Hi Anthony,
There is room for them. For example on 20 meters from 14.100 to 14.112 and
perhaps higher. On 80 meters we are crunched as the FCC took away a big
chuck of digital spectrum a few years ago. If we can get that back, that a
great place to wide band digital experiments to take place. On 160 meters
the current band plan already has a sub band named experimental.
We also need to address moving "un-neighborly" packet robots into the
experimental digital sub band as well.
This could be very positive if we unite. Remember 99% of the hams use
traditional modes of CW, RTTY and SSB. The Winlink folks are less than 1
percent there are currently NO wide band use. Somehow the Winlink folks
have the ear of the ARRL but their system is so flawed with a bit of
education I feel we can easily reverse that.
We just need a sub band for wide band experiments and to place the
"un-neighborly" packet robots. If we can get that we are ahead of where we
were before RM-11708. Perhaps there will be some great RTTY like modes
that come out of the new unregulated experiments. If something positive is
developed, it can be let out of the experimental sub-band (sandbox) and
allowed into the main stream RTTY sub band.
Terry AB5K
-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Anthony (N2KI)
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 11:30 AM
To: RTTY
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Response to ARRL request for inputs for new Band Plan
Wideband will definitely become an issue. We already are squeezing into the
band plan as it is. Unless the FCC plans on expanding the amateur frequency
allocations beyond their current boundaries, there is no arena for wide band
digital. There just isn't enough room.
Anthony (N2KI)
Sent from my mobile
On Mar 16, 2014 12:11 PM, "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com> wrote:
>
> > Thoughts?
>
> If the Commission agrees to ARRL's stupidity, any bandplan should
> restrict wideband digital to existing "automatic control" sub bands
> and only on amateur bands where there is a *separate* "RTTY, data"
> allocation of more than 125 KHz.
>
> As shown regularly on 80, 30, and 17 meters, with less than 125 KHz
> there is simply not enough spectrum to support large numbers of wide
> bandwidth digital operations without significant levels of asymmetric
> interference to narrow band operations (which represent 99+% of all
> non-voice/image operations).
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 3/16/2014 11:45 AM, Terry wrote:
>
>> We now have 2 weeks left to respond to the ARRL request for inputs to the
>> new band plan. There are several options:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. A few submit band plans that are useful but are not 100 percent
>> aligned. A lot of folks want to get involved but just don't have
>> time or possibly technical /writing experience to get involved.
>>
>> 2. We organize, form a committee of recognized RTTY operators and
>> develop a plan. That plan is published in one week just in time for
>> folks
>> who are busy to simply send a email to the band plan committee saying
>> "I agree with the band plan inputs provided by the " RTTY Spectral
>> Defense Band
>> Plan Committee". They can also add in personal comments as well but
>> having 'a plan" shows we are serious and aligned. It also saves the
>> band plan committee sorting thru a bunch of non-aligned plans.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
>> Terry AB5K
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|