Topband: ARRL Board Requests Member Comments About Digital Modes

Joe Subich, W4TV lists at
Mon Mar 3 18:37:37 EST 2014

> IMO, digital should go below 1810, AND it should preferably be a
> narrow band mode such as the superior JT9 mode.

Unfortunately, "below 1810" is never going to fly because of the lack
of access below 1810 in many countries.  Further, JT65 although wider
than JT9 is certainly less than 200 Hz and should not be a concern to
users of other narrow bandwidth modes.

What is really a concern is the demands by wideband data advocates for
priority access to *at least 15%* of every amateur band in spectrum
coordinated in all three ITU regions.  See:
Applied to 160 meters, that would wipe out 1810 to 1840.  On 80 meters
that would wipe out the entire CW/RTTY band from the top of the extra
CW allocation, on 40 meters again it would monopolize the band from the
top of the Extra CW allocation to well into the "foreign phone" band.
On 20, 17, 15, and 12 it would wipe out the entire spectrum currently
used for RTTY/PSK/JT plus most of the non-extra class CW area and on 10
it would use up the entire CW/data band well into the "beacon band."

Even though the comment period is officially over on RM-11708, it is
far more important to continue to tell the FCC "No on 11708" than worry
what ARRL may suggest in terms of an unenforceable band plan.


    ... Joe, W4TV

On 3/3/2014 1:57 PM, Mike Waters wrote:
> Since there has been recent discussions on this reflector about JT65 on
> 1838, I thought I would pass this on.
> IMO, digital should go below 1810, AND it should preferably be a narrow
> band mode such as the superior JT9 mode.
> As W8JI recently pointed out, insufficient sideband suppression (and IMD
> products of improperly adjusted rigs) of JT65 signals --becoming more and
> more common on 1838-- winds up in the area where weak signal DX is common.
> Furthermore, Joe Taylor himself --the author of JT65 and JT9-- has stated
> in no uncertain terms that the JT9 mode is superior to the far wider JT65
> mode for MF and lower HF weak signal communications. JT65 is for EME and
> upper HF.
> I suggest that this be discussed here for a week or so before anyone
> submits comments to the ARRL.
> 73, Mike
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: ARRL Web site <memberlist at>
> Date: Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:29 AM
> Subject: ARLB007 ARRL Board Requests Member Comments About Digital Modes
> ...
> At the January 2014 ARRL Board of Directors meeting, a resolution was
> passed which asked for member feedback and input pertaining to the
> increasing popularity of data modes. The information gathered by this
> investigation is to be used by the HF Band Planning Committee of the Board
> as a means to suggest ways to use our spectrum efficiently so that these
> data modes may "compatibly coexist with each other."  As per the
> resolution, the ARRL Board of Directors is now reaching out to the
> membership and requesting cogent input and thoughtful feedback on matters
> specific to digital mode operation on the HF bands.
> The feedback may include, but is not limited to, the recent proposal the
> ARRL made to the FCC, RM 11708, regarding the elimination of the symbol
> rate restrictions currently in effect.  A FAQ on RM 11708 can be found on
> the web at, .
> The Board of Directors believes that member input in the decision making
> process is both valuable and important as well as fostering a more
> transparent organization.  It is to this end that we open this dialogue.
> Comments must be received no later than March 31, 2014 to be included in
> the Committee's report to the Board at the July 2014 ARRL Board of
> Directors meeting.
> Please e-mail your comments to: HF-Digital-Bandplanning at
> Concerned members may also contact their Division Director by mail,
> telephone or in person with any relevant information.
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives -

More information about the Topband mailing list