The way I read this, it was not because they were on a band plan for CW, but
that they were interfering with communications that was already in use. The
band plan was just something that gave them the ability to "gig" them for
one more thing.
Danny Douglas N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
DX 2-6 years each
.
QSL LOTW-buro- direct
As courtesty I upload to eQSL but if you
use that - also pls upload to LOTW
or hard card.
moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "KV9U" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <digitalradio@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Clarification : Establishing digital
calling/beacon frequencies
> Danny,
>
>
> The ARRL bandplan shows Digital Modes to be 1.800 - 1.810. They also
> have an Experimental modes area at the top of the band from 1.995 -
> 2.000 in the Beacon bandplan area:
>
> http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html
>
> I came across some information this week that really upset me in
> reference to bandplans.This is not something new, as the incident
> occured in 2001. I don't know of the outcome.
>
> If a large group such as the ARRL publishes a bandplan, the FCC can cite
> you for poor operating practices if you do not follow it and someone
> claims interference:
>
> "Band plans are voluntary in nature," Hollingsworth acknowledged in each
> of the similarly worded letters. He said the FCC depends upon voluntary
> compliance because it minimizes the necessity for the Commission to be
> called in to resolve amateur problems. "Where interference results from
> band plans not being followed," Hollingsworth continued, "the Commission
> expects substantial justification to be shown by the operators ignoring
> the band plans."
>
> http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2001/10/04/1/?nc=1
>
> I definitely agree that very few operators use digital modes on 160, but
> in general the percentage of digital operating is much lower than even
> CW, much less phone.
>
> 73,
>
> Rick, KV9U
>
>
>
>
>
> Danny Douglas wrote:
>
> >As to the 160 meter band, I was taken aback by your comment about
operating
> >digital outside of 1800- 1810 bandplan. Bandplans are arbitary and there
is
> >NO force of law in them as far as I know- and are voluntary. Now -
subbands
> >ARE of course the mandantory rules and are the subject of last weeks
changes
> >in separating modes. The chart, put out just last week, of US Amateur
Bands
> >shows the 160 band with NO partition at all, and indeed over in the Key,
> >says of 160:
> >"CW,RTTY,DATA, PHONE, IMAGE" The only note of distinction in this whole
> >band comments that "amateurs operating from 1900-2000 khz must not cause
> >harmful inteference to the radiolocation service and are afforded no
> >protection from radiolocation operators"
> >
> >Where did you get the information that digital MUST stay within the first
10
> >kc. I would say there must be something wrong with that, or the chart
the
> >ARRL has supplied is incorrect, but I have other charts showing the same
> >thing. That would be interesting, as I have been using PSK in several
> >places on the band, but never below about 1.840, for a couple of years
> >without any squwak from the FCC, or anyone else.
> >
> >As to 20 meters, you are correct that the majority of RTTY appears to be
> >above 14080, but I have heard it as low as 14.074 on non-contest QSOs.
Give
> >a contest and people go wild and you hear RTTY as low as 14.010, which is
> >really irritating to a CW op. Most all of the PSK I have worked (128
> >countries to date) have been on 20 meters, and all of it within the
> >14.069-14.073 bandwidth. The other digital modes have all been around
> >14.065 - 14.070. This is the reason I was recommending the lower side of
> >PSK rather than just above it. I havent called CQ on the other modes,
above
> >the PSK area, but typically when I have answered others they are below
it.
> >Right now, with such poor conditions I am hearing no digital signals at
all
> >on 20. I have worked few digital stations (other than RTTY) on 15-10 so
> >dont know how those separate out. Also have not been digitally active on
80
> >or 40 all that much either. Mostly, I look for DX and those dont afford
me
> >"new ones" very often. The 160 meter band is an exception there, as I
> >figure that "new ones" should be easier on PSK than SSB or even CW- but
so
> >far that has not been the case, for really long distance ops. I just
dont
> >think enough people are using the band with PSK or other new digital
modes.
> >
> >Your last comment: " Perhaps it would not incur the wrath of the FCC if
we
> >operated
> >
> >
> >>voice and then also transmitted data and fax and image in between voice
> >>transmissions, but do it in the voice/image part of the band?"
> >>
> >>
> >would appear to be exactly what we should be doing. It would keep the
voice
> >part out of the lower piece of the band and
> >place both it and the images together - and as per my above - is totally
> >legal according to the charts. I was hoping that would be what we would
see
> >on the other bands as well, but guess that is still not to be.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Connect to telnet://cluster.dynalias.org a single node spotting/alert
system dedicated to digital and CW QSOs.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.26/594 - Release Date:
12/20/2006 3:54 PM
>
>
