Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old March 29th 08, 02:20 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 169
Default 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

  #2   Report Post  
Old March 29th 08, 04:00 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,521
Default 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

  #3   Report Post  
Old March 29th 08, 04:50 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Default 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

  #4   Report Post  
Old March 29th 08, 04:51 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: May 2007
Posts: 13
Default 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

  #5   Report Post  
Old March 29th 08, 07:18 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2007
Posts: 149
Default Band plans

wrote:
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


That's a double-bladed sword you're waving there. Plenty of foreign
phone signals are to be found in the upper portions of various bands.
Where to the U.S. radio amateurs go to avoid the non-U.S. chatter.

I don't think there is any was to determine whether U.S. ops are running
high power or not. Propagation may favor one area over another; someone
might be running low power with an outstanding antenna system. Defining
the mere presence of signals as "QRM" might cause some to take offense.

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? Another puzzler is why foreign CW stations seem to
get by just fine without a similar refuge from Americans.

Dave K8MN



  #6   Report Post  
Old March 29th 08, 08:02 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Default 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

  #7   Report Post  
Old March 31st 08, 01:37 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2007
Posts: 149
Default Band plans

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.
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. 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.
The time is long past for divided phone band segments. I believe that
the phone bands should be harmonized worldwide.

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.

Dave K8MN

  #8   Report Post  
Old March 31st 08, 03:44 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Aug 2010
Posts: 63
Default 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-----

  #9   Report Post  
Old March 31st 08, 03:50 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Default 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. Â
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. Â 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. Â 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




Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[RAC-Bulletin] New Proposeed HF Band Plans John Iliffe Info 0 July 18th 07 06:01 PM
[RAC-Bulletin] New Proposeed HF Band Plans John Iliffe Moderated 0 July 18th 07 06:01 PM
Band Plans for NW US gbowne1 Scanner 0 April 12th 07 07:40 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017