Skip, It is almost for sure that if the FCC equated DV as being similar to any other digital mode, that DV would not take over the ever decreasing size of the text digital portions of the HF bands. There are several reasons:
- the lower portions of the bands, historically used for the earliest text digital mode based on wetware decoding will likely see further reductions in that mode (CW), except during contest periods since almost no new hams are acquiring even basic CW skills, much less proficiency. This will allow for more space for text digital, assuming that text digital will be segregated in that manner. - since DV is likely to never be competitive with analog SSB for weak signals as analog due to the practical limitations of science. - if digital modes did increase in popularity, which would primarily be voice DV, there would be tremendous pressure to segregate digital and analog modes by a sizable majority of radio amateurs. And it works both ways, as you well noted, analog SSB is a serious hindrance to digital modes in general. - some phone bands are underutilized now, such as on 80 meters, with few stations on the lower end of the voice sub bands and yet CW and digital can be quite crowded in a space that is well under half of what we previously had. (And I admit was underutilized with that mix too). Unless we eventually go to bandwidth based bandplans, and at the same time do not segregate by mode (especially voice modes, whether analog or digital), then it would be entirely appropriate for hams to use narrow voice modes for spectrum conservation and do it in the appropriate bandwidth areas. Based upon comments made by Dave Sumner in the past, I am not sure that will be supported by ARRL, since he seems to suggest that even if we have bandwidth limits, we will not necessarily mix modes. In fact, it was at that point that I was no longer as supportive of the withdrawn ARRL proposals, because it will still not allow us the ability to use voice and data intermixed on the HF bands (even if only in small areas) which I consider to be one of the most unfortunate effects of our current rules. The best band plans are those that allow for the best use of a shared resource. If one part of the band is congested and another part is under utilized, that means the planning is flawed. And since conditions and events constantly vary, the best regulations are the minimum necessary to make more efficient use of the bands for the maximum number of shared resource users. 73, Rick, KV9U kh6ty wrote: > It is my belief that if "voice" of the same bandwidth were allowed everwhere > "data" is allowed, the data segments of the bands would be overrun with > phone stations using DV. Phone is the easiest to operate and obviously the > preferred mode. During the "bandwidth petition" discussions, it became clear > that the phone people wanted to take over as much space as they could, which > is understandable, since the phone bands are always overcrowded. > > I don't pretend to know the real reasoning behind the FCC determination that > DV is phone (just like analog voice), but practically, it currently serves > to protect digital mode operators from being overrun by a multitude of phone > operators. In light of the fact that you can sometimes copy an analog phone > signal through another analog phone signal, but cannot do that with DV, I > think we are fortunate that the FCC has taken the position they have. > > Skip KH6TY > >
