Butch et all,
Considering you mentioned F3 layer HF propagation and PACTOR interference of
PSK31 in one email
I wanted to make everyone aware of another IPS Australia F3 layer .pdf file:
http://www.kn4lf.com/F3layer.pdf
73,
Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF
Retired Space & Atmospheric Weather Forecaster
Plant City, FL, USA
Grid Square EL87WX
Lat & Long 27 58 33.6397 N 82 09 52.4052 W
kn4lf@arrl.net
Propagation eGroup: http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/propagation
PropNET Beacon Program: http://www.propnet.org
KN4LF Daily Solar Space Weather & Geomagnetic Data Archive:
http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf5.htm
KN4LF HF/MF Frequency Radio Propagation Theory Notes:
http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf8.htm
KN4LF Amateur & SWL Radio History: http://www.kn4lf.com/index.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: Butch Mason
To: psk31@bipt106.bi.ehu.es
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 5:36 PM
Subject: [psk31] Re: ARRL Band Plan and Pactor QRM
Hello Fellow Amateur Radio Operators,
Gentlemen, I know the subjects go well beyond the bounds of PSK31 per
se but the readership, including the inventor, appear to be able to think
beyond the bounds of the method. I applaud your ability to do so. I
believe today's Amateur Radio hobby is sorely in need of people like you. I
would like to introduce a totally different viewpoint. We are on the
threshold of finding methods of utilizing the F3 layer of the Ionosphere.
Yes, there is an F3 layer which was discovered by Ionosphere Sounders some 7
years ago ( see http://www.ips.gov.au/IPSHosted/STSP/aip/arayne/f3web.pdf).
That reference was supplied by Ev Tupis, W2EV on the PropNet yahoo group. I
have been greatly encouraged by that very scholarly 11 page document. It
appears to me that history is repeating itself in regard to the destiny of
Amateur Radio. Back in the early days of Amateur Radio the legislators
attempted to get rid of we pests by giving us 200 meters and down (See
Clinton DeSoto's book on the subject --- it's in the ARRL publications
list). As a result, Amateurs found we could utilize a thing known only to a
few academics and they were being ignored. That thing was the Ionosphere,
particularly the F1 and F2 layers. We now face a new but similar
legislative dilemma but there is evidence that we will survive through use
and development of a little known natural phenomena. I can supply some
information regarding the surprising characteristics of the F3 layer and
make recommendations regarding practical use of the remarkable F3 layer if
anyone is interested. I strongly recommend a perusal of "200 Meters and
Down".
Aloha -- Butch -- W6KAG
.
----- Original Message -----
From: <psk31-request@bipt106.bi.ehu.es>
To: <psk31@bipt106.bi.ehu.es>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 10:08 AM
Subject: Psk31 Digest, Vol 19, Issue 7
> Send Psk31 mailing list submissions to
> psk31@aintel.bi.ehu.es
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://aintel.bi.ehu.es/mailman/listinfo/psk31
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> psk31-request@aintel.bi.ehu.es
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> psk31-owner@aintel.bi.ehu.es
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Psk31 digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. ARRL Band Plan (Charles Greene)
> 2. Re: ARRL Band Plan (Tom Rauch)
> 3. Pactor QRM and bandplans (Peter Martinez)
> 4. Re: Pactor QRM and bandplans (awallacejr@sbcglobal.net)
> 5. Re: ARRL Band Plan (Sandy, W5TVW)
> 6. Re: Pactor QRM and bandplans (awallacejr@sbcglobal.net)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 06:00:29 -0500
> From: Charles Greene <W1CG@QSL.NET>
> Subject: [psk31] ARRL Band Plan
> To: psk31@bipt106.bi.ehu.es
> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20041112054258.01a68d10@pop.east.cox.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> Sandy and All,
>
> Unfortunately, the ARRL is in bed with the Pactor guys, and their proposal
> does not protect the narrow bandwidth modes like CW and PSK31. The
> release
> of Digipan 2.0 is an attempt to identify Pactor II stations that cause the
> interference and hold them responsible. See: http://www.digipan.net I
> have found for the most part that MFSK and RTTY stations use a different
> sub-band.
