| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
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 |
|
#3
February 1st 04, 01:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
An updated version of the entire article "A Bandwidth-Based Frequency Plan", is
no available on the web at: http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/ Please refer to the new updated color chart of the frequency plan. It equitably distributes the space within the allocated band so that approximately the same number of narrowband 500Hz signals vs wider bandwidth signals can share the precious spectrum resources. Keep in mind that the plan is mode-neutral. If you can use technology to shoehorn a voice into 500Hz, then you can transmit it anywhere in the band. You may laugh, but my experience working with commercial DSP digital modulation systems proves to me that it can happen in Amateur Radio. In our present mode-based system in USA, we have a lot of nearly-dormant band segments. When the number of HF operators doubles overnight, we will no longer have the luxury to waste spectrum as we have in the past. I would like to thank everyone who has contributed with suggestions and constructive criticism during the development of the plan. The article and band chart is now on the web at: http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/ 73---Bonnie KQ6XA |
|
#4
February 1st 04, 11:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Expeditionradio) wrote in message ...
An updated version of the entire article "A Bandwidth-Based Frequency Plan", is no available on the web at: http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/ Please refer to the new updated color chart of the frequency plan. Did that. For one your "30M bandplan" would require both ITU and FCC approval to implement. Good luck with that one Bonnie. It equitably distributes the space within the allocated band so that approximately the same number of narrowband 500Hz signals vs wider bandwidth signals can share the precious spectrum resources. Keep in mind that the plan is mode-neutral. If you can use technology to shoehorn a voice into 500Hz, then you can transmit it anywhere in the band. You may laugh, but my experience working with commercial DSP digital modulation systems proves to me that it can happen in Amateur Radio. In our present mode-based system in USA, we have a lot of nearly-dormant band segments. When the number of HF operators doubles overnight, *IF* the FCC buys into anything like the recent ARRL proposal AND drops anything vaguely resembling that proposal on Hamdom USA MAYBE the number of individuals licensed to actually get on HF MIGHT double. All of which is pure conjecture right there and is a real stretch at best. What is not conjecture is the fact that there is no statistical evidence which indicates that simply having a license to operate HF somehow equates to those with any new "giveaway" HF ticket actually putting together HF stations and getting 'em on the air on a 1:1 new license privs/band occupancy ratio. Quite the opposite is being demonstrated in fact. We already have tons of experience with, for example, the recent huge increase in the number of Extra Class licensees which fell out of the reduction in the code test speed for Extras. I tune the Extra 75/40/20M phone setasides today and the recently enfranchised don't seem to be there. In volume. If anything the overall activity level in those setasides is noticeably down from what it was long before the code test speed was dropped. we will no longer have the luxury to waste spectrum as we have in the past. The problem with HF ham radio, if there really is a problem, has nothing to do with whimsical "bandplans" like yours, "we need space . .. sombody might eventually do some 10Khz wide digital voice modes" or any of the rest of it. The dead spectrum problem has far more to do with getting the HF-enabled of all flavors off the Internet, off their dead butts, geting the radios, actually putting the HF antennas up and getting on the air than it does with any "bandwidth-based frequency plan" sorts of things. I would like to thank everyone who has contributed with suggestions and constructive criticism during the development of the plan. .. . . no problem, you're welcome . . The article and band chart is now on the web at: http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/ 73---Bonnie KQ6XA Brian w3rv |
|
#5
February 1st 04, 02:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes: (Expeditionradio) wrote in message ... An updated version of the entire article "A Bandwidth-Based Frequency Plan", is no available on the web at: http://www.qsl.net/kq6xa/freqplan/ Please refer to the new updated color chart of the frequency plan. Did that. For one your "30M bandplan" would require both ITU and FCC approval to implement. Good luck with that one Bonnie. And that's just the beginning. It equitably distributes the space within the allocated band so that approximately the same number of narrowband 500Hz signals vs wider bandwidth signals can share the precious spectrum resources. IOW the 'phone bands are drastically widened and the CW/digital bands drastically narrowed. Also, the incentives to upgrade are reduced, the spectrum available for modes wider than SSB is reduced. Keep in mind that the plan is mode-neutral. No, it isn't. If you can use technology to shoehorn a voice into 500Hz, then you can transmit it anywhere in the band. You may laugh, but my experience working with commercial DSP digital modulation systems proves to me that it can happen in Amateur Radio. Of course it can. But will it? If the 'phone bands are as drastically widened as proposed, why should anyone bother with 500 Hz processed voice when they have so much room for regular SSB? In our present mode-based system in USA, we have a lot of nearly-dormant