OK guys, at the risk of sounding like a cracked record or a corrupted MP3, I’ll
give this one more shot.
Anecdotal reports tell us very little except in your opinions “The FT8 segment
looks crowded”. I agree, that is how it LOOKS. It LOOKS crowded here too …
and yet we are still making loads of FT8 QSOs with little hard evidence of
problems due to overcrowding. Repeatedly re-stating “It looks crowded”,
sharing busy waterfall snapshots, counting decode rates and telling us it is
“imperative” to expand the allocation, is getting us nowhere.
In fact, Bill, your comment that you are seeing “nearly 50 decodes every 15
seconds” when the band is busy tells us it is working just fine as it is. Your
own waterfall pic shows all those FT8 signals sharing roughly 2,000 Hz of band.
In theory there is room for 40 optimally-spaced 50 Hz wide FT8 signals with no
overlaps in 2,000 Hz. The ‘extra’ ~10 decodes you see probably include a few
outside the 2,000 Hz segment, and others where signals are overlapping.
I often see overlapping signals decoded successfully, sometimes separated by
just a few Hz and occasionally fully overlapped on exactly the same frequency.
FT8 does a much better job at separating overlapping signals than we do simply
by looking at our “overcrowded” waterfalls. But of course there are limits to
the magic of FT8.
Based on the above, and actual experience every day on the air, I could
conclude that there is plenty of capacity remaining and no desperate need to
expand the HF allocations … but what it doesn’t tell us is how many additional
signals might be present that are not being decoded due to overcrowding, nor
how the FT8 band occupancy is changing. If we are not currently experiencing
severe overcrowding, are we days, weeks, months or years away from that crisis
point – or will band occupancy automatically level itself out as people shift
to other less occupied bands and modes?
73,
Gary ZL2iFB
From: Bill Barrett <w2pky...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, 24 March 2018 5:38 a.m.
To: WSJT software development <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?
This is 20M about noon in Tampa Fl area on a ground mounted vertical. This
picture is with about 35 decodes every 15 seconds.
During the most active times on 20 & 40M I can see nearly 50 decodes in 15
seconds. Imagine Ops with better antennas see even more decodes.
This picture only shows the strongest of signals as well. There could be weaker
signals under the strong ones.
For those who would like to track stats on the various modes see:
https://www.pskreporter.info/cgi-bin/pskstats.pl middle of the page.
Activity on FT8 is amazingly higher than any other mode and will only increase
over time.
Lets see what ultimately happens.
Bill W2PKY
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:07 AM, rjai...@gmail.com <mailto:rjai...@gmail.com>
<rjai...@gmail.com <mailto:rjai...@gmail.com> > wrote:
I would concede that in Europe it is a problem. My antennas are beamed
to Europe most of the time but there aren't many strong band openings
these days.
I have also heard grumbling among the PSK31 and Olivia crowd that FT8
is interfering with them. They can move but when we move it may cause
conflict. WinLink and Pactor may expand, especially if the new
Technician privilege proposal is approved by the FCC.
So any change has to be considered carefully and with the
understanding that we may just not get what we want.
73
Ria
N2RJ
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Andras Bato <ha6nn.a...@gmail.com
<mailto:ha6nn.a...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> It's only you Ria!
> All FT8 subbands are much too crowded, even in the WARC bands.
> We badly need the higher bands like 21, 24 and 28 MHz but it takes several
> years when
> there will be regular openings on those bands.
> I am terribly surprised when you are living in the USA where there are ARRL,
> IARU HQ,
> and Administrative Council members like K1ZZ and the president is a
> Canadian.
> Is it a problem to ask them for their opinion and propose new band plans
> which would precisely devide e.g. the digital band portions
> to RTTY, PSK, FT8, JT65, JT9 subbands?
> gl de ha6nn
> Andras
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 2:00 PM, rjai...@gmail.com <mailto:rjai...@gmail.com>
> <rjai...@gmail.com <mailto:rjai...@gmail.com> >
> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think there needs to really be more room. There are several
>> bands that we can use. I prefer to use WARC bands because I have my
>> fill of DX on 20 meters but WARC bands offer additional opportunities.
>> Especially 30 meters where I have gain antennas.
>>
>> 73
>> Ria, N2RJ
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 6:51 AM, Andras Bato <ha6nn.a...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:ha6nn.a...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> > let me repeat a URL which is to be read and someone is to call the
>> > attention
>> > of members of IARU Administrative Council.
>> > http://www.iaru.org/administrative-council-meetings.html
>> > I guess it's the high time for them to meet asap!
>> > gl de ha6nn
>> > Andras
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:48 AM, David Alloza <da...@alloza.eu
>> > <mailto:da...@alloza.eu> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I would like to add something to the discussion.
>> >>
>> >> At my location (JN25UE) at maximum propagation ( near noon) , the FT8
>> >> band's noise floor on the 30M is 5db higher than on the rest of the 30M
>> >> band.
>> >>
>> >> The concentration of traffic on the narrow 2.5khz (certainly at
>> >> excessive
>> >> power) causes a significant rise in the noise floor and therefore
>> >> reduces
>> >> the performance of this mode.
>> >>
>> >> I think this is something that needs to be considered for the future of
>> >> these digital mode.
>> >>
>> >> My 73,
>> >>
>> >> David, F4HTQ.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> De : g...@isect.com <mailto:g...@isect.com> [mailto:g...@isect.com
>> >> <mailto:g...@isect.com> ]
>> >> Envoyé : vendredi 23 mars 2018 00:41
>> >> À : 'WSJT software development'
>> >> Objet : Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> “There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is
>> >> imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be
>> >> identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly
>> >> for
>> >> normal day to day FT8 operations.”