>
> At this point, about the only thing we can do is to comment to the FCC
> when
> the their proposal is released about interference we have experienced and
> perhaps there is a chance they will recognize the "semi-automatic"
> stations
> for what they really are, and assign such operation to the "automatic"
> sub-band. Note that the ARRL modified their proposal to keep the
> "semi-automatic" Pactor III stations out of the phone band. We psk31
> operators aren't numerous enough to have any political punch.
>
> 73, Chas W1CG
>
> You wrote:
>>have tried to emphasize that all the amateurs comply with the bandplan or
>>have it
>>changed so there will be no conflicts. Anyone who has operated the narrow
>>band digital modes (PSK) knows it isn't compatible in the same sub-band
>>with the wider digital modes (RTTY, MFSK, PACTOR, etc.) It is little to
>>ask
>>for a small sliver of exclusive narrow band digital territory (PSK). The
>>present
>>slices are usually adequate unless there appears a "power hog" or someone
>>driving his rig too hard with the sound card yielding many spurious
>>"sidebands".
>>Most of the PSK people I have worked who are "broad" are eager to get
>>things
>>right. Many, many stations can be accommodated in a 3-5 Khz slice of the
>>band.
>>
>>Also, if we allow unattended "mailbox" type operation all over the digital
>>sub-
>>bands, we will certainly wind up with a situation like happened to 2 meter
>>"packet" operation years ago, where the sysop/forwarding unattended
>>stations
>>wound up completely dominating 145.01Mhz, and prevented the individual
>>"keyboard" operator from experimenting/ragchewing/DXing.
>>
>>Hopefully ARRL will see this as well in their "bandwidth sub-band"
>>proposal to
>>the FCC. Only you, the PSK operator, can help prevent PSK from being
>>dominated by the "wideband" digital operators/mailboxes.
>>
>>73,
>>Sandy W5TVW
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 07:40:14 -0500
> From: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [psk31] ARRL Band Plan
> To: <psk31@bipt106.bi.ehu.es>, "Charles Greene" <W1CG@QSL.NET>
> Message-ID: <010a01c4c8b4$c2a861e0$6501a8c0@akorn.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>> Unfortunately, the ARRL is in bed with the Pactor guys,
> and their proposal
>> does not protect the narrow bandwidth modes like CW and
> PSK31.
>
> I don't know why the ARRL behaves the way they do about
> common sense issues.
>
> When I saw the automatic transmission changes, I thought
> "here we go again".
>
> Same for 160. Every band gets a narrow mode area except 160,
> because one person (my sources tell me it is all driven by
> ONE person) decides he wants things a certain way.
>
> It's a lot like BPL. The Bush administration decides it's a
> good thing, and common sense flies out the window.
>
> Technical decisions should be made by technical people, not
> politicians.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:44:52 -0000
> From: "Peter Martinez" <Peter.Martinez@btinternet.com>
> Subject: [psk31] Pactor QRM and bandplans
> To: "PSK31" <psk31@aintel.bi.ehu.es>
> Message-ID: <006401c4c8b5$8494da40$b0797ad5@noname>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>>From Peter G3PLX:
>
> Sandy's proposal for a little bit of band exclusively for PSK31 would be a
> great idea but I am afraid it wouldn't be workable. PSK31 is just one of
> an
> ever-increasing number of digital modes. We couldn't expect the
> band-planners to allocate exclusive sub-bands for all of them, and keep up
> with the changing fashions in new modes.
>
> In the beginning there were only two modes, phone and CW. The bandplan was
> simple. CW at the bottom, phone at the top. Then there was RTTY, and that
> started up between CW and phone. Then it got more complicated, with AMTOR,
> then packet, and now there are a dozen or more modes competing for space.
