and think it is an elegant solution to casual communications in a very bandwidth-restricted spectrum space. The one thing that is always needed during a disaster is manpower. *You can stage a satellite dish, but you need someone who is trained to deploy it after the hurricane passes through. *You can equip a truck with all the communications equipment needed to hook up an EOC with the outside world, but who drives the truck into the area and sets up the equipment there? Around here the (unpaid) volunteers of the Los Angeles Auxiliary Communications Service do. They volunteer to do what is needed. If that work is the "grunt" variety, then they do "grunt" work. That's just how it is in real emergencies. The amateur radio community is the ideal place to recruit this kind of expertise. *An alternative to doing things in the traditional way -- using your own equipment and communicating between hams using ham frequencies -- is to affiliate with an organization that is going to need manpower when a disaster hits. *It's a different way of accomplishing the same goal. *As the requirements for communication become more stringent due to pressure to prevent fraud and maintain privacy, I think that this aspect will become more and more important. Well, I've served four separate terms of Jury Duty in my county and served on five different juries. I don't plan on becoming an attorney nor being involved in law...nor have I planned to do so. Yet the jury panelists must exist IN a very real courtroom environment and focus their attention ON the law and case at hand. Good citizenship should, I think, involve responsibility to the community. I don't plan on becoming any sort of "emergency worker" in communications yet, if a really big one occurs, I feel that any kind of civic aid should be given, whatever kind. I present this as food for thought and an alternative, not as any criticism of current operations. Understood. :-) Please color me skeptical on lots of the emotional issues that have arisen in amateur radio over time. I feel we should look at ALL sides of possibilities and not get involved in the "cheering section" for "our team." Excuse me while I continue to go through the manual for this IC-746Pro that arrived safely yesterday. :-) 73, Len AF6AY |
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 20, 8:14�am, wrote:
On Mar 19, 3:16 pm, Steven Stone wrote: The biggest problems with the roving radio comm centers is desense. With all the antennas ganged up on the roof of such a small area they take each others radios out every time the other one transmits. Not if the comm center is properly designed. *The techniques for siting multiple transmitters/receivers in confined areas and minimizing mutual interference are pretty well established. If that is a real worry, each local amateur radio group can check it out for themselves...base-mobile-handheld, any combination they can operate on/in. There is really a great freedom in amateur radio to convene such a group for a real test at equipment distances on same or different bands using different RF output powers. That will yield data that can be of good use later in real emergencies. 73, Len AF6AY |
Extension of PSK segment
|
Extension of PSK segment
Michael Coslo wrote on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:53:57 EDT:
wrote: Has amateur radio actually helped handle problems caused by a disaster DURING an event or have they been relegated to emotional-support health-welfare messaging AFTER it? Personal listening experience here. There was a hurricane that went through South America a year or two back, on the way toward the US. I listened to an emergency net as a Ham was helping another who was on a small ship caught in the storm. I believe it was near Grenada. The ship was having engine problems, the skipper was inexperienced, and a ham with maritime experience was "procured" to talk the other guy through saving the boat and passengers. Listening to the transmissions, I have no doubt that had the instructions and help been relayed, the skipper and his passengers might have become statistics. Not being a mariner and one who avoids riding ON water, I can't comment on the veracity of that. :-) In a relatively recent event, a west coast sailor was attempting to sail solo towards the southern tip of South America, became damaged (de-masted?) and the Chilean Navy - Coast Guard came to his rescue along with other private ships in the area. The news of both search and rescue was carried on all the TV news and amateur radio did relay that news albeit a bit late. Was amateur radio communications "vital" in that case? Or wasn't it of a secondary nature in the form of "health and welfare?" I say the latter since the principal rescuer was the military of the government of Chile with the cooperation of fishing vessels in the area. Safety of Life at Sea has been a bond of ALL mariners since well before radio was demonstrated as a communications medium. This was a case of SOLAS in action. Those are two different conditions. Communications DURING an event have direct bearing on life-death situations while communications afterwards concern survivors, the living. The emergency is not a finite point. I have to disagree. Those