| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
January 29th 04, 01:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
We Need a BANDWIDTH-BASED Frequency Plan - NOT Mode-Based.
==WE NEED A BANDWIDTH-BASED FREQUENCY PLAN==
FOR THE FUTURE OF AMATEUR RADIO Bravo! for the new ARRL proposal in the works for code-free license restructuring. It is long overdue, and it is a great step forward! ARRL: Thank you for all your work... Please consider that, due to recent radio technology and the proposed changes to licensing structure, we desperately need a better frequency plan than the olde "Novice Refarming Proposal" from the 1990s that was pulled off a dusty shelf. Instead, we need a "Bandwidth-Based Frequency Plan" for the next decade or more. DIGITAL MODULATION IS THE FUTURE Digital modulation and processing is changing the way we communicate and coexist in the HF frequency spectrum. With the multitude of new digital and analog modulation schemes, including "digital voice", there are compelling reasons to integrate voice, CW, data, image, and keyboarding "modes". Hams want to be able to use existing technology to simultaneously keyboard, exchange multimedia files, and talk by voice with each other on the same frequency... something our present rules prevent on HF. MODE IS NO LONGER A VALID DEFINITION Due to technology changes, the old definitions of what a "mode" is are now blurred beyond recognition. Existing band/mode rules are stifling creativity. ARE WE NOT COMMUNICATORS? One example of how our present plan stifles communication is by keeping USA amateurs segregated and actually preventing us from communicating with the rest of the world on the 40 and 80/75 meter bands. Hams want to be able to communicate via voice internationally on the 40m and 80m ham bands. HF FREQUENCY PLAN BY EMISSION BANDWIDTH - NOT MODE If we are to continue to advance amateur radio into the future, we need MODE FLEXIBILITY. 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. Here is a better HF Frequency Plan for Amateur Radio in USA. MODE-BASED HF FREQUENCY PLAN USA kHz 1800 to 2000 any mode 500Hz bandwidth 1830 to 2000 any mode 3kHz bandwidth 3500 to 4000 any mode 500Hz bandwidth 3600 to 4000 any mode 3kHz bandwidth 5MHz channels - mode 2.8kHz bandwidth 7000 to 7300 any mode 500Hz bandwidth 7075 to 7300 any mode 3kHz bandwidth 10100 to 10150 any mode 500kHz bandwidth 10115 to 10150 any mode 3kHz bandwidth 14000 to 14300 any mode 500Hz bandwidth 14075 to 14350 any mode 3kHz bandwidth 18068 to 18168 any mode 500Hz bandwidth 18080 to 18168 any mode 3kHz bandwidth 21000 to 21450 any mode 500Hz bandwidth 21100 to 21450 any mode 3kHz bandwidth 21350 to 21450 any mode 10kHz bandwidth 24890 to 24990 any mode 3kHz bandwidth 28000 to 29700 any mode 500Hz bandwidth 28100 to 29700 any mode 3kHz bandwidth 28600 to 29700 any mode 10kHz bandwidth NEW AMATEUR EXTRA - ALL FREQUENCIES - ALL BANDS. "NEW GENERAL" and "NEW NOVICE" BANDS ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING FREQUENCY PLAN: kHz 1800 to 2000 GENERAL 3510 to 3600 GENERAL AND NOVICE 3650 to 4000 GENERAL 3700 to 4000 NOVICE 5MHz channels GENERAL 7010 to 7075 GENERAL 7025 to 7075 NOVICE 7100 to 7300 GENERAL 7150 to 7300 NOVICE 10100 to 10150 GENERAL 14010 to 14075 GENERAL 14025 to 14075 NOVICE 14150 to 14350 GENERAL 14250 to 14350 NOVICE 18068 to 18168 GENERAL, NOVICE 21010 to 21100 GENERAL, NOVICE 21100 to 21450 GENERAL 21250 to 21450 NOVICE 24890 to 24990 GENERAL, NOVICE 28000 to 29700 GENERAL, NOVICE BY YEAR 2010, 30% OF ALL HAMS WILL BE NOVICE OPERATORS Under the new ARRL proposed license restructuring plan, the number of amateur radio operators on HF will increase dramatically. This is good. We need this to preserve our frequency allocations. We will see a vast increase in the number of "New Novices". The new Novice operators will be valuable emergency communicators, so we need to make room in our bands for them to communicate. 73---Bonnie KQ6XA ARRL Member .. |
|
#2
January 29th 04, 11:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bonnie, KQ6XA, posted:
==WE NEED A BANDWIDTH-BASED FREQUENCY PLAN== deletia 1830 to 2000 any mode 3kHz bandwidth 3600 to 4000 any mode 3kHz bandwidth 7075 to 7300 any mode 3kHz bandwidth |
|
#3
January 29th 04, 05:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#4
January 29th 04, 10:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
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 |
|
#8
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 |
|
#9
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 |
| 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 | |||
Linear Mode