>
> Some years ago I realised that, although in the old days we divided the
> band
> into CW and phone with the idea of minimising interference, it was
> actually
> the fact that the two modes had widely different bandwidths that caused us
> to want to keep them apart. Although the labels we put the band segments
> were "CW" and "phone", we were really saying that we wanted to keep the
> narrow mode separate from the wide mode. Look at how RTTY (with a
> bandwidth
> wider than CW but narrower than phone) started up BETWEEN phone and CW. If
> the new RTTY fans had operated higher or lower, they would have suffered
> and
> caused more interference. Look at how packet, with a bandwidth wider than
> RTTY, found it's home between RTTY and SSB. It was no accident that PSK31
> found it's home between CW and the other (wider) digital modes. There is a
> subconscious logic to all this: the least conflict occurs if the
> bandwidths
> of the signals each side of you are similar to yours, so that's where you
> operate. We have been doing this all along without realising it.
>
> This led to the emergence of what I will call the "bandwidth philosophy".
> I
> suggested (and I wasn't alone) that instead of planning our bands by mode
> (which is getting more and more difficult), we could plan by bandwidth.
> Logically we put the narrowest bandwidths at the bottom of the bands and
> the
> widest at the top, because that's what we have always done. This way, we
> would not have to keep track of the ever-increasing development of new
> modes
> (and the decline of others), and yet we would always have maximum harmony
> between competing modes.
>
> This idea was first "launched" at the IARU region 1 conference in 2002,
> and
> all the member countries supported the idea, although there were naturally
> misgivings in some quarters as to how it would work out. Two countries, UK
> and Germany, chose to "field trial" bandplans based on this concept.
>
> The benefits of this philosophy are already beginning to be seen, and not
> just in UK and Germany. Previously ALL digital modes were permitted
> throughout the "digital" sub-bands, and the recent emergence of wide
> digital
> modes (Pactor-3) could have created high levels of conflict, but if you
> listen around the bands you will see that Pactor-3 activity (like MT63,
> which is also wide), is taking place at the top end of the digital
> sub-bands. Even without any change in the regulations, if everyone keeps
> to
> this concept of organising our bands and sub-bands into narrow at the
> bottom
> and wide at the top, we should end up with the least interference. The
> process of a gradual reduction in the emphasis on "mode", while increasing
> the emphasis on "bandwidth" continues in Region 1 and looks likely to
> become
> a universal principle.
>
> At this point, the ARRL published it's "bandwidth" proposal. On the face
> of
> it this was a good move, but unfortunately it has gone badly wrong. The
> whole idea of the "bandwidth philosophy" was not to change the AMOUNT of
> spectrum allocated to different activities within amateur radio as a
> whole,
> but simply to change the way we label it. What went wrong was that ARRL,
> when they chose to jump on the "bandwidthwagon", they also chose to
> allocate
> more spectrum to one specific type of activity at the expense of others.
> This favoured activity was that of third-party digital message-handling.
>
> The ARRL proposal has therefore angered a lot of people who see the
> expansion of third-party digital message-handling (in which
> Winlink-with-Pactor is the only significant player) as undesirable. A lot
> of people want the whole idea of "bandwidth sub-bands" thrown out because
> it
> is seen as a trick by the ARRL (supported by Winlink) to gain more
> spectrum
> for Winlink at the expense of the rest of us.
>
> This is really unfortunate. Let me come back to Sandy's complaint and how
> we
> are to solve it if we cannot continue to divide the bands into ever
> smaller
> sub-bands. The answer is to start thinking of our activities in terms of
> their different bandwidths rather than by the names by which we know them,
> and organise them appropriately. It's great that the ARRL are supporting
> this concept, but they should have introduced it on it's own. Packaging
> this
> new concept with their own plans to encourage one activity over others,
> was
> a terrible idea. It would be a great shame if the bandwidth concept never
> took-off in USA because of objections to Winlink.