directly involved in ANY emergency would probably agree with me on that. People who are injured during an emergency can survive or expire during the aftermath. Who can say which particular communications are critical except in retrospect? I would say the individuals directly involved can say that very definitely. Before this solo sailor's power ran out, he reported being de-masted and adrift and that his power was running low. To my mind that is about as direct a determination of an actual emergency as can be...albeit my not being a mariner. An airliner captatin reported an emergency when an air carrier's nose wheel did not retract properly; the nose wheel assembly had become turned from its natural position. The FAA accepted that as an emergency, coordinated with Los Angeles airports for emergency help, having fire engines standing by along with rescue workers. TV news relayed it live for viewers. Spectacular safe landing even though the nose wheel assembly caught fire. I don't recall the number of passengers on board but at least a hundred lives were directly at risk...all survived. Health and welfare comms are extremely important to those affected. It is important work, whether involved in dire emergency or the less pressing aftermath. Well, I was taking things in order of importance. When human life is at stake, I put the priority on direct emergency communications to save such life. Reporting on the results of aid/rescue afterwards after that would, in my mind, be deemed secondary. Yes, that secondary role is important for the emotional well- being of relatives and friends via "health and welfare" comms, but I still rank it secondary. Others may disagree. My question has always been, who is kidding who on all this "emergency work?" It's a serious question which always seem to raise the emotional hackles of some. There is a difference between Amateurs and those who are being paid for their work. The amateurs are not being paid. Yes, that is why the FCC titles Part 97 as "AMATEUR Radio Service." :-) Glad handing has sometimes been called the wages of volunteerism. Good point! But, my mention was in regards to amateur radio as a hobby, an avocation, something to be done in one's free time. Is/was the amateur radio service organized as an "emergency communications" primary role? Or was it organized as an unpaid, personal, technological-oriented activity done by individuals? I say the latter. Too often some individuals blend the two organization-origins with the "emergency" part rationalized as justifying the real activity. I would say that is wrong. As responsible citizens we all should help in some part with our communities in some way. Amateur radio is only one way to help and then primarily for rather extreme situations. I respectfully have to say that if a ham says something about Amateur radio contributions to emergency communications, there are some people who automatically dismiss their statements. Yes, there are. I've been called one of those! :-) Fortunately one does not have to engage in the activity as a ham. It is completely voluntary. True. The state of California Auxiliary Communications Service will accept anyone to help in emergency communications, licensed or not, as long as they can demonstrate they know something about communications. The California ACS considers ALL forms of communications to be vital and ANY that survive extreme emergencies would be used. Yes, having a license helps, whether commercial or amateur (in my case both), but that license by itself is not proof positive that an individual knows enough about radio and less about wired communications. Now, I've been accused of being geographically bigoted by mentioning California and the Greater Los Angeles area as models of emergency communications. For one thing, California is BIG having over 10 percent of this nation's population, rivaling the entire population of Canada. The state has weathered a tsunami wiping out a small coastal city, many earthquakes, many brush and timber firestorms, flooding, and damage from heavy rainstorms. The L.A. emergency communications center was new and operating for the 17 Jan 94 Northridge earthquake that affected about 10 million people and killed 53 humans...it worked through the efforts of organization, training, and regular drilling of participants. The "infrastructure" didn't fail and the cities making up this megalopolis survived. There's quite enough history of successful operations through very real emergencies available to anyone who bothers to look and seriously consider adopting those plans and experiences for their own communities. Examination of what has worked and what hasn't can be considered as a form of volunteerism... 73, Len AF6AY |
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 18, 2:11 am, wrote:
This doesnt' work with other radio services very well. Why would it be appropriate for Amateur Radio? Other radio services have distinct markets with distinct needs that they are chartered to serve. Amateur Radio is unique in that it is chartered as a playground for tinkerers and experimenters. It seems ironic to tightly regulate modes/bandwidths/modulation schemes in an environment where experimentation is officially encouraged. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 22, 1:18�am, wrote:
