Jeff,
Many thanks or the well explained history of the 160M band plan. This is
good info for relatively newcomers to the band like me.
Rich K7ZV
On Wed, November 29, 2017 12:38 pm, k1zm--- via Topband wrote:
> Hi All
>
>
>
> This FT8 discussion is fascinating really. It harkens me to remember the
> origins of the current ARRL 160M bandplan that we try to follow today on
> Topband.
>
>
>
> A number of us (myself included) were on the 160M ARRL BANDPLANNING
> COMMITTEE some years ago and there were several schools of thought that
> took place at the time:
>
>
> 1) A few of us (myself, W4ZV and K1KI (I think) favored a true CW
> sub-band on 160M as we have always had in place on the upper bands like
> 80/40/20/15/10.
>
>
>
> 2) However, the CHARTER of the ARRL committee was determined NOT to be
> inclusive of a formal petition to the FCC to establish true, formal
> sub-bands on 160M.
>
>
> 3) INSTEAD - the current bandplan was what was adopted which placed
> digital where it presently resides - as I recall it was on 1838 and not
> on 1840 by the way.
>
>
> 4) When those of us favoring FCC action on the matter inquired about
> CONTESTS - (especially those on SINGLE SIDEBAND) - we were told that 160M
> spectrum would "FLEX" to accommodate what would be SSB activity down to
> 1803 here in the USA and above 1813 over in EU since the lower band edge
> is 1810 over in Region 1
>
>
> In other words, if this is not cyrstal clear - it was EXPECTED that SSB
> would penetrate below 1842 during an SSB contest - and that CW would
> "FLEX" over the band segments that were usually considered for DIGITAL
> and SSB modes.during a competitive operating event.
>
>
> In actual practice this has worked reasonably well - until the rise of
> the interest in FT8 - where some folks seem to think now that 1838-1840
> is somehow INVIOLATE. This is an INCORRECT assumption in my opinion.
>
>
> No one 'owns" a band segment on 160M under what is a VOLUNTARY BANDPLAN -
> and the band segments do "flex" in contests when there is so much
> activity to warrant the overlap that naturally occurs.
>
>
> It is also an illusory assumption to believe that since the 160m band
> goes all the way to 2000khz that all space on Topband is of equivalent
> VALUE during a contest event. Europe, for example, cannot operate below
> 1810 and most European countries cannot run FULL POWER above 1850Khz.
> Also some countries in EU today still are limited to narrow band slots
> from 1810 to 1830 or from 1810 to only 1850.. So it is quite LIKELY that
> during a contest event there is going to be a lot of operation around
> 1838-1842 and it is not likely to be FT8 either.if the contest is a CW
> event or an SSB event.
>
>
> What needs to happen (and usually does)is that after these contests are
> completed, the band FLEXES again back to our more normal, accepted
> conventions - meaning that CW is usually occurring from 1810 - 1835 or so
> (not by a rule - but just by gentleman's bandplanning convention) and
> that SSB usually occurs above 1843 or so.
>
>
> On a final note - W4ZV and I authored a FORMAL FCC petition after our
> 160M Bandplan service was completed and over 1000 amateurs worldwide
> filed supportive comments. What we asked the FCC to do was create a TRUE
> CW sub-band on 160M from 1800 to 1835 or so here in the USA as I recall -
> but in the end Bill Cross at the FCC ridiculed the petition and the FCC
> denied it out of hand - which meant that what we have in place today is
> the VOLUNTARY 160M ARRL BANDPLAN that we now follow - and we all need to
> understand that NO BAND SEGMENT on 160M is reserved for anyone or any
> mode. Here in the US, CW is authorized from 1800-2000 inclusive as is
> SSB - what we all usually do is try to respect what we have as a bandplan
> MOST OF THE TIME and not complain when a contest comes along.
>
>
>
> BY THE WAY - here's one for you. I recently witnessed an HL5IVL digital
> qso where the HL5 was on FT8 around 1820 (because his 160M band was
> limited to 1825 and below) and the counterparty on this same qso was on
> 1840 or so on FT8. I do nope we do not see too much of this kind of
> event - this one was understandable given the band restrictions in
> Korea.- but it would concern me to find FT8 all over the band all the
> time - because that would (most likely) create a lot of food fights going
> forward.
>
>
> At the end of the day - we must respect that 160M is a most UNUSUAL band
> and there are no really HARD ans FAST inviolate sub-bands in the
> traditional sense that we find on the higher bands.
>
>
> Personally - I am not an FT8 user - but I respect the rights of others to
> use this new mode. We cannot hold back technology here - that never
> works very well - but we do need to understand the need to be FLEXIBLE -
> especially during competitive operating events (eg: contests).
>
>
> 73 JEFF K1ZM/VY2ZM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed Sawyer <sawyered@earthlink.net>
> To: topband <topband@contesting.com>
> Sent: Wed, Nov 29, 2017 7:44 pm
> Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm
>
>
> I'm sorry but I don't buy the argument that the way to be a "gentleman"
> is to accept everyone else's interests above your own. A "gentleman" is
> respectful of others and treats others as he/she wants to be treated.
>
>
>
> No one owns a frequency channel at least in the US - read your license.
>
>
>
>
> If I come on a frequency, hear nothing, ask QRL using a legal and
> accepted mode for the frequency and hear nothing, I am using the
> frequency. By the way - even the ARRL admits there is no longer a "DX
> Window" on 160M.
>
>
>
>
> If FT8 is such a fragile mode to QRM that it needs a 2khz undisturbed
> window, then it is a flawed mode that will not stand the test of time in
> my opinion. I am already starting to hear DX side people saying it's a
> complete waste of time and abandoning it. I hear 3Y is going to try it -
> that should be hilarious.
>
>
>
> I think that most of the FT8 crowd is horribly misinformed with dribble
> they read on the internet and think that some "net authority" has granted
> exclusive access to said frequency band and that they have had such right
> since June.
>
>
>
> Look for me on 1840 in the ARRL 160 this weekend after listening, asking
> QRL, and seeing if I am disturbing anyone in my 400hz receiving window.
>
>
>
>
> 73
>
>
>
>
> Ed N1UR
>
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|