144 MHz Threat: Disappointing response from Agentschap Telecom

FT8/4, JS8call and FLdigi modes are a savior in low sun spots, I use FLdigi and JS8Call the most. However I agree N2SLO that when the band is open "Get out of the Pen" certain digital modes peg you into and use SSB or gasp even CW !

Even when the band is not open, I will sometimes move away from PSK or JS8call and use modes like Thor , Throb, Domino etc with TX ID on, or even the video tag telling folks what that strange mode sound is. I usually can get a QSO or 2 during a 30-45 min session doing that in the data band areas "outside the pen"

@W1YW I like that analogy, "Your not hunting signals down when your all in a pen". When I started out on SSB, all I could do was search and pounce; as all I had was a 25 watt radio...

 

Joe Taylor has given us a great gift, but unlike JT65 or other digital modes, we have over-used it. Honestly: two years ago, did anyone EVER think it was even POSSIBLE that 95% of 6m (and much HF activity) would suddenly and dramatically fall from 4 MHZ of used spectrum to 3 KHZ???

MILLION plus contacts on FT8...

General comment--

I get all the arguments; I get that FT8 has made it possible to make contacts with a KX2 and a coathanger; I get that lots of people are having major FUN with it. AWESOME!

I'm just saying that the downside of that is it has invited dramatic , in your face efforts to 'tame the ham radio spectrum bloat' and take the 'modern' inevitability of 'shared spectrum'.

The only way to fight future 'shared' spectrum is to see the very thing that made this an issue: our NUMBERS. If you don't think that almost 1 million licensed US hams, who are NOT compensated for their efforts, is NOT a constituency with power in spectral fights, then think again.

It is our apathy and general lack of organization that will kill our spectrum. It is the fear of suddenly having , and dealing with ,that organization that can KILL the 'share the spectrum' efforts by outside forces.

I know that many think that K1JT is a huge asset in showing the worth of ham radio, and I absolutely agree. But as an example , IMO, using Joe to show why we need spectrum to execute our Part 97 mission will have absolutely the OPPOSITE effect. Again....6m... 4MHZ of use in 2016, 3KHz of use in 2019....

Use the spectrum.

73
Chip W1YW

 

You are absolutely right in this, which brings at least four interesting questions to surface:

1. What is the current age distribution among the existing almost 750000 amateurs in the US?
2. How large is the proportion of the 30000 new each year that actually become active?
3. What is the age distribution among the new?
4. What were the reasons for them to obtain a licence?

By obtaining a reasonably good picture of the above, it would be possible to make predictions about the long-term sustainability of amateur radio in Region 2, and of its spectrum usage.

Numbers alone, without activity and sustainability weighed in, today mean very little in the larger schemes of spectrum politics.

The days of "only numbers can annihilate" have passed.

73/
Karl-Arne
SM0AOM

 

That's a huge exaggeration. The upper 3.6 MHz of 6 meters has been a wasteland for a long time. More like the lower 200 kHz has been crammed into 3 kHz.

I can't. The current FCC rules won't let me do that effectively. Why can't I have a 1 MHz wide OFDM signal on 6 meters?

 

The allocation is 4MHz.

The useage is 3 KHz.

 

I would say cellular phones have drained 2 meters fm of alot of operators. Everyone thought they needed a rig in the car for emergencies or phone patches in the past, now not so much! So the 2m band looks much less used in the USA unless a repeater occasionally keys up. As for demand for spectrum, I would also assert that alot of the purposes of 2 way radio for commercial or others in the whole world have been replaced by cellphones, especially intermittent users. So that can cause some bloat in cellular demand but it would seem it would take pressure off of VHF or even UHF band usage for many purposes. Thus leaving those bands emptier too. Unless people with allocations refuse to let go of their channels regardless if they still use them.

 

Well, look at it from a different angle, namely 99.75% of the population here in the US. That's the percentage of the population that are not hams. And we look like a special interest group that has locked up tons of valuable spectrum that - get this - sits unused. So, who's losing out?

Honestly, it's not 1962 anymore. 2M here is dead. I'd hate to lose it, but at the same time it's irresponsible to cling on to something that we don't even use.

 

2 meters is widely used in the West and South west Regions outside metro areas. Start seeing who uses it. Some of them are not licensed but its still used very much by hams when I visit the deserts and dry lakes between mountains. I heard a link from Black Rock Nevada once during a sand storm that was linked into the Cali Bay area once last time I visited BR... 2013

Plus much of the off road action is Simplex

 

I agree. IMO it would be a huge danger to travel on the Colorado Plain without 2m.

