Ok El mar., 30 de abril de 2019 7:14 p. m., Grant VK5GR <[email protected]> escribió:
> 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:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, 1 May 2019 8:07 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *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:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > > Sent: Wednesday, 1 May 2019 6:19 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 frequency choice - problematic > > > > On 30/04/2019 19:10, [email protected] 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 > > [email protected] > > 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel >
_______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
