Bill, Dont move down lower. Globally 7040-7043 is PSK land - JT/FT modes have stepped on enough PSK watering holes over the years. RTTY has to be left with something too. Again I come back to the original; desire to have some separation between RTTY contesters and FT4 contesters. 7047 was never a good choice from that perspective either. The first 10kHz of 7040-7050 in a contest is the busiest. It thins out some between 7050-7060. It then spills into the beginning of a mixed SSB segment (R1/3)+digital segment (USA) 7060-7070. EMCOM was moved to 7110 in Region 3 years ago (and the other regions should follow suit).
In Region 1,2&3 7060-7100 is in fact marked all modes. Given the objectives I outlined for frequency selection earlier: 1. provides separation between RTTY and FT4 contesters when they are running simultaneously (RTTY runs above the FT8/JT9 segments currently) 2. avoids/limits impact on known QRP CW centres of activity 3. avoids impact on the PSK community on .070-.074 4. avoids pushing digital modes far into the voice segment of the bands particularly on 80/40/20m but is a major compromise on 40m. 40m’s digital modes segments are a mess anyway and harmonisation is difficult at best on that band. 7065 in my mind is looking like a better outcome or even 7067kHz. For consideration. Regards, Grant VK5GR -----Original Message----- From: Bill Somerville [mailto:g4...@classdesign.com] Sent: Wednesday, 1 May 2019 6:19 AM To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 frequency choice - problematic On 30/04/2019 19:10, rjai...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi Joe, Bill, Steve and team, > > I'm getting feedback about the frequency choices for the initial FT4 > rollout. There is conflict with users because it is so low down in the > band on 40 meters (7047). The QRP fox hunt (CW) guys are up in arms > because that's where they operate. Other hams have been complaining to > their ARRL officials (including me) about the QRM. > > I love the FT/JT modes and think that what the WSJT development team > is doing is absolutely fantastic but I think some more thought has to > go into where we want these modes to live so we can have peaceful > coexistence on the bands. > > vy 73 > Ria > -- Ria Jairam, N2RJ Director, Hudson Division ARRL - The national > association for Amateur Radio™ +1.973.594.6275 https://hudson.arrl.org > n...@arrl.org Hi Ria, we had several requests, including some from members of band planning committees, that we should choose a spot below 7050 on 40m, this based on that being the upper edge of any globally coordinated narrow band digital section. It was also pointed out that region three has an EMCOMM frequency at 7050 so with hindsight 7047 is not that good. Region 1 has digital modes up to 2700 Hz bandwidth including automatic stations between 7050 and 7053 and more automatic unattended <= 2700 Hz bandwidth allocation between 7053 and 7060 where the digital modes section ends. Region 2 is similar except 7060 is another EMCOMM QRG. Given that 7047 does not look so low as far as I can see. I missed that there was a W1AW code practice broadcast on 7074.5, which was unfortunate, but it looks to me that further down towards 7040 is the only way to go unless there are better options up in the all modes sections above 7060? Thanks in advance for any helpful input you can provide, we do have the advantage that in general everyone using a WSJT-X mode on HF tend to stick very close together and move as a pack. So changes are possible and we really want to find the least contentious spot. 73 Bill G4WJS. _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel _______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