>
> Does the bandwidth philosophy solve all QRM problems? Not necessarily. If
> all activity were by live operators sitting in front of their rigs with
> one
> hand on the tuning knob, the vast majority of QRM problems - between
> activities of the same bandwidth - can be resolved fairly peacefully,
> simply
> because both sides "win" if they avoid each other. You can see how this
> works already if you listen to the SSTV activity, which is the same
> bandwidth as SSB and lives in a little sub-band within the SSB segment
> without conflict. The real problem occurs when one of the activities is
> NOT
> by a live operator. Such activity doesn't QSY away from QRM. In the case
> of
> simple unattended transmitters like beacons, we can learn to live with
> them
> because they are few and their behaviour is predictable. In the case of
> unattended Pactor mailboxes they are numerous, unpredictable, and because
> of
> the way they repeat everything that is corrupted by the QRM they receive,
> they always cause more QRM than they suffer. This brings us back to why
> there are objections to the ARRL proposal. They are not objections to the
> bandwidth philosophy as such, but objections to the proposed expansion of
> unattended activity which doesn't behave in the sociable way that live
> operators have
> always done.
>
> If we DO choose to permit some amateurs to let their transmitters operate
> in
> this way without supervision, we cannot let the bands be "self-regulated"
> by
> the bandwidth concept alone. We MUST have some control over unattended
> activity on the amateur bands. This is a fundamental principle, and one
> which some countries already recognise. If the activity involves the
> licensee listening and responding to the effect of the transmissions he
> makes, then this activity is self-regulating and can take place within the
> terms of the ordinary license. If it's a beacon, repeater, or mailbox, it
> needs some external control process to replace the missing self-regulation
> mechanism inherent in "normal" amateur radio activity. In the case of
> Pactor
> mailboxes on the HF bands, we should not have a situation where anyone can
> say "I am going to run a mailbox". There should be some central
> organisation, answerable to the community as a whole, that decides how
> many
> of these things are needed, and where they should operate. It's
> interesting
> to note that in the two countries (UK and Germany) where the bandwidth
> plan
> has been trialled successfully, all beacons, repeaters, and mailboxes
> already have to be specially licensed. If there is no hope of there being
> an organisation with the power to do this in a particular country, then we
> shouldn't allow unattended activity at all.
>
> 73
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:52:21 -0600
> From: <awallacejr@sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: [psk31] Pactor QRM and bandplans
> To: "Peter Martinez" <Peter.Martinez@btinternet.com>, "PSK31"
> <psk31@aintel.bi.ehu.es>
> Cc: w5jbp@arrl.org
> Message-ID: <01e401c4c8c7$37914190$7201a8c0@ANDYPRO64>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Hi Peter--
>
> Very well thought out approach--hope the ARRL is listening. I have found
> them to be pretty reasonable given their huge and not always in agreement
> membership.
>
> Andy Wallace K5VM
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Martinez" <Peter.Martinez@btinternet.com>
> To: "PSK31" <psk31@aintel.bi.ehu.es>
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 6:44 AM
> Subject: [psk31] Pactor QRM and bandplans
>
>
>> >From Peter G3PLX:
>>
>> Sandy's proposal for a little bit of band exclusively for PSK31 would be
>> a
>> great idea but I am afraid it wouldn't be workable. PSK31 is just one of
>> an
>> ever-increasing number of digital modes. We couldn't expect the
>> band-planners to allocate exclusive sub-bands for all of them, and keep
>> up
>> with the changing fashions in new modes.
>>
>> In the beginning there were only two modes, phone and CW. The bandplan
>> was
>> simple. CW at the bottom, phone at the top. Then there was RTTY, and that
>> started up between CW and phone. Then it got more complicated, with
>> AMTOR,
>> then packet, and now there are a dozen or more modes competing for space.
>>
>> Some years ago I realised that, although in the old days we divided the
>> band
>> into CW and phone with the idea of minimising interference, it was
>> actually
>> the fact that the two modes had widely different bandwidths that caused
>> us
>> to want to keep them apart. Although the labels we put the band segments
>> were "CW" and "phone", we were really saying that we wanted to keep the
>> narrow mode separate from the wide mode. Look at how RTTY (with a
>> bandwidth
>> wider than CW but narrower than phone) started up BETWEEN phone and CW.
