Bill,
I know the IARU claims DV on 7070 impinge on 7065 – but then DV voice modes like FreeDV only need 1-2kHz – so perhaps it wont in fact interfere with 7065 USB? Incidentally – Ive never heard any there. I have heard it up around 7177-7180 by convention rather than band plan – and that is because it is perceived as ultimately a wideband voice mode. (US hams tell me they are not allowed to run DV on the IARU planned frequencies because the base modulation is voice – and the US generals can only start using voice above 7175kHz – hence they use 7177 and above). All of this highlights what I said earlier, the 40m band plan is a mess <sigh>. You make some good points too about 7065/7067 and I would love to hear from other ops across R1 and 2 of those modes to see if they really are using it. In Region 3 we more often than not have plain QRM in that part of the band from illegals. At least FT8 (and I presume FT4) can cut through a lot of that. AT some point given all the angst, I have to come back to the other suggestion, and that is that WSJT should reuse frequencies that have been mostly abandoned. Put JT65 and JT9 together but in the software design it so JT9 stays above 2000Hz and JT65 below. Both are today low utilisation modes yet they have 4kHz notionally consumed by them. So place JT65/9 on 7078 (spilling up to 7081) and insert FT4 on the JT65 channel. If it takes over from FT8 as suggested (although its drop in sensitivity wouldn’t encourage me I will say) then in time FT4 moves down to canabalise FT8 (or at least push FT8 back below 7076 – as today it uses the full 7074-7077 slot and still is congested currently). Meanwhile, I will begin more actively engaging with IARU globally to get a global band plan group set up rather than a set of regional ones. It is clear that the interest in digital modes is growing but that the space available isn’t keeping up. Global coordination is paramount. Its time this issue was fixed head on. Regards, Grant From: Bill Somerville [mailto:g4...@classdesign.com] Sent: Wednesday, 1 May 2019 8:07 AM To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 frequency choice - problematic Hi Grant, thanks for the suggestions. Isn't 7065 going to clash with the DV CoA at 7070 in regions 1, and 2 at least. 7060 - 7100 is also designated as an SSB contest preferred segment, particularly heavily used in region 1 when working region 2 stations split above 7200 on darkness paths. I can't imagine a mode designed for digital contests will go down well in the middle of that prime territory during international phone contests! I'm not disagreeing but the problems of using an all modes section is that is is very hard to establish what rights are already claimed, e.g. long established nets. I understand you preference to lead the way for more DM allocation in the band plans, or at least some more rationalization of what there is, but is there really any chance of DM segment expansion in the near future? 73 Bill G4WJS. On 30/04/2019 23:20, Grant VK5GR wrote: 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
