Sorry, I meant to reference Bonnie's earlier post:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/12576
Its the following excerpt to which I'm referring:
"The writers of bandplans that do not follow on-the-air activity
trends, with room for communications technology to thrive, should
not complain when their bandplan becomes obsolete the moment it is
published. They should not complain when their bandplan is not
accepted or closely followed by hams on-the-air."
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Bonnie has clearly stated here that amateurs are free to disregard
> band plans that they personally view as too restrictive. Given
that
> position, her call for a world wide band plan makes no sense at
all.
>
> 73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ
>
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Howard S. White"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Bonnie
> >
> > As usual what you write makes too much sense...
> >
> > Be sure to put on your asbestos suit....
> >
> > Yes ... we need a world wide bandplan.. without any glacial
> government regulation...
> >
> > And most of the world will ultimately go that way...like Canada
> and Australia....
> >
> > But the USA is a special place... our radio waves always stay
> within our borders and we do not hear anything from the rest of
the
> world...
> >
> > so they are going to tell you that we need the government to
make
> sure that we do not try anything new...
> >
> > __________________________________________________________
> > Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA
> > Website: www.ky6la.com
> > "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"
> > "Ham Antennas Save Lives - Katrina, 2003 San Diego Fires, 911"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: expeditionradio
> > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 7:21 PM
> > Subject: [digitalradio] Conflict SubBands: Why Olivia 14101-
> 14112kHz USA Automatic Sub-Band?
> >
> >
> > ><Steve, k4cjx wrote><
> > > Today, I note that OLIVIA is plastered all over the
> > > Part 97.221 sub-bands. Why would they use these frequencies?
> > > Because they have obvoiously been cleaned out and left for
> > > the operations that are pertinant to 97.221.
> > > Not good considering we have purposely crammed
> > > ourselves in these spaces to be good stewards of the current
> > > regulatory envrinment.
> >
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > Question:
> > Why is Olivia manual keyboarding in the 14100-14112kHz USA
> Automatic
> > Sub-Band?
> > Answer:
> > After doing some research into the Olivia 14MHz disaster, I
> found the
> > reason Olivia users are camping out above 14101kHz. The Olivia
> > bandwidth default is 1kHz. Olivia was originally designed and
> started
> > in Europe. The IARU Region 1 Bandplan (Europe/Africa/MidEast),
> and
> > some European radio rules dictate 500Hz maximum bandwidth below
> > 14099kHz and 2.7kHz bandwidth above 14101kHz. Also, the
bandplan
> > details "digimode" between 14101kHz and 14112kHz. Hence, to use
> > Olivia, european stations must camp between above 14101kHz and
> below
> > 14112kHz on 20 metres. A very similar thing happened with MT63
on
> > 14109.5kHz some years ago, but MT63 never reached the fad
status
> of
> > Olivia, and MT63 use has decreased to near zero over the
years.
> >
> > The overlay of USA radio regulations forming the 97.221 sub-
band
> at
> > 14101kHz to 14112kHz falls flat when you consider that radio
> > ionospheric propagation knows know political or IARU regional
> > boundaries... and the IARU bandplanners of different regions
and
> > nations often don't agree or exist in the same radio
environment.
> >
> > In 2005, as you probably know, the huge increase in Olivia
> keyboarding
> > activity camping out around 14107.5kHz caused the ALE network
to
> move
> > up from where it had been for the past 5 years (14107.5kHz).
The
> ALE
> > network's move took a great effort on the part of hundreds of
ALE
> > operators to re-program their only 14MHz ALE data/sounding
> channel.
> > The ALE network would have moved earlier, due to the massive
> Olivia
> > QRM, but generally speaking, it requires about 6 months
notice,
> and at
> > least 6 months for changes in the amateur ALE channels to
> propagate
> > among all operators (some ALE controllers require manual entry
or
> > special cabling, fill files, and setups for programming). The
> ALE net
> > moved up as far as it could, to 14109.5kHz and then we
actively
> put
> > the Olivia community on notice that we simply could not move
any
> > higher than that. (By the way, I'm an Olivia operator, too.)
> >
> > The sub-bands among the regions and nations are constantly
> > conflicting, which will lead to even more Olivia-like mode-
based
> and
> > content-based bandplan conflicts. At the same time, we also
are
> seeing
> > a huge change in the nature of how we communicate on HF. Take
a
> listen
> > between 14230 and 14240 sometime and you will see a similar
> situation
> > in progress.
> >
> > The fact is, with the growth of high speed robust HF digital
> > communications technology, amateur radio is seeing changes
from
> an
> > older bandwidth-centric model to the use of a newer time-
centric
> model
> > for data exchange. This means that the future will see more
> > time-sharing of frequencies on a rapidly interactive and
dynamic
> basis
> > than there has been in the past. This fact is part of what is
> causing
> > the "growing pains" and misunderstanding among the rank and
file
> for
> > bandwidth-based spectrum management in USA. Most hams are
> familiar and
> > thus comfortable with the operational aspects of the slow
> information
> > exchange model such as voice, CW, and realtime keyboarding.
> >
> > More frequency space is needed for wider bandwidth signals in
> the IARU
> > Region 1 bandplans on 14MHz. More space is also need for wider
> > bandwidth automatic operation in USA. For several years, I've
> been
> > advocating a 500Hz/3kHz bandwidth sub-band separation at or
about
> > 14050kHz or 14075kHz. I don't believe a sub-band for 200Hz
> bandwidth
> > is beneficial at all, or practical in the sense that most hams
> could
> > not live with strong and weak CW or even PSK signals separated
by
> > 200Hz. I have never advocated any HF sub-bands for confining
> > automatic, semi-automatic, or remote operations. I see there
is
> no
> > longer a clear distinction between what "automation" is and
what
> it is
> > not. Automation in some shape or form is becoming more
> commonplace in
> > many of the new methods of HF communication. For instance,
SSTV
> and
> > Digital Voice use automatic methods for station ID,
handshaking,
> and
> > even automatic start-up and responses. If we continue to have
> > governmental radio rules confining automation in USA and
> elsewhere, it
> > will continue to conflict with actual use of communication
> technology
> > on the air by hams. It will also confine and suppress hams who
> lives
> > within the jurisdictions of these automatic rules from moving
> forward
> > with the rest of the world's hams who are not confined by
> antiquated
> > anti-automation rules.
> >
> > Now, after a lot of discourse with hams from all different
> viewpoints,
> > I now believe the best thing for ham radio is to have no sub-
> bands at
> > all in radio regulatory rules. No bandwidth sub-bands. No
> automatic
> > sub-bands. No license class sub-bands. Instead, all sub-bands
> should
> > be flexible and handled in the IARU Region bandplans and
> national IARU
> > society bandplans. It is too difficult to change governmental
> radio
> > regulations.
> >
> > The Olivia 14MHz disaster is one case in point... most USA
Olivia
> > users are oblivious to the fact that they are operating in the
> > automatic band.
> >
> > The 7100kHz to 7105kHz USA automatic sub-band disaster is
> another case
> > in point... there is a shortwave AM broadcast station there!
> >
> > Bonnie KQ6XA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/
> >
> > Other areas of interest:
> > The MixW Reflector :
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
> >
> > Looking for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical
> free link below
> > http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
--
> -----------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > a.. Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
> >
> > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms
> of Service.
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
--
> -----------
> >
>
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to telnet://208.15.25.196/
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
Looking for digital mode software? Check the quick commerical free link below
http://www.obriensweb.com/digimodes.html
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
