Bandwidth-Based Frequency Plan for USA

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WA3KYY @ Feb. 13 2004,07:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am in favor of some form of bandwidth based, mode independant allocation...
...
I don't think that a "US free phone zone" is a quaint notion at all just a recognition of the way things work.  
...
It is my opinion that a lot of foreign countries set up their bandplans with a purposefully wider phone segment on certain bands to provide just that.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
USA is not required to cede any spectrum for a "Foreign SSB DX private reserve" to other countries. It is certainly not in our best interest to do so.

73---Bonnie KQ6XA

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WA3KYY @ Feb. 13 2004,07:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For the next 5 or more years split phone operations are likely to be a way of life for US operators who want to work phone DX on 40M. I do not believe we can give any significant wideband mode access below 7.1MHz. The influx of operators would destroy narrow mode operations.  Because of foriegn broadcast interference in the 7.1-7.3MHz segment the influx of US operators would be huge.

73,
Mike[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
.

KQ6XA RESPONDS:
I agree with you, on some things Mike. The fact is, that the majority of HF operators, an estimated 90% of all activity, operate voice. Given that fact, our present band situation in USA on 40 meters is a catastrophe. 7MHz is arguably the most valuable chunk of HF spectrum real estate we have. The propagation is good for day and night. Yet there is no clear voice spectrum, free of high power broadcasters, that is currently allowed on 7MHz at night for the "lower 48" states of the USA.

Hams only have 100kHz of clear spectrum at night, 7000~7100, and it will continue to be that way into the future for a very long time. In USA, one-quarter of our clear 100kHz is under-utilized as a defacto "Extra-only private CW reserve", and the majority of the CW/Digital operators share the other 75kHz with foreign all-mode.
The 7000~7025 band segment is nearly wasted spectrum during the day because it is only Extra, and most of the Extras are up the band on CW between 7025 and 7045 where there are more operators to talk with!

The activity pattern stemming from regional IARU bandplans, is that the spectrum from about 7030 to 7100 is shared by medium-bandwith emissions, including SSB. At night, since 40m is an international band, we currently have conflicting bandplans.

The bandwidth-based frequency plan would fix the problem we currently have on 40 meters.

It is absurd that USA hams are not free to directly communicate on the same frequency with all the other hams we hear on 40 meters at night.

Land of the free?

73---Bonnie KQ6XA





.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KQ6XA @ Feb. 13 2004,18:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is absurd that USA hams are not free to directly communicate on the same frequency with all the other hams we hear on 40 meters at night.

Land of the free?

73---Bonnie KQ6XA





.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
NO it is NOT absurd, what it does is give the DX stations a place to not have to put up with the rude pile-ups that are characteristic of American Hams.... especially those who seem to think they have a RIGHT to a contact...

Leave it alone, give the rest of the world a place to escape our arrogant attitudes...

 

Not for nothing Ms. But where did you come up with that figure? Is that something you polled for? Is it just a guestimet of yours? When I'm on the bands, with the exception of 80/75 meters, I find as many CW QSO's as Phone. Are you saying that 90% of the ham population can operate phone and so they are the majority. Just curious. I don't remember ever being polled.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KQ6XA @ Feb. 12 2004,13:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">.....which automatically leads to 3 times the band segmentation that Canadians have, if divided between license classes.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Dear Bonnie,

As I may have mentioned in a previous post, Canada has no amateur-band segmentation by licence grade or emission, with the exception that holders of the Basic qualification without Morse Code are allowed access only to bands > 30 MHz. The only operational difference between Basic and Advanced licensees with Morse Code lies in the permitted power limits.

I am attaching a copy of RIC-2.

Cheers, 73,
Adam VA7OJ/AB4OJ

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N7MK @ Feb. 01 2004,14:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I guess my only thought is how would you prevent interference between modes that may not be able to detect one another?

M[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I would counter your question with, how do prevent interference between modes that may not be able to detect one another now?

 

Needs more work.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KQ6XA @ Feb. 13 2004,17:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
KQ6XA wrote:

"The fact is, that the majority of HF operators, an estimated 90% of all activity, operate voice."

Estimated by whom? How was this 90% number obtained?

USA hams in Region 2 have 74% of the available ham band spectrum below 30 MHz open to voice and image operation. While Morse is allowed on all of those frequencies (except 60M) in practice Morse is rarely used
in the phone/image bands.

"Hams only have 100kHz of clear spectrum at night, 7000~7100, and it will continue to be that way into the future for a very long time."

7100-7200 is due to be cleared for worldwide amateur use by 2007. That's only 3 years, not a "a very long time".

"one-quarter of our clear 100kHz is under-utilized as a defacto "Extra-only private CW reserve","

Data modes are allowed there as well as Morse. Most data
ops stay higher in the band out of consideration. They aren't required to.

An Extra class license is available to anyone who can pass 5 wpm code and three multiple choice written tests from a
published pool. Been that way for almost 4 years. What's the problem?

"and the majority of the CW/Digital operators share the other 75kHz with foreign all-mode."

That's a result of Cairo, 1938.

"The 7000~7025 band segment is nearly wasted spectrum during the day because it is only Extra, and most of the Extras are up the band on CW between 7025 and 7045 where there are more operators to talk with!"

The same can be said of any part of any band that's not
full of signals.

