Thanks for the feedback, some very good points. I think the higher end of CW portions, is an especially good point.
Andy K3UK On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:50 PM, W8RIT <w8...@qsl.net> wrote: > > > Hi Andy, > > First I'd like to say that I think I can argue both sides of the coin on > this matter. > I think it is a very good idea to have a generally accepted and commonly > known "watering holes" for the various modes to facilitate ease of finding > another station in a particular mode. How about a specific frequency unique > to every mode that would be a calling freq. You establish communications and > move off elsewhere. > I also like the idea of, by a gentleman's agreement, setting aside some > specific freqs for some of the unattended modes/protocols: ALE, Winmor, > PACTOR, (possibly other modes like: PropNetPSK, WSPR) etc. to ease > interference issues both ways. > On the other hand, I would not want a 3rd party who is non-involved in a > particular communication with a station to come on freq and berate me for > using a mode "out of the spectrum slice allotted." For example, what if you > and I were using Olivia 500 on 20M (more specifically 14.092 MHz) and then > we decided we wanted to use MT-63 1k. Would we have to move?? I think that > should be decided by both stations depending on how busy the adjacent > frequencies are. We should also take into account if by using a wider mode > if we would be interfering with another ongoing communication. I don't think > it should be set in stone that if we were to switch modes that we would have > to also switch "spectrum slices", it might make it harder for us to > re-establish communications if the frequency we agreed upon was in use by > someone else. We should however keep in mind that we might want to move to a > different "spectrum slice" to help alleviate any overcrowding and allow > other stations that wished to use a certain mode in the "allotted spectrum > slice" to do so. > On 20M, I would suggest reversing the order of RTTY and digi modes for the > segments of 14.080-14.093 & 14.093-14.096. The reason I say that is because > in my opinion I feel that it is already a preconceived "agreement" by a > wider group that RTTY is operated starting at 14.080 and on up, and is used > pretty heavily during contests and DXing. I think we'd be pushing a boulder > uphill. In this case work with a stronger force rather than against it. I > also feel that the amounts of the spectrum slices in this case should be > reversed. Give the greater amount to RTTY and the lesser amount to the > digital modes. During a RTTY contest weekend I think many stations would > start around 14.080 and work upwards. > With that in mind, I'm curious why we don't use the higher end of the 20M > CW subband more predominantly for digi modes; I'm referring to higher than > 14.100 MHz (leaving adequate room for the NCDXF beacons there). Please > forgive my ignorance, but wouldn't that suffice for bandplans worldwide? I > feel that even if we were to use PSK31 & RTTY that there would be plenty of > room still for all of the other digital modes "upstairs". Generally speaking > it's pretty quiet; look at the number of QSO's you've had there in digi or > CW. > Again, my opinion is that I feel that giving "spectrum slices" to groupings > of digi modes can be beneficial to users. I would like it to be recommended > more as a gentleman's agreement, rather than set in stone that ONLY those > modes can and should be operated there. A general guideline rather than a > law. > > 73 de W8RIT Dave > >