>> If
>> the new RTTY fans had operated higher or lower, they would have suffered
>> and
>> caused more interference. Look at how packet, with a bandwidth wider than
>> RTTY, found it's home between RTTY and SSB. It was no accident that PSK31
>> found it's home between CW and the other (wider) digital modes. There is
>> a
>> subconscious logic to all this: the least conflict occurs if the
>> bandwidths
>> of the signals each side of you are similar to yours, so that's where you
>> operate. We have been doing this all along without realising it.
>>
>> This led to the emergence of what I will call the "bandwidth philosophy".
>> I
>> suggested (and I wasn't alone) that instead of planning our bands by mode
>> (which is getting more and more difficult), we could plan by bandwidth.
>> Logically we put the narrowest bandwidths at the bottom of the bands and
>> the
>> widest at the top, because that's what we have always done. This way, we
>> would not have to keep track of the ever-increasing development of new
>> modes
>> (and the decline of others), and yet we would always have maximum harmony
>> between competing modes.
>>
>> This idea was first "launched" at the IARU region 1 conference in 2002,
>> and
>> all the member countries supported the idea, although there were
>> naturally
>> misgivings in some quarters as to how it would work out. Two countries,
>> UK
>> and Germany, chose to "field trial" bandplans based on this concept.
>>
>> The benefits of this philosophy are already beginning to be seen, and not
>> just in UK and Germany. Previously ALL digital modes were permitted
>> throughout the "digital" sub-bands, and the recent emergence of wide
>> digital
>> modes (Pactor-3) could have created high levels of conflict, but if you
>> listen around the bands you will see that Pactor-3 activity (like MT63,
>> which is also wide), is taking place at the top end of the digital
>> sub-bands. Even without any change in the regulations, if everyone keeps
>> to
>> this concept of organising our bands and sub-bands into narrow at the
>> bottom
>> and wide at the top, we should end up with the least interference. The
>> process of a gradual reduction in the emphasis on "mode", while
>> increasing
>> the emphasis on "bandwidth" continues in Region 1 and looks likely to
>> become
>> a universal principle.
>>
>> At this point, the ARRL published it's "bandwidth" proposal. On the face
>> of
>> it this was a good move, but unfortunately it has gone badly wrong. The
>> whole idea of the "bandwidth philosophy" was not to change the AMOUNT of
>> spectrum allocated to different activities within amateur radio as a
>> whole,
>> but simply to change the way we label it. What went wrong was that ARRL,
>> when they chose to jump on the "bandwidthwagon", they also chose to
>> allocate
>> more spectrum to one specific type of activity at the expense of others.
>> This favoured activity was that of third-party digital message-handling.
>>
>> The ARRL proposal has therefore angered a lot of people who see the
>> expansion of third-party digital message-handling (in which
>> Winlink-with-Pactor is the only significant player) as undesirable. A lot
>> of people want the whole idea of "bandwidth sub-bands" thrown out because
>> it
>> is seen as a trick by the ARRL (supported by Winlink) to gain more
>> spectrum
>> for Winlink at the expense of the rest of us.
>>
>> This is really unfortunate. Let me come back to Sandy's complaint and how
>> we
>> are to solve it if we cannot continue to divide the bands into ever
>> smaller
>> sub-bands. The answer is to start thinking of our activities in terms of
>> their different bandwidths rather than by the names by which we know
>> them,
>> and organise them appropriately. It's great that the ARRL are supporting
>> this concept, but they should have introduced it on it's own. Packaging
>> this
>> new concept with their own plans to encourage one activity over others,
>> was
>> a terrible idea. It would be a great shame if the bandwidth concept never
>> took-off in USA because of objections to Winlink.
>>
>> Does the bandwidth philosophy solve all QRM problems? Not necessarily.
