Andy, I have re-edited this response three times now. I was trying to offer something that would contribute to the greater good.
I have nothing to offer to the greater good. I have come to the conclusion that I really don't care about band plans at such a detailed level. I respect what you are saying, but I really don't care how the band gets partitioned at this level. It just seems too much like work and I'm not here for work. I am here to escape from work. I think the only rule I tend to follow is to not run MT63-1000 in the CW sub bands. Oh, and the rule about not contesting on the WARC bands - that's a good one too. I actually was placed on probation for a while for such a violation on 30 meters by one of the demigods that maintain a watchful eye on that band, so I'm a little touchy about this one. I make an effort to listen before I send, but sometimes I goof and I'm quick to offer my apologies and move on. I accept that fact the not everyone hears my signals and so there might be a little QRM. QRM is fact of life - intentional or unintentional. Be the bigger person and QSY. Honestly, all I really want to do is to get on the air and have some fun, play with some odd ball modes, maybe get to work a little DX just to prove that the antennas I have put up are not total crap. philw de ka1gmn On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 14:39 -0500, Andy obrien wrote: > > Just some thoughts, critique welcome. > > If we think about HF digital QSOs there are 5 general types. > > 1. Weak signal propagation "probes" that are frequent in nature and > regularly used by hams around the world (JT65A, ROS, WSPR, SLOW CW), > Usually the exchange is a signal report, callsign, and location. No > "Conversation" > > 2. Conversational digital modes that are hugely popular, very active, > and can include brief contest exchanges or Dxpedition quick > exchanges. (RTTY, PSK31/63,). > > 3. Message delivery digital modes in common use, quite active, and > used at times for "emcomm" Pactor, Packet, standard ALE, Winmor, > PSK125-250, Often fairly "wide" signals > > 4. Conversational "rag0chew" digital modes that are very robust and > used by a small group of hams during weak signal or low power > conditions ( Olivia, Hell, Thor, MFSK16, ALE400, DominoEX, Throb. > ThrobX) > > 5. Experimental "messing around" by digital mode enthusiasts, testing > all kinds of "odd" modes just to see how they work. No more than 1000 > hams world wide. Modes include > Olivia, Hell, Thor, MFSK16, ALE400, DominoEX, Throb. ThrobX, PAX , > Chip, FPSK, RITTY, PSKAM, QPSK, Contestia, RTTYM, ASCII, Voice, ROS 1, > JT64, JT6M, MT63, > > A persistent issue (I avoid the word "problem" because I do not think > it is) is that each of the particular interests wants to have a common > meeting place on the dial. For some uses, it makes perfect sense and > for others it is not really that essential. Message delivery systems > and weak signal detection both would logically want a common place on > the dial. Other modes can be found by twirling the dial or using > alerting system like PSKreporter or Hamspots, but sometimes you miss a > "CQ" because you happened to be down the dial a tad. > > So, what "plan" , a voluntary one, could this group of 4000 hams/SWLs > , develop that would make sense and demonstrate the concepts of hams > working cooperatively on such matters.? One that did not wait for > regulatory solutions. > > It might make sense to start with what is currently working or so > "dominant" that attempts to change would be futile, right ? So, > changing PSK31 and RTTY operations is out of the question. WSPR and > JT65A operations seem well policed by the enthusiasts of these modes. > So that would take care of items 1 and 2 above. What about item > number 3, above ? I'm inclined to agree that this group might work > best if allocated a small section of each band, probably in band > segments that allow unattended operations. PACTOR is an issue because > there are so many frequencies used. In reality though, Pactor, > Winmor, PSKMAIL, ALE, Packet, and APRS-Packet could all meet their > goals with just a TOTAL of 6 frequencies per band. 2 frequencies per > band for Pactor, one for Winmor, one for PSKmail, one for ALE digital, > and one Packet. Six voluntarily protected "channels" per band, > except in emergencies. > > That would leave items 4 and 5, above. That's mostly the members of > this group, Since there are 4000 of us, 4000 collective brains should > be able to develop a band plan for a) Conversational communication and > b) experimental messing around using a mixture of wide and narrow > modes. Ideas ? > > The outcome , in my mind, would allow a new ham to consult a chart > that looks something like.. > > 160 80 > 75 40 30 > 20 etc, etc. > PSK31 (general) xxxx.xx to xxxx.xx xxxx to xxxx. > xxxx to xxxx xxxx to xxxx xxxx to xxxx xxxx to xxxx etc, > etc. > RTTY (dx) xxxx.xx to xxxx.xx xxxx to xxxx. > xxxx to xxxx xxxx to xxxx xxxx to xxxx xxxx to xxxx etc, > etc. > RTTY (general) xxxx.xx to xxxx.xx xxxx to xxxx. > xxxx to xxxx xxxx to xxxx xxxx to xxxx xxxx to xxxx etc, > etc. > Weak Signal Exhange xxxx. to xxxx xxxx to xxxx. xxxx to xxxx > xxxx to xxxx (JT65A, WSPR, QRSS, ROS1, etc) > Weak Signal Rag-Chew xxxx.xx to xxxx.xx xxxx to xxxx. xxxx to > xxxx xxxx to xxxx MFSk16, HELL, Olivia, Throb, etc) ) > Narrow Digital Experiments xxxx. to xxxx xxxx to xxxx. xxxx to > xxxx xxxx to xxxx xxxx to xxxx xxxx to xxxx etc, etc. > Wide digital experments xxxx.xx to xxxx.xx xxxx to xxxx. xxxx > to xxxx xxxx to xxxx xxxx to xxxx xxxx to xxxx etc, etc. > PSKMAIL XXXX XXXX > XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXX > etc, etc. > Packet XXXX XXXX > XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXX > etc, etc. > ALE XXXX XXXX > XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXX > etc, etc. > Winmor XXXX XXXX > XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXX > etc, etc. > PACTOR XXXX and XXXX XXXX and > XXXX XXXX and XXXX etc, etc. > > Andy K3UK > > > >