band segments. On HF? Where are they? When the number of HF operators doubles overnight, *IF* the FCC buys into anything like the recent ARRL proposal AND drops anything vaguely resembling that proposal on Hamdom USA MAYBE the number of individuals licensed to actually get on HF MIGHT double. All of which is pure conjecture right there and is a real stretch at best. More like wildly optimistic. We currently have about 324,000 US hams with General, Advanced or Extra class licenses. Also at least 130,000 with Novice, TechPlus and "Tech-with-HF" licenses. If even a small percentage of them were on HF at any one time, the bands would be full to busting. What is not conjecture is the fact that there is no statistical evidence which indicates that simply having a license to operate HF somehow equates to those with any new "giveaway" HF ticket actually putting together HF stations and getting 'em on the air on a 1:1 new license privs/band occupancy ratio. BINGO! And that's not going to change much. Quite the opposite is being demonstrated in fact. We already have tons of experience with, for example, the recent huge increase in the number of Extra Class licensees which fell out of the reduction in the code test speed for Extras. And the reduction in written testing for Extra. I tune the Extra 75/40/20M phone setasides today and the recently enfranchised don't seem to be there. In volume. If anything the overall activity level in those setasides is noticeably down from what it was long before the code test speed was dropped. Don't forget sunspots. we will no longer have the luxury to waste spectrum as we have in the past. When was spectrum ever "wasted"? Is that why AM is so restricted in this plan? The problem with HF ham radio, if there really is a problem, has nothing to do with whimsical "bandplans" like yours, "we need space . . sombody might eventually do some 10Khz wide digital voice modes" or any of the rest of it. The dead spectrum problem has far more to do with getting the HF-enabled of all flavors off the Internet, off their dead butts, geting the radios, actually putting the HF antennas up and getting on the air than it does with any "bandwidth-based frequency plan" sorts of things. HEAR HEAR And *THAT'S* where the problem really is! Fiddling with licenses is only going to have a minor effect on that, if any. License changes aren't going to fix anybody's CC&Rs, or suddenly improve the sunspot number, or empower vast numbers of existing hams to figure out how to end feed a wire and actually get on the air. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#6
February 2nd 04, 06:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: Please refer to the new updated color chart of the frequency plan. Did that. For one your "30M bandplan" would require both ITU and FCC approval to implement. Good luck with that one Bonnie. And that's just the beginning. Right: I haven't rummaged thru it in real depth and I don't intend to but I'll just betcha there are more similar instances of conflicts with the ITU regs. If you can use technology to shoehorn a voice into 500Hz, then you can transmit it anywhere in the band. You may laugh, but my experience working with commercial DSP digital modulation systems proves to me that it can happen in Amateur Radio. I poked around, she's apparently big on "pack radio", using digital military HF "tactical" gear is one piece of it. She doesn't seem to understand the collections of "differences" . . ? Of course it can. But will it? If the 'phone bands are as drastically widened as proposed, why should anyone bother with 500 Hz processed voice when they have so much room for regular SSB? Is it even possible to compress digitized voice down to 500Hz? Violation of Shannon's Law? In our present mode-based system in USA, we have a lot of nearly-dormant band segments. On HF? Where are they? There really are a bunch of underutilized spaces in the 160, 80, 15 & 10M bands James. "Spectrum banks for future expansions . . " What is not conjecture is the fact that there is no statistical evidence which indicates that simply having a license to operate HF somehow equates to those with any new "giveaway" HF ticket actually putting together HF stations and getting 'em on the air on a 1:1 new license privs/band occupancy ratio. BINGO! And that's not going to change much. If anything the ratio will get worse. I've seen too many examples of new-wave 5wpm ex-Tech Extras who have yet to make the first move toward putting an HF station on the air to believe otherwise. I'm not at all convinced that expanded HF privs is all that much of an incentive to upgrade these days vs. earlier days. Prolly has more to do today with the incentive to acquire bragging rights vs. anything to do with actually operating. Quite the opposite is being demonstrated in fact. We already have tons of experience with, for example, the recent huge increase in the number of Extra Class licensees which fell out of the reduction in the code test speed for Extras. And the reduction in written testing for Extra. It's all one disgusting big dumbed-down bag of worms. I tune the Extra 75/40/20M phone setasides today and the recently enfranchised don't seem to be there. In volume. If anything the overall activity level in those setasides is noticeably down from what it was long before the code test speed was dropped. Don't forget sunspots. I'm talking about the much longer term thru the highs and the lows. In years gone by there was always chatter in the Extra phone setasides, not with just sunspot-affected dx, but with."locals". After the last FD I decided to dredge up a ragchew in the 20 phone setaside before I tore down. Usta be no sweat. I had to tune around for ten minutes until w3bv came on the air and we yakked for 45 minutes via ground path.. Mid day, the spots were middling and the dx was there. The