|
Band plans
The recent discussions got me to thinking about how the current bands
are partitioned. Taking a quick look at the current US allocations indicates these portions of the HF bands in which phone is not allowed (what I would have called "CW bands" in another era): 160: None 80: 3500-3600 20% 40: 7000-7125 41% 30: None 20: 14100-14150 42% 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. Is that reasonable? Is this bandplan maximizing the use of the resource? One definition of "optimum allocation" is providing the same usability for operators of every mode. 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. 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? 73, Steve KB9X |
Band plans
Steve Bonine wrote:
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? How about narrow band modes on the lower 1/3 of a band, wide band on the upper 1/3, and any mode allowed in the middle 1/3? It would be interesting to see what happens in the middle 1/3. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Band plans
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 |
Band plans
Steve Bonine wrote:
One definition of "optimum allocation" is providing the same usability for operators of every mode. 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. 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? The USA band restrictions serve a very usefull purpose for the rest of the world. It gives us a chance of finding a frequency that is not full of american chatter. If the band is open the USA general section is almost invariably solid with high power QRM. g4jci |
Band plans
|
Band plans
On Mar 29, 1:18�pm, Dave Heil wrote:
One question which begs asking is why foreign phone stations should have a shelter from U.S. stations when U.S. stations have no similar shelter available to them? � Because there are so many more US stations than foreign ones in any particular country (except Japan 4th class). Working the USA is 1 DXCC country. Here's a similar question: Why do 'phone stations need to be protected from data signals but CW signals don't need that protection? IOW, why not allow data modes in the 'phone bands? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Band plans
|
Band plans
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 In writes: [...] Working the USA is 1 DXCC country. [...] Actually, according to the DXCC list: http://www.arrl.org/awards/dxcc/dxcclist.txt somewhere between 3 and 19 DXCC "entities," depending on how you define "USA." Three, if you consider only the 50 states: K,W,N,AA-AK United States of America KL7 Alaska KH6-7 Hawaii Fifteen more if you consider territories, possessions, and commonwealths: KH0 Mariana Islands KH1 Baker, Howland Islands KH2 Guam KH3 Johnston Island KH4 Midway Island KH5 Palmyra, Jarvis Islands KH5/K Kingman Reef KH7K Kure Island KH8 American Samoa KH8 Swains Island KH9 Wake Island KP1 Navassa Island KP2 U.S. Virgin Islands KP3,4 Puerto Rico KP5 Desecheo Island And then of course there's this one, under U.S. control, but energetically debated over whether it's a "jurisdiction" of the United States: KG4 Guantanamo Bay - -- 73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/ Finger for PGP Public Key -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS) iD8DBQFH8DkO6Pj0az779o4RAvzKAJwM3eNKVtrsHya37HKjto exGrpNUQCgx0Ae HFWX7VrY7xr7bmGLRWPpMro= =eItq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Band plans
On Mar 30, 7:37Â pm, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote: On Mar 29, 1:18�pm, Dave Heil wrote: One question which begs asking is why foreign phone stations should have a shelter from U.S. stations when U.S. stations have no similar shelter available to them? � Because there are so many more US stations than foreign ones in any particular country (except Japan 4th class). Working the USA is 1 DXCC country. That's an explanation, though perhaps not a valid one.  We W's manage to work all the DX there is to work despite the presence of strong QRM from W QRM--both those who are ragchewing and those who are working DX. Sort of. Remember that often the DX is transmitting outside the US 'phone subband. Things aren't the same as in the old days when many DX stations were rock bound or ran lesser quality equipment or had less than optimal antenna systems.  In fact much of the world runs the same Kenwood, Icom, Yaesu and Ten-Tec equipment as the American stations. Good point!  The garden variety foreign stations sometimes QRM's the rare stuff. Many of the garden variety foreigners are also in the chase for that same rare DX. Agreed. The time is long past for divided phone band segments.  I believe that the phone bands should be harmonized worldwide. Be careful what you ask for. In much if not most of the rest of the world, there are no subbands-by- mode. The amateur regs simply state which modes are allowed on each band, and leave the rest up to gentleman's agreements. Harmonizing the US phone subbands to the rest of the world would mean either imposing US regs on other countries, or removing subbands-by- modes from US regs. It seems to me that countries which do not have subbands-by-mode would resist following the US example and adding them, if for no other reason than that they'd no longer have a refuge from US 'phone QRM. Proposals to remove subbands-by-mode from the US regs have met with clear and strong opposition from US hams. The recent proposal from the "Communications Think Tank", which would have eliminated subbands-by- mode, was strongly opposed in comments to FCC - so much that CTT removed the proposal. Any such proposal means "data in the phone bands", too. Here's a similar question: Why do 'phone stations need to be protected from data signals but CW signals don't need that protection? IOW, why not allow data modes in the 'phone bands? I think the answer to that is that CW ops are typically using narrow receiving filters while phone ops may be listening through 2.4 or 2.7 KHz filters.  A little of that digital signal cacophony can wreak havoc with a phone QSO. Can't such interference be dealt with using a notch filter? A PSK31 signal is only a few dozen Hz wide, for example. Even more basic, isn't it the responsibility of all operators to avoid transmitting on top of existing QSOs? Why would digital ops behave differently in this regard when faced with 'phone signals vs. CW signals? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Band plans
|
Band plans
|
Band plans
|
Band plans
Michael Coslo wrote:
