RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] Digital Operators Band Plan Committee - Current thoughts and

To: <RTTY@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Digital Operators Band Plan Committee - Current thoughts and status
From: "Don W5FKX" <w5fkx@cox.net>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 18:56:21 -0500
List-post: <rtty@contesting.com">mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
With my apologies for any inaccuracies in my recommendations, given the lack of 
any leadership from ARRL, here is my final submission of comments to the Band 
Planning Committee:

My displeasure with the manner in which ARRL handled this whole issue of 
bandwidth vs. symbol rate has been expressed previously.  The confusion about 
it that now exists within the ham community is indicative of the lack of proper 
vetting and discussion with the membership.  Perhaps some lessons were learned 
from that debacle, and this is what led the ARRL BOD to form a Band Planning 
Committee which, unlike the committee that formulated RM-11708, is asking for 
member input! Under the presumption that ARRL will not ask for a recall of 
RM-11708 and that the FCC will proceed with enactment, here are my 
recommendations to the Band Planning Committee:

 

1)  Because of the limited frequency span of the WARC bands (12, 17, & 30 
meters), there should be no change in current allocations of segments by 
bandwidth, no digital modes of greater than 300Hz, and no auto-enabled 
transmissions of any type should be allowed.

 

2) Signal bandwidth modes exceeding 300 Hz, including auto-enabled 
transmissions for forwarding messages (digital/voice/SSTV), should be 
restricted to these portions of the 10, 15, 20, 40, 80/75, & 160 meter bands:

 

            29.000-29.300, 21.350-21.400; 14.300-14.350; 7.250-7.300; 
3.875-3.900; 1.950-2.000 

 

3) All auto-enabled transmissions for forwarding messages (digital/voice/SSTV) 
should be required to use a CW identifier at the beginning and end of each 
transmission.

 

4) The lower 100 kHz of  the 10, 15, 20, 40, 80/75 meter bands should be 
allocated to the narrow band (<300 Hz) digital modes as follows:

 

            a) lower 70 kHz for CW only; however, CW should be allowed  
throughout the bands;

 

b) 30 kHz above the CW portions for narrow-band digital modes: RTTY, PSK, JT65, 
etc.

 

5) On the 160 meter band, the lower 10 kHz should be allocated for narrow-band 
digital modes such as RTTY, PSK, JT65, etc.; and the next 30 kHz should be 
primarily for traditional CW.

 

6) Finally, all digital modes should use open-source software so that access to 
interpretive programs is cost-free to all.

 

Having been licensed and active for 60y, I have seen and enjoyed new technology 
in this hobby and certainly do not want to oppose development in the future; 
however, this should not be at the expense of current modes enjoyed by many.  
The recommendations herein would be closely aligned with band-mode allocations 
of IARU Region 2, especially for emergency coordination activities.

 

73,

Don Boudreau, W5FKX
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [RTTY] Digital Operators Band Plan Committee - Current thoughts and status, Don W5FKX <=