only w's in the space were a small group of 8s & 9s and Alan (keeper of the k3jh pole) and I. All of us were old 1 x 2s. Message there. . . The dead spectrum problem has far more to do with getting the HF-enabled of all flavors off the Internet, off their dead butts, geting the radios, actually putting the HF antennas up and getting on the air than it does with any "bandwidth-based frequency plan" sorts of things. HEAR HEAR And *THAT'S* where the problem really is! Fiddling with licenses is only going to have a minor effect on that, if any. License changes aren't going to fix anybody's CC&Rs, or suddenly improve the sunspot number, or empower vast numbers of existing hams to figure out how to end feed a wire and actually get on the air. Perfect example of the results of dumbing-down. Bonnie also dumped her Master Plan into QRZ.com. Bad move. Those guys make us RRAPers look like wilted lilly nice guys in comparison. Check it out. I notice that she hasn't gone back at anybody with a single rebuttal. Whatta weenie SHE is. "Glory hound shoots self in foot." 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
|
#7
February 5th 04, 12:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#8
February 2nd 04, 06:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: Please refer to the new updated color chart of the frequency plan. Did that. For one your "30M bandplan" would require both ITU and FCC approval to implement. Good luck with that one Bonnie. And that's just the beginning. Right: I haven't rummaged thru it in real depth and I don't intend to but I'll just betcha there are more similar instances of conflicts with the ITU regs. If you can use technology to shoehorn a voice into 500Hz, then you can transmit it anywhere in the band. You may laugh, but my experience working with commercial DSP digital modulation systems proves to me that it can happen in Amateur Radio. I poked around, she's apparently big on "pack radio", using digital military HF "tactical" gear is one piece of it. She doesn't seem to understand the collections of "differences" . . ? Of course it can. But will it? If the 'phone bands are as drastically widened as proposed, why should anyone bother with 500 Hz processed voice when they have so much room for regular SSB? Is it even possible to compress digitized voice down to 500Hz? Violation of Shannon's Law? In our present mode-based system in USA, we have a lot of nearly-dormant band segments. On HF? Where are they? There really are a bunch of underutilized spaces in the 160, 80, 15 & 10M bands James. "Spectrum banks for future expansions . . " What is not conjecture is the fact that there is no statistical evidence which indicates that simply having a license to operate HF somehow equates to those with any new "giveaway" HF ticket actually putting together HF stations and getting 'em on the air on a 1:1 new license privs/band occupancy ratio. BINGO! And that's not going to change much. If anything the ratio will get worse. I've seen too many examples of new-wave 5wpm ex-Tech Extras who have yet to make the first move toward putting an HF station on the air to believe otherwise. I'm not at all convinced that expanded HF privs is all that much of an incentive to upgrade these days vs. earlier days. Prolly has more to do today with the incentive to acquire bragging rights vs. anything to do with actually operating. Quite the opposite is being demonstrated in fact. We already have tons of experience with, for example, the recent huge increase in the number of Extra Class licensees which fell out of the reduction in the code test speed for Extras. And the reduction in written testing for Extra. It's all one disgusting big dumbed-down bag of worms. I tune the Extra 75/40/20M phone setasides today and the recently enfranchised don't seem to be there. In volume. If anything the overall activity level in those setasides is noticeably down from what it was long before the code test speed was dropped. Don't forget sunspots. I'm talking about the much longer term thru the highs and the lows. In years gone by there was always chatter in the Extra phone setasides, not with just sunspot-affected dx, but with."locals". After the last FD I decided to dredge up a ragchew in the 20 phone setaside before I tore down. Usta be no sweat. I had to tune around for ten minutes until w3bv came on the air and we yakked for 45 minutes via ground path.. Mid day, the spots were middling and the dx was there. The only w's in the space were a small group of 8s & 9s and Alan (keeper of the k3jh pole) and I. All of us were old 1 x 2s. Message there. . . The dead spectrum problem has far more to do with getting the HF-enabled of all flavors off the Internet, off their dead butts, geting the radios, actually putting the HF antennas up and getting on the air than it does with any "bandwidth-based frequency plan" sorts of things. HEAR HEAR And *THAT'S* where the problem really is! Fiddling with licenses is only going to have a minor effect on that, if any. License changes aren't going to fix anybody's CC&Rs, or suddenly improve the sunspot number, or empower vast numbers of existing hams to figure out how to end feed a wire and actually get on the air. Perfect example of the results of dumbing-down. Bonnie also dumped her Master Plan into QRZ.com. Bad move. Those guys make us RRAPers look like wilted lilly nice guys in comparison. Check it out. I notice that she hasn't gone back at anybody with a single rebuttal. Whatta weenie SHE is. "Glory hound shoots self in foot." 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Phase frequency Detector | Homebrew | |||
| BETTER HF FREQUENCY PLAN for AMATEUR RADIO | Policy | |||
| Drake TR-3 transceiver synthesizer upgrade | Homebrew | |||
| Drake TR-3 transceiver synthesizer upgrade | Homebrew | |||
| Low reenlistment rate | Policy | |||
Hybrid Mode
