Topband: ARRL Board Requests Member Comments About Digital Modes

[Mike Waters]

Thanks, Joe. This is exactly the kind of input that we need here. :-)

1843? I believe you. In this area (SW MO) and at the times I tune around, I
haven't heard much below 1850. I can think of regular groups on 1850 and
1880. But I'm not going to go there, except to suggest that whatever groups
there are invited to be involved.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV <lists at subich.com> wrote:

>
> 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?
>