"The activity pattern stemming from regional IARU bandplans, is that the spectrum from about 7030 to 7100 is shared by medium-bandwith emissions, including SSB. At night, since 40m is an international band, we currently have conflicting bandplans."

Only because the rest of the world gave in back in 1938 and is only now getting around to fixing that mistake.

"It is absurd that USA hams are not free to directly communicate on the same frequency with all the other hams we hear on 40 meters at night."

It's not absurd at all.

What's absurd is to reward the users of wide modes like SSB and penalize the users of spectrum efficient modes like CW and PSK-31.

I say the bands should be allocated as follows:

Lowest 15-25%: CW only
Middle 15-25%: Digital/data and CW on secondary basis
Top 50-60%: Analog voice/image and CW on secondary basis

As an example, 80/75 meters:

3500-3575: CW only
3575-3725: Digital/data and CW on secondary basis
3725-4000: Analog voice/image and CW on secondary basis

40 is a special case but as the SWBC move out and other regions open up 7100-7200 it will resolve itself.

73 de Jim, N2EY

 

interesting to note that bonnie left "wideband" modes out of 40 meters. guess she does not want us AM guys on that band anymore, eh? and just what method does she suggest we use to actually get an accurate measurement of our transmitted bandwidth? ok, dump the code, but for god's sake let's at least make sure our new hams really know something about radio before they spew out "bandplans" like that one. and this means more than putting up a store bought dipole and plugging in the line cord.

 

5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KQ6XA @ Feb. 13 2004,175)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WA3KYY @ Feb. 13 2004,07:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am in favor of some form of bandwidth based, mode independant allocation...
...
I don't think that a "US free phone zone" is a quaint notion at all just a recognition of the way things work.  
...
It is my opinion that a lot of foreign countries set up their bandplans with a purposefully wider phone segment on certain bands to provide just that.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
USA is not required to cede any spectrum for a "Foreign SSB DX private reserve" to other countries. It is certainly not in our best interest to do so.

73---Bonnie KQ6XA[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Showing some respect for others is not "cedeing" anything Bonnie, it fosters good relations which definitley IS in our best interests.  By the time any bandwidth based plan makes it into the US regulations, 7.1-7.2 MHz will be widely available to the rest of the world's amateurs.  When that happens, DX phone operations will likely move into that segment and it will significantly overlap the US phone segment with the proposed refarming of the current Novice CW segment at 7.10-7.15.  Whether additional space below 7.10 is needed for wideband modes in the US remains to be seen, but with 200KHz available, I don't think more will be immediately needed. However we will likely still see DX phone operations below 7.1MHz.

What will be interesting to see is if at the next WARC, 7.2-7.3MHz will be released to amateurs world wide.  It could just as likely end up with Region 2 losing that segment.

73,
Mike

 

Wow!!! The emotion is thick in here Makes me wonder if my hand will get bit for puting in my 1.3 cents worth.

Bonnie... I can see you put a lot of thought into this. I do give you an "E" for your effort. I Concede that you know much more about radio than I do ( I'm just an applience opperator). I am new to this issue and admittedly have not given it nearly as much thought as you have, but here is my first reaction to your plan (just shooting from the hip).

First off, I can see the possable need for such a plan, but your plan is waaaaaaay too complicated. Keep in mind I am just a dumb CW op and as I said an applience opperator ta boot.

Your notion of SSB on 30m really caught my attention. AS has been previously stated, the band is just too narrow for anything other than what it is now. Besides which... I LOVE THAT BAND THAT WAY

The real issue is how to accomondate the wide band modes without too much QRM. My rough draft proposial (just off the cuff) would work like this...

on the larger bands like 160m 80m, 40,m 20m, 15m and 10m... a very simple band plan would work like this.
Devide the band in about half. The bottom half of each band would SSB and CW only. With a max power output of 200 watts. I supose PSK would fit in there as well. No sub band, No "gentlefolks" agreement. SSB and CW can c0-exist without segregation.

The upper half of each band would be for wide band transmissions as well as phone with the 1.5kw power limit in tact. That way you can send your wide band data, and then get on phone and say"how did you like that one?". Anyone looking for a clear spot on the data half will know they have to move considerably more than 3khz when hearing a SSB signal, cuz data is sure to follow!!!

A few things this would fix are...
The CBer's would be discouraged from playing on 10m cause there will be plenty of phone traffic there. AND we will have the ability to tell them to do take a hike!

We will be able to work DX phone where CW only is allowed now.

There will be less band waste and less qrm from high power hams cuz they will be grouped together.

Let's not have sub bands for various licence classes, instead, let's use power limits and mode limits as carrots for upgrade.

The real problem with my idea is gonna come from all those hams that are hopelessly devoted to their HF nets. Now they will have to steak out new territory to claim exclusive right to. On the other hand, many will want to stay right where they are for power reasons, and maybe to take atvantage of digital modes to enhance net operations.

This is my K.I.S.S. method. I realize some tweaking of this idea is in order, but you get the idea. Ok boys and girls... now it's your turn to tell me why this won't work. I especially would like to hear what Bonnie thinks but all are welcome to take your best shot!

73---Minton---n0nwo

 

Update: September 2004.
It has been over 6 months since this proposal was submitted to ARRL and its committee. Nothing heard so far from them. However, they have announced their own  plan and they say they are seeking comments.

Bonnie KQ6XA