>> If
>> all activity were by live operators sitting in front of their rigs with
>> one
>> hand on the tuning knob, the vast majority of QRM problems - between
>> activities of the same bandwidth - can be resolved fairly peacefully,
>> simply
>> because both sides "win" if they avoid each other. You can see how this
>> works already if you listen to the SSTV activity, which is the same
>> bandwidth as SSB and lives in a little sub-band within the SSB segment
>> without conflict. The real problem occurs when one of the activities is
>> NOT
>> by a live operator. Such activity doesn't QSY away from QRM. In the case
>> of
>> simple unattended transmitters like beacons, we can learn to live with
>> them
>> because they are few and their behaviour is predictable. In the case of
>> unattended Pactor mailboxes they are numerous, unpredictable, and because
>> of
>> the way they repeat everything that is corrupted by the QRM they receive,
>> they always cause more QRM than they suffer. This brings us back to why
>> there are objections to the ARRL proposal. They are not objections to the
>> bandwidth philosophy as such, but objections to the proposed expansion of
>> unattended activity which doesn't behave in the sociable way that live
>> operators have
>> always done.
>>
>> If we DO choose to permit some amateurs to let their transmitters operate
>> in
>> this way without supervision, we cannot let the bands be "self-regulated"
>> by
>> the bandwidth concept alone. We MUST have some control over unattended
>> activity on the amateur bands. This is a fundamental principle, and one
>> which some countries already recognise. If the activity involves the
>> licensee listening and responding to the effect of the transmissions he
>> makes, then this activity is self-regulating and can take place within
>> the
>> terms of the ordinary license. If it's a beacon, repeater, or mailbox, it
>> needs some external control process to replace the missing
>> self-regulation
>> mechanism inherent in "normal" amateur radio activity. In the case of
>> Pactor
>> mailboxes on the HF bands, we should not have a situation where anyone
>> can
>> say "I am going to run a mailbox". There should be some central
>> organisation, answerable to the community as a whole, that decides how
>> many
>> of these things are needed, and where they should operate. It's
>> interesting
>> to note that in the two countries (UK and Germany) where the bandwidth
>> plan
>> has been trialled successfully, all beacons, repeaters, and mailboxes
>> already have to be specially licensed. If there is no hope of there
>> being
>> an organisation with the power to do this in a particular country, then
>> we
>> shouldn't allow unattended activity at all.
>>
>> 73
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Keep in mind that only registered email addresses can post in the list.
>> Psk31 WWW Site at http://aintel.bi.ehu.es/psk31.html
>> Psk31 list info at: http://aintel.bi.ehu.es/mailman/listinfo/psk31
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:21:01 -0600
> From: "Sandy, W5TVW" <ebjr@i-55.com>
> Subject: Re: [psk31] ARRL Band Plan
> To: <psk31@bipt106.bi.ehu.es>, "Charles Greene" <W1CG@QSL.NET>
> Message-ID: <005101c4c8cb$38eeb1e0$be9ecdd1@s0023531634>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> True! But unfortunately, there are a few using PACTOR who want things all
> their way!
> This is a repeat of my packet trials and tribulations of years ago. The
> "packet
> baron" who was trying to run packet in the state would not listen to
> anything
> that wasn't HIS idea!
> It seems to me the bunch at ARRL is not at all different from the FCC
> commissioners.
> There it's "High tech to the forefront", to hell with anything else. Kind
> of like
> the old "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" mindset.
> 73,
> Sandy W5TVW
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Charles Greene" <W1CG@QSL.NET>
> To: <psk31@bipt106.bi.ehu.es>
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 5:00 AM
> Subject: [psk31] ARRL Band Plan
>
>
> | Sandy and All,
> |
> | Unfortunately, the ARRL is in bed with the Pactor guys, and their
> proposal
> | does not protect the narrow bandwidth modes like CW and PSK31. The
> release
> | of Digipan 2.0 is an attempt to identify Pactor II stations that cause
> the
> | interference and hold them responsible. See: http://www.digipan.net I
> | have found for the most part that MFSK and RTTY stations use a different
> | sub-band.
> |
> | At this point, about the only thing we can do is to comment to the FCC
> when
> | the their proposal is released about interference we have experienced
> and
> | perhaps there is a chance they will recognize the "semi-automatic"
> stations
> | for what they really are, and assign such operation to the "automatic"
> | sub-band. Note that the ARRL modified their proposal to keep the
> | "semi-automatic" Pactor III stations out of the phone band. We psk31
> | operators aren't numerous enough to have any political punch.
