Topband: ARRL Board Requests Member Comments About Digital Modes

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

Mike,
> - Since two-thirds of the world --including North and South
> America-- starts at 1800, why not consider region-specific band
> plans? Is digital popular in other places?

Put it this way - if you want region specific band plans and the
need for significant split operation when working across regions -
are you willing to subject CW or SSB to those split requirements?
Why single out digital?

 > Is digital popular in other places?

There is perhaps as much or more JT mode activity outside the US
than inside the US.

> As for bandwidth, here's what K1JT says about the significant
> bandwidth advantages of JT9 vs. JT65:

In understand Joe's point.  However, JT65 was in regular use long
before he brought forward JT9.  At HF JT65 activity still outnumbers
JT9 by from four to 10 to one depending on the day/band and there
are several European based, HF optimized JT65 applications that do
not support JT9.  I seriously doubt that an "American" bandplan is
going to change any minds elsewhere - particularly if that bandplan
is designed to make room for wideband data modes.

> - How about 1840 to ~1845 for digital in lieu of --or even in
> addition to-- below 1810?

How do you expect to move the SSB clods who camp on 1843 with their
distortion boxes wide open?  Even if they moved you could be sure it
won't be any farther than 1845 which will still wipe out activity
between 1841 and 1845.  It's been 35 years and there's still a lot of
SSB below 1843.  As one who along with W8JI proposed a regulatory wall
protecting narrow band modes from wideband interference in the early
1980's I have to ask how has ARRL's torpedoing of those efforts
worked out?

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 3/3/2014 7:37 PM, Mike Waters wrote:
> Thank you. I forgot that in Region 1 (essentially Europe, Asia, & Africa),
> 160m starts at 1810.
>
> Here's a couple of thoughts for discussion:
> - Since two-thirds of the world --including North and South America--
> starts at 1800, why not consider region-specific band plans? Is digital
> popular in other places?
>   - How about 1840 to ~1845 for digital in lieu of --or even in addition
> to-- below 1810?
>
> As for bandwidth, here's what K1JT says about the significant bandwidth
> advantages of JT9 vs. JT65:
> "JT65 was designed for EME ... in contrast, JT9 is optimized for HF and
> lower frequencies.  JT9 is about 2 dB more sensitive than JT65A while using
> less than 10% of the bandwidth. ... A 2 kHz slice of spectrum is
> essentially full when occupied by ten JT65 signals.  As many as 100 JT9
> signals can fit into the same space, without overlap."
> --From http://www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.html
>
> 73, Mike
> www.w0btu.com
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV <lists at subich.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>   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. ...
>>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>