And yes, I have an 'InReach' too

 

If we could just get all those FT8 users over on to 2-meters, and spread them out a little, the problem would probably be solved.

As much as I hate to admit it... I went and did something I vowed NOT to do. I bought one of those cheap Chinese Baofeng Handy-Talkies so that I could use 2-meters more often. If I had the resources I would have purchased one from the big three manufacturers. The Baofeng seems like a toy compared to the last hand held 2-meter Transceiver I purchased (IC-V8). But, if it helps me create more traffic on 2-meters then I guess it's worth it.

As a side comment... The first HT I ever bought was a Yaesu FT-207R. I purchased it in New Orleans, La and I paid just over $500 for it. That was about 30 years ago when I had more $ to spend.

I still say there is plenty of unused spectrum just above the 2-meter Amateur Band that could be had. Just because the space is allocated does not mean it is being used. A study of that frequency segment should also be done. Maybe there is a lot more traffic on those frequencies around large cities but, in my area, there is NOTHING on those frequencies and 1000 times more traffic between 144-148 MHz.

Dan KI4AX

 

Fred's marvelous innovation of QRZ forums has also contributed to the problem of inactivity and less use of amateur allocated spectrum. It's obviously overused too. Years ago much of this printed banter would have occured in OTA QSO's.

The timing of FT modes is unfortunate. Declining numbers of active hams makes its spectral efficiency not only moot but an unintended consequence vulnerability to future regulatory pressures.

Filling the bands back up again with analog CW and Fone just isn't going to happen. However, doing so with new wider-band digi waveforms could easily occur, IF ONLY ...

The decades long arguments on symbol rates and/or bandwidth limits need to stop. Now.

ARRL ought to get a consensus both within and outside of membership and then lead a coordinated lobby of the ITU and FCC to enable WBHF for amateurs, to spur more innovation for more new digi modes.

Obviously the current narrowband one, WSJT-X, needs no new hardware, mimics the ever popular SMS to send QSO "Tweets" and with FT took off like gangbusters.

How about a similar killer app for SDR that enables rapidly sending Snapchat-like multimedia payloads. Send QSL's, Zed bio's / selfie thumbnails, or live GoPro SOTA images, in a single or short set of transmissions.

Who cares if each QSO slot is 10-15 KHz wide - it will fill in much amateur dead air space and time (of course reserve subbands and weekends for analog / contests )

Rather then prodding for more active hams (ain't enuf gonna happen) instead go for more KHz used per active ham.

73, John, WØPV

 

The ITU has itself no opinion of any emissions, band plans or bandwidths employed within the amateur bands, as long as the emissions do not go beyond the band limits.

So the only real obstacle will be to convince the FCC that micromanagement using byzantine rules is not good for amateur radio.

Good luck with that...

73/
Karl-Arne
SM0AOM

 

Radio operating has evolved to being more than an audio experience. Not just turning the knob and listening, now it's also visual, scanning the panadaptor and waterfalls.

Your comment reminds me of the film Contact. Ellie, then W9GFO, was still Old School, liked listening to the noise. Although all the guys in the shack were watching video monitors. The best part was when the blind guy listening carefully could distinguish the signal characteristics of an older modulation structure.

Despite Joe's innovation being aimed for use under weak signal conditions, listening to FT8 watering holes it's disappointing how many of those QSO's appear to be at a strength that could easily have been made, more efficiently, with an analog mode.

This was proven with a large turnout on SSB during the CQ VHF - note first bulleted comment in K1TO report. "Lots of positives: + Bottomless pit of stations to work on SSB when the band was open. 555 SSB QSOs or about 80% of my Qs were here."

Like Smartfone overuse abuse, the FT fad apparently plugs into darker aspects of human nature; no ear skills required, convenience of click vs tune; no "risk" of conversation - a sign of the times, sigh.

 

I would be gutted if we lost 2m

 

<quote> How about a similar killer app for SDR that enables rapidly sending Snapchat-like multimedia payloads. Send QSL's, Zed bio's / selfie thumbnails, or live GoPro SOTA images, in a single or short set of transmissions.</quote>

We already have that, MFSK in Fldigi sends snapshots and I use it. I see very little use outside a small group of Flgidi users doing NBEMs modes.

[We have a local 2 meter and 440 net weekly using Fldigi on VHF/UHF sending forms and snap shots]

Need to hype up what we can already do digitally and get more Symbol rates approved to widen it up to modern standards.

Then it would quicken it up and we could call them WBEMs modes, Wide Band instead of Narrow Band using say 9600 baud ARDOP?

Art