> |
> | 73, Chas W1CG
> |
> | You wrote:
> | >have tried to emphasize that all the amateurs comply with the bandplan
> or
> | >have it
> | >changed so there will be no conflicts. Anyone who has operated the
> narrow
> | >band digital modes (PSK) knows it isn't compatible in the same sub-band
> | >with the wider digital modes (RTTY, MFSK, PACTOR, etc.) It is little
> to ask
> | >for a small sliver of exclusive narrow band digital territory (PSK).
> The
> | >present
> | >slices are usually adequate unless there appears a "power hog" or
> someone
> | >driving his rig too hard with the sound card yielding many spurious
> | >"sidebands".
> | >Most of the PSK people I have worked who are "broad" are eager to get
> things
> | >right. Many, many stations can be accommodated in a 3-5 Khz slice of
> the
> | >band.
> | >
> | >Also, if we allow unattended "mailbox" type operation all over the
> digital
> | >sub-
> | >bands, we will certainly wind up with a situation like happened to 2
> meter
> | >"packet" operation years ago, where the sysop/forwarding unattended
> stations
> | >wound up completely dominating 145.01Mhz, and prevented the individual
> | >"keyboard" operator from experimenting/ragchewing/DXing.
> | >
> | >Hopefully ARRL will see this as well in their "bandwidth sub-band"
> proposal to
> | >the FCC. Only you, the PSK operator, can help prevent PSK from being
> | >dominated by the "wideband" digital operators/mailboxes.
> | >
> | >73,
> | >Sandy W5TVW
> |
> |
> |
> | _______________________________________________
> | Keep in mind that only registered email addresses can post in the list.
> | Psk31 WWW Site at http://aintel.bi.ehu.es/psk31.html
> | Psk31 list info at: http://aintel.bi.ehu.es/mailman/listinfo/psk31
> |
> |
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:21:55 -0600
> From: <awallacejr@sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: [psk31] Pactor QRM and bandplans
> To: <W5JBP@aol.com>, "\"Peter Martinez\""
> <Peter.Martinez@btinternet.com>, "\"PSK31\"" <psk31@bipt106.bi.ehu.es>
> Cc: w5jbp@arrl.org
> Message-ID: <022b01c4c8d3$ba3ef7c0$7201a8c0@ANDYPRO64>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Hi Jim--
>
> Thanks for your immediate response. Hope all goes well with you--I don't
> know how you find the time to keep up with all this and wonder how many
> realize you have a volunteer, part-time position as President of the ARRL.
> I
> very much appreciate your personal efforts on behalf of ham radio--it is
> determined folks like you and Peter who will keep the hobby vibrant and
> thriving indefinitely.
>
> Best, Andy K5VM
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <W5JBP@aol.com>
> To: <awallacejr@sbcglobal.net>; ""Peter Martinez""
> <Peter.Martinez@btinternet.com>; ""PSK31"" <psk31@bipt106.bi.ehu.es>
> Cc: <w5jbp@arrl.org>
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 9:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [psk31] Pactor QRM and bandplans
>
>
>> Good morning Andy and Peter. Yes, I appreciate the comments and have
>> stated publicly that we were not in favor of Balkinizing the bands here
>> in
>> the U. S. And Peter you are correct and I said that "you don't hunt ducks
>> in the desert" you hunt them in the wet-lands. If I want to work RTTY I
>> know where in the bands others will likely be.
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Jim Haynie, W5JBP
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Psk31 WWW Site at http://aintel.bi.ehu.es/psk31.html
> List info at: http://aintel.bi.ehu.es/mailman/listinfo/psk31
>
>
> End of Psk31 Digest, Vol 19, Issue 7
> ************************************
_______________________________________________
Keep in mind that only registered email addresses can post in the list.
Psk31 WWW Site at http://aintel.bi.ehu.es/psk31.html
Psk31 list info at: http://aintel.bi.ehu.es/mailman/listinfo/psk31
---
Outgoing mail is certified virus free by Grisoft AVG 6.0.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004
_______________________________________________
Propagation mailing list
Propagation@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/propagation
|