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

(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

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

(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

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(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.

Not a big problem at all, most of ITU doesn't really care anyway.

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" . . ?

Obviously not.

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?

In theory, yes. There are tradeoffs, of course.

And practice is another thing entirely.

Violation of Shannon's Law?

Not at all. But Shannon forces tradeoffs.

Here's one way to do it....

You're familar with PSK-31, which at the most basic level is a form of
amplitude and phase shift keying. (the amplitude part involves carefully
shutting off the carrier during phase transitions to reduce the bandwidth).

Anyway, with the basic PSK-31 signal you get a certain number of bits
in a 31.5 Hz wide channel. If you use BPSK, the bit rate is the same as
the baud rate. BPSK (binary phase shift keying) simply means the
system recognizes two phase states - 0 and 180 degrees.

But by adding more phase states, we can send more bits in the same
bandwidth. With four states (0, 90, 180, 270), we can send twice as
many bits in the same bandwidth. You can theoretically just keep on
adding phase states and send more bits.

Now since one PSK-31 signal needs only 31.5 Hz, you could in theory fit
about 16 of them in a 500 Hz channel, giving you 16 times as many bits.

Of course anybody who's done real engineering knows that there's
always a tradeoff. And the tradeoff is signal to noise ratio. In the case
of PSK, adding phase states increases the susceptibility to any phase jitter
or noise in the system - receiver, transmitter or path, be it wire or radio or
fiber.

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 . . "

Where?

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.

Also ex-Tech Generals.

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.

Maybe. Or maybe the license is the easy part and the station is the tough
part.

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.

Which isn't going to change much anytime soon.

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.

Part of that is simply exhaustion after FD. Often brought about by folks
who don't know how to pace themselves. There's also the few who work
themselves into the ground for the benefit of the sidewalk superintendent
group...

. . 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 did.

I notice that she hasn't gone back at anybody with a single rebuttal.

That's changed, but it's basically a preaching session.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

I notice that she hasn't gone back at anybody with a single rebuttal.

That's changed, but it's basically a preaching session.

Does this mean we can expect another Sermon On The Antenna Mount
soon?

Show us the Righteousness of the True Path...

LHA / WMD

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

I notice that she hasn't gone back at anybody with a single rebuttal.

That's changed, but it's basically a preaching session.

Does this mean we can expect another Sermon On The Antenna Mount
soon?

Show us the Righteousness of the True Path...

It should be apparent to you, Leonard. They're discussing matters
dealing with amateur radio. You've delivered bushels of sermons here
but you have zip to do with amateur radio. Instead, you entertain us
with tales of how the commercials do things and of your military
exploits of fifty years back.

Your claims of being here only to engage in civil debate on morse
testing elimination ring very hollow.

Dave K8MN

(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