I think that on some bands, such as 20 meters, a person can accidentally stomp on another due to propagation, So often we only hear (or see) one side of the QSO. We fire up, and soon the Ham we can hear and can hear us tells us of our error. I wonder what frequencies G4JCI is referring to? And note to G4JCI:I think you might have a typo in your call sign, there isn't any reference on QRZ to that call. The call is perfectly OK since around 1977, in the UK we have a privacy option which stops the RSGB and others including us in callbooks etc. The call was previously ZS6N but that has since been re-issued to someone else after I left ZS land in 1982. My point is that here in Europe we have to get by with a concealed wire antenna in the attic and QRP to avoid TVI complaints etc. All too often some clown (usually in the USA) can barely hear us and cranks up with a few kilowatts and an antenna farm. This same clown usually gets a 30/9 report from someone and chews the rag for half an hour at the same output instead of reducing power to the minimum required to maintain communications. It is this inconsiderate behaviour which gives USA operators a bad reputation in the rest of the world. Of course there are plenty of good guys out there, as always it is the bad operators who set the bad standards. g4jci |
Band plans
In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote: I think that on some bands, such as 20 meters, a person can accidentally stomp on another due to propagation, So often we only hear (or see) one side of the QSO. We fire up, and soon the Ham we can hear and can hear us tells us of our error. That can happen on any HF band, I believe. This issue was behind a lot of the protest over one aspect of the ARRL's now-withdrawn "sub-bands by bandwidth" proposal. The proposal had suggested opening up a much larger portion of the band to unattended and semi-attended digital stations (typically, email servers). Such systems are rather notorious for "stepping on" QSOs in progress, due in part to this "only can hear one half of the existing QSO" problem. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
Band plans
On Mar 30, 11:43Â pm, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote: On Mar 30, 7:37� pm, Dave Heil wrote: wrote: On Mar 29, 1:18�pm, Dave Heil wrote: Remember that often the DX is transmitting outside the US 'phone subband. Rare stuff, yes.  Less rare stuff, not as often. The time is long past for divided phone band segments. � I believe that the phone bands should be harmonized worldwide. Be careful what you ask for. In much if not most of the rest of the world, there are no subbands-by- mode. The amateur regs simply state which modes are allowed on each band, and leave the rest up to gentleman's agreements. Point well taken.  It works pretty well for the most part.  Cont ests are a different matter.  Let's take the 40m band as an example of when it doesn't work well.  In a phone contest, foreign SSB stations can ofte n be heard CQing as low as 7.010 despite the fact that the IARU bandplan calls for them to no go below 7.030 or .035 as I recall. Right. Now add a couple hundred thousand US hams to that mix.... It seems to me that countries which do not have subbands-by-mode would resist following the US example and adding them, if for no other reason than that they'd no longer have a refuge from US 'phone QRM. I'd like to get away from that "refuge" concept as some sort of foreign entitlement. Point is, the foreign 'phone folks may not agree with you. How do we in the USA sell the idea that other countries should add limited phone subbands to their rules?  I'd also like to get away from the idea that U.S. phone operation is "QRM".  We're big boys and they're big boys.  We do n't piddle in our end of the pool and they don't piddle in theirs. Yet the calling CQ well below where the bandplan says no. I'm not proposing that we do away with sub-bands by mode.  What I'm proposing is to expand our phone bands down to 14.112 and 21.151 on SSB OK, but what will happen is that the DX phones will simply move even further down the band. It's happened every time. Can't such interference be dealt with using a notch filter? A PSK31 signal is only a few dozen Hz wide, for example. ...but a Pactor signal is a couple of hundred Hz wide and an RTTY signal is only a little less. So if one plops down on top of a CW QSO the mess is at least as bad as if one plops down on a 'phone QSO. But 'phone QSOs are protected from such interference while CW QSOs aren't.  I can vary the width of my notch filter as well as the center frequency.  Can everyone do that?  Passband tuning helps too. Yep. So does a good antenna system and lotsa watts. Even more basic, isn't it the responsibility of all operators to avoid transmitting on top of existing QSOs? Why would digital ops behave differently in this regard when faced with 'phone signals vs. CW signals? That's one reason that I think it is a good idea to maintain sub-bands by mode.  Many digital ops aren't listening to audio at all.  Ma ny CW ops are using filters as narrow as 100 Hz.  Phone ops may hear them b ut they may not hear a phone signal, especially if it is weak. The problem is that under current rules, as the US phone subbands get wider, the CW/data subbands get narrower, and the spectrum-efficient modes get squeezed more and more. That's just not right. I think W5DXP's idea has the most merit: Wide modes at the top of the band, narrow modes at the bottom, shared space in the middle. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Band plans
Dave Platt wrote:
In article , Michael Coslo wrote: I think that on some bands, such as 20 meters, a person can accidentally stomp on another due to propagation, So often we only hear (or see) one side of the QSO. We fire up, and soon the Ham we can hear and can hear us tells us of our error. That can happen on any HF band, I believe. True, I used 20 meters as an example because it is the most common band with the "worst" problem. This issue was behind a lot of the protest over one aspect of the ARRL's now-withdrawn "sub-bands by bandwidth" proposal. The proposal had suggested opening up a much larger portion of the band to unattended and semi-attended digital stations (typically, email servers). Such systems are rather notorious for "stepping on" QSOs in progress, due in part to this "only can hear one half of the existing QSO" problem. Many is the time that those robot stations have obliterated the PSK-31 segment of 20 meters. Two of them close the band. They don't check, they just start transmitting, and they keep it up, presumably until they get acknowledgment from another robot station. It got so bad that Digipan added a decoder for the mode (no transmit) so that we gould catch the callsigns, record the disruption, and and turn them in to the FCC. Apparently this worked, because the problem is diminishing. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:50 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com