Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 29, 8:20�am, Steve Bonine wrote:
The recent discussions got me to thinking about how the current bands are partitioned. �Taking a quick look at the current US allocation s indicates these portions of the HF bands in which phone is not allowed: 160: �None 80: � 3500-3600 � 20% 40: � 7000-7125 � 41% 30: � None 20: � 14100-14150 42% Typo Alert: should be 14000-14150 17: � 18068-18110 42% 15: � 21000-21200 44% 12: � 24890-24940 40% 10: � 28000-28300 18% The conclusion is that, with some exceptions, an individual who is only interested in running SSB is excluded from around 40% of most of the US allocations. � 40%? Let's do the math... Setting aside the five channels called 60 meters, an Extra Class ham in Region 2 has 3750 kHz of spectrum available in 9 bands: 160: 1800-2000 80/75: 3500-4000 40: 7000-7300 30: 10100-10150 20: 14000-14350 17: 18068-18168 15: 21000-21450 12: 24890-24990 10: 28000-29700 Of that 3750 kHz, 2743 kHz is available for voice modes, most typically SSB and AM. That's 73.1% of the available HF/MF amateur spectrum available for voice modes, and only 26.9% unavailable. 26.9%, not 40%. Of course 160, 80/75 and 10 meters skew the numbers slightly. But there is another factor to consider: DX 'phone. It is common for DX stations to work 'phone down below the US 'phone bands, to avoid QRM from US hams, who greatly outnumber the DX. So when a band is open, the top end of the non-phone segments are frequently full of DX phone QSOs, and unusable by US CW/data operators. Every time the US phone subbands have been widened, the 'phone DXers have moved lower too. The end result of this is that, when the bands are open for DX, the amount of band available to non-phone modes is effectively reduced below that 26.9% Is that reasonable? �Is this bandplan maximizing the use of the resource? Depends what you mean by "maximize". The digital/data folks are squeezed into only 1217 kHz of the 3750, which is 32.45%. One definition of "optimum allocation" is providing the same usability for operators of every mode. But is that a definition we hams should use without question? Should the users of wide modes be rewarded by getting more and more of a limited band? Imagine if the price you paid for gas depended on the MPG of the car you drove, with low MPG cars paying less and high MPG cars paying more. Or suppose gasoline were rationed, and ration cards distributed the same way. Would that make the best use of a limited fuel supply, by rewarding those who use the most? �In order to accomplish this, one needs to know the number of people who wish to use each mode. �It's not possible to directly and accurately obtain this number, but perhaps counting the number of QSOs in progress might approximate it. That depends on when a sample is taken, though. During a contest or other operating activity that favors one mode, the results may be very unrepresentative. In the absence of any data, I'm not going to speculate about whether 40% is a reasonable number. �Have there been any attempts at measuring utilization in an objective way? One way to consider is how the bands are used in a situation like Field Day, where voice, data and Morse Code modes are all in use simultaneously, and records of how many QSOs actually resulted available. Of course the results are somewhat skewed by the fact that 12, 17 and 30 meters are not part of Field Day, that FD isn't just HF, and the different skill levels needed to use various modes. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
[RAC-Bulletin] New Proposeed HF Band Plans | Info | |||
[RAC-Bulletin] New Proposeed HF Band Plans | Moderated | |||
Band Plans for NW US | Scanner |