In the Mon Dieux department, D-STAR users hold regularly scheduled D-STAR nets
in the
phone portions of the HF bands. Just look for the 6 kHz wide signals, or see
http://www.dstarinfo.com/DSTARHFNet.aspx
That's the new sleeping elephant in the room!
Good news, though, since D-STAR provides an interleaved digital voice and data
channel it is a precedent for digital data (at wide bandwidths) on the Phone
side of the boundary.
One correction to my "band plan" basics: high power modes like RTTY should stay
above
14.080 when possible to give the low power modes a break.
-Kai
On 3/29/2014 5:20 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
> Modes with BW greater than 500 Hz (like D-STAR data+voice / 6 kHZ BW,
> and PACTOR modes 2.2 kHz) should be above 14.150. If regs do not move
> PACTOR into the phone bands, they should stay above 14.140 kHz.
Mon Deu! We agree about something - except that D-STAR is not legal
below 50 MHz because the protocol (CODEC) is not publicly documented.
In addition, its 6 KHz bandwidth is also illegal based on 97.307(f)(2):
> No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications
> quality phone emission of the same modulation type. [the remainder
> does not apply since D-STAR is neither ISB or multiplexed phone
> and image emission]
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 3/29/2014 4:04 PM, Kai wrote:
Mark,
Just my opinion, and not in any way complete. Painting with a broad
brush, and using 20 m as an example, the following appear to be basics:
CW to favor the lower portion of the bands, 14.000 to 14.070, (but of
course is permitted 14.000 to 14.350)
Weak signal digital modes (psk/wsjt) to favor 14.070 to 14.080
High power modes like RTTY to favor 14.070 to 14.150(?) (except
14.099-14.101 for beacons)
Modes with BW greater than 500 Hz (like D-STAR data+voice / 6 kHZ BW,
and PACTOR modes 2.2 kHz) should be above 14.150. If regs do not move
PACTOR into the phone bands, they should stay above 14.140 kHz.
Be mindful that these are voluntary band plans, and during a contest
modes like RTTY might spread out below and above the normal
recommendations.
73
Kai, KE4PT
On 3/29/2014 1:46 PM, Mark N2QT wrote:
Has the group been able to put together a bandplan recommendation?
I'm at the point
in my comments where I am struggling over what to recommend going
forward. Once
I get past the generalities it gets hard! (And time is running out).
Mark. N2QT
On Mar 17, 2014, at 1:56 PM, Terry<ab5k@hotmail.com> wrote:
We are slowly getting organized. We have been flooded with personal
emails
and phone calls and appreciate all of the comments and
suggestions. We
are certainly open for inputs and right now the feeling is we need to
unite
and attack this in two ways:
1. Provide inputs for the ARRL's Band Plan. The priority is
inputs
for the ARRL as that is under a time schedule and we have two weeks
remaining
2. The other avenue is education. Here are the proposed pieces:
a. Develop a white paper on both the engineering and deployment
flaws
of Winlink and other automated digital packet robots. We have a two
page
draft but its need inputs from experts who can make it technically
correct
and polish it up.
b. Develop a white paper on potential interference from RM-11708
and
why it needs to be sandboxed into its own sub band. This needs
development
from the ground up.
c. Develop a short white paper documenting the percent of
automated
packet users versus legacy SSB, CW and RTTY modes. There was a post
to the
reflector from a KH6 as I recall that had some numbers. That needs
to be
documented with supporting data and published.
d. Develop a Power Point presentation along the lines of "Spectral
Defense - Dangers from Within". There we talk about the bottom
end of 40
meters that's shared between CW, RTTY and SSB and talk about the
interference to the FT5 DX-Expedition by unattended packet. Then
follow up
a view of the spreadsheet shows the "mine field" of unattended packet
stations that are there and just waiting to QRM you. Other slides
would
discuss the bending of the rules / legality, Spectrum grab, IARU
concerns
about automated robot spectrum grab, a slide from a Emergency
Coordinator
that rejected Winlink for his two Texas counties due to speed, and the
request for 15% of the spectrum band.
e. We also need a 5 minute u-tube video demonstrating Winlink
showing
that it takes 5 minutes of actual air time to transmit a simple one line
message.
After the education content is complete, we need help from everyone
on this
reflector to share the educational information with ARRL officials,
other
reflectors, clubs and anyone who will listen. I have requested a
slot to
do a presentation at the Central Texas DX and Contest Club and also
plan do
a presentation at the Temple Amateur Radio Club. I am scheduled for
a 30
minute talk at HamComm hamfest in Dallas on N1MM Contesting Software and
I'll certainly hijack a few minutes out of that talk to discuss the
above
content and concerns and how folks can help.
In the last few days, there has been daily calls with John Stratton -
ARRL
Vice Director West Gulf Division. The information is also being
passed to
our Director. With the proper content we can start a education
program with
all league officials expressing all of our concerns. We have
good data,
we have the majority we just need to organize and get the word out.
We need volunteers to help on the white papers. I have someone in mind
that not only has superior technical skills but is also well respected
both at ARRL HQ and across the world. I sure hope he volunteers.
There are a few ideas that we consider nuclear options that are
definitely
off the table for now. There are other thoughts and ideas are
coming in
that are very useful. Thanks for all of the inputs.
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
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|