On Mar 18, 2:11 am, wrote: * * This doesnt' work with other radio services very well. *Why would it be appropriate for Amateur Radio? Other radio services have distinct markets with distinct needs that they are chartered to serve. Amateur Radio is unique in that it is chartered as a playground for tinkerers and experimenters. * That's one of the reasons for amateur radio. But not the only one! A lot of different activities have to share the bands. But I like the playground analogy. All the playgrounds I've seen are carefully designed to support a variety of different activities. There are designated areas for various sports, for example. And there are rules to keep order, permitted and prohibited activities, etc. Certain activities need special permission, others are informal. IOW, there's a structure to a playground. And the structure is most important when the playground is small and the number of people who want to use it is large. There was a time when 99% of ham radio activity was either CW/Morse Code or plain AM voice. Back then, a simple structure was all that was needed. Those days are long gone. We need a lot more structure than before, IMHO. It seems ironic to tightly regulate modes/bandwidths/modulation schemes in an environment where experimentation is officially encouraged. Amateurs are much less regulated in that regard than any other radio service. IMHO 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Extension of PSK segment
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:33:26 EDT, Steve Bonine wrote:
Of course, I could probably take the FCC prose and ask Google to translate it; it would be just as opaque in the machine-translated version as it is in English/legalese. grin There's nothing wrong with the English version! Any communications attorney can understand it with no problem. big grin. When I was an advisor to the Israeli Ministry of Communications (40 years ago) one of my jobs was to rewrite and translate their amateur rules into English. No big deal - I'm technically fluent in both languages. Same for the Norwegian, or Swahili, or Urdu - get someone who is technically fluent in both languages and it's a snap. That job was a lot of fun, however. I fixed some problems that they didn't even know they had (and got reciprocity and third-party traffic approved in the process)! even bigger grin -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 22, 5:11 pm, wrote:
All the playgrounds I've seen are carefully designed to support a variety of different activities. Must be boring to explore in such a playground with all that structure and rules. One of my favorite playgrounds is the Superstition Mountain Wilderness, a playground completely disorganized except for the boundary around it. You can go hiking there or ride your horse, prospect for gold (the "Lost Dutchman Mine" hasn't been found yet), camp for a night or a week or a month. You can follow trails which have been blazed by many hikers or horsemen before you, or be an explorer and leave the established trails to the timid. The only rules here are don't burn the place down, and don't trash the place for others. Explore without rules and structure. Kinda like I'd like to see the amateur bands, open for the explorers and visionaries (so long as they're polite to the other children). 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Extension of PSK segment
|
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 23, 11:18 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
I think that the crux *is* just that politeness though, Hans. Almost any country you want to name, with the notable exception of the USA, hands their hams a set of frequencies and charges them to "play politely". I don't see any evidence that this policy is causing any problems. Even in our country, one mode is given free reign to use virtually any frequency they chose, and we all seem to get along. One has to wonder "if market-based cooperation works for one mode, why won't it work for the others?" 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Extension of PSK segment
On Mar 13, 11:01 am, Michael Coslo wrote:
What is the process of modifying the gentlemen's agreements? Specifically, I would like to explore the idea of adding a new PSK31 segment or two. It strikes me that we've beat this subject into oblivion without actually answering Mikes original question. Actually, the ARRL bandplans (for whatever weight they carry) are pretty much silent on the topic of PSK31. The mode settled by convention into a small spot on each band, and the original small number of players fit nicely into a fairly narrow slot by convention of usage. Since it's gained in popularity, I think the next logical step is for the users to start a discussion 'in-band' about annexing additional nearby territory. I'm not into that mode, but it's my impression that there's room in most of the data segments for you to spread out a bit without any particular resistance. In other words, let the 'market forces' come to bear. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:40 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com