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On the contrary, Rich, it is plainly evident that in normal use we can
>> >> successfully pack in loads of FT8 signals sharing the present fairly
>> >> narrow
>> >> slices of the HF bands. Don’t get me wrong, I fully support the idea
>> >> of
>> >> monitoring trends and projecting forward but, as things stand, I see
>> >> very
>> >> little hard evidence of an impending crisis. Just because there are
>> >> few
>> >> obvious clear columns on the waterfall does not mean the band segment
>> >> is
>> >> “full”, since in practice FT8 is extremely good at separating
>> >> overlapping
>> >> signals. So I refute your assertion that “there is no doubt” that
>> >> additional frequences are needed. There most certainly is doubt, hence
>> >> I
>> >> disagree that expansion is “imperative”.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> A more scientific way to address issue this would be to gather and
>> >> analyze
>> >> data, objectively, rather than us simply asserting and refuting stuff,
>> >> subjectively. So what data would be needed? How would it be gathered
>> >> and
>> >> analyzed? By whom? These questions are worth exploring.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> If the data indicate impending crisis, there are other concerns about
>> >> the
>> >> options for avoiding or resolving it. Aside from the problems
>> >> making/taking/stealing space from other modes to allow for more FT8,
>> >> being
>> >> able to monitor all the FT8 activity on one screen at once is a major
>> >> advantage of the current arrangement, whereas splitting it up across
>> >> additional band segments will make things harder. It could prove
>> >> counterproductive.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Having said that, though, I agree there clearly are incompatibilities
>> >> and
>> >> conflicts between normal everyday FT8 activity and the new DXpedition
>> >> fox-n-hounds mode, so I would agree with the suggestion to make more
>> >> space
>> >> for DXpedition use, specifically.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I’d therefore like to make a suggestions: how about we designate a
>> >> digimode DXpedition zone on each of the HF bands without specifying the
>> >> digimode? That way, the same chunk of band can be used for RTTY, PSK,
>> >> FT8,
>> >> JT9, JT65, CW or whatever the DXpeditioners choose, and revert to being
>> >> a
>> >> multimode segment when no DXpeditions are using it. It would be a good
>> >> place to experiment with new modes and variants, for instance.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> There will still be occasional conflicts if multiple DXpeditions
>> >> attempt
>> >> to use the area at the same time, which suggests they might need to
>> >> slice
>> >> the zone more thinly and stick to narrowmode digimodes with tighter
>> >> pileups,
>> >> or agree amongst themselves some sort of schedule, or simply check that
>> >> the
>> >> area is clear before transmitting – standard practice for polite DXers.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 73
>> >>
>> >> Gary ZL2iFB
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> PS This thread is not really about WSJT-X software development, hence
>> >> we
>> >> should probably shift over to the other WSJT-X reflector.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> From: Rich - K1HTV <k1...@comcast.net <mailto:k1...@comcast.net> >
>> >> Sent: Friday, 23 March 2018 10:18 a.m.
>> >> To: WSJT <wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> >> <mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> >
>> >> Subject: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> As we all know, when bands are open, it is not unusual to find the
>> >> standard FT8 frequencies packed, end-to-end with stations. The
>> >> waterfall is
>> >> full of dozens of QSOs and many more dozens of stations calling others.
>> >> There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is
>> >> imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be
>> >> identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly
>> >> for
>> >> normal day to day FT8 operations. Although the number of JT65 users has
>> >> greatly dwindled, there are still many of them using the mode on HF, so
>> >> these frequencies and their JT65 users should be left alone.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The same holds for PSK31 and its army of Hams who like its rag chew
>> >> capabilities that the FT8 and JT65 modes can’t provide. Then there is,
>> >> on a
>> >> normal weekday, a vast wasteland of the 14.080 to 14.099 RTTY band.
>> >> When you
>> >> tune across that frequency range during the week, rarely do you hear
>> >> more
>> >> than a few RTTY signals, while at the same time, packed into 2 KHz,
>> >> many
>> >> dozens of FT8 stations can be heard working each other. The only times
>> >> that
>> >> the RTTY band comes alive is during weekend RTTY contests and during
>> >> DXpeditions to countries that RTTY users need to work for digital DXCC.
>> >> DXpeditions usually operate around the upper 10 KHz of the RTTY
>> >> frequencies.
>> >> There are around a dozen major RTTY contests spaced throughout the
>> >> year, all
>> >> scheduled over weekend days.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> A proposal needs to be made to the community of RTTY operators, most of
>> >> whom probably already use FT8, to see if there would be a serious
>> >> problem if
>> >> some of the present RTTY frequencies could be shared with FT8. These
>> >> might
>> >> consist of the 4 KHz at the low end of each of the presently used HF
>> >> RTTY
>> >> bands. Floating the idea on the ‘rttycontesting.com
>> >> <http://rttycontesting.com> ’website would be a
>> >> good
>> >> place to start.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The frequencies above the NCDXF HF beacons flagged for digital use, but
>> >> as
>> >> ‘Packet’ where you probably will find Winlink transmissions, so those
>> >> frequencies probably should be left alone.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Of course, the final additional FT8 frequencies chosen must adhere to
>> >> Regions 1, 2 & 3 band plans.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So, where do we start? Time is flying by and the number of FT8 users
>> >> are
>> >> quickly growing.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Comments?
>> >>
>> >> 73,
>> >>
>> >> Rich – K1HTV
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> wsjt-devel mailing list
>> >> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> >> <mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
>> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > wsjt-devel mailing list
>> > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>> >
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> wsjt-devel mailing list
>> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
