Here's how my IC-7300 (U.S. model) deals with band edges. They are strictly visual and auditory. Transmit disabling only happens outside of each full amateur band. In the case of 60m, the full "band" is 5255-5405 kHz. This probably accommodates all possible international allocations. I had been concerned that since the four remaining channels are outside the new contiguous allocation, my IC-7300 might disable transmit on those channels if I set the band edges to the 5351.5 - 5405 kHz. So I tried it, transmitting into a dummy load at very low power. It does not. Here's what actually happens. I do get the band edge beeps. When I'm outside the new allocation, the border around the TX icon changes from a solid line, (indicating "OK to transmit") to a dotted line (not OK). This is as expected. BUT... the radio still allows transmit anywhere between the default band edges of 5255-5405 kHz. This behaves the same way as on other bands. For example, Technicians might program in the Tech band edges for 80, 40, 15 and 10. They would hear the warning beeps at their band edges, and the TX icon's appearance would conform to those edges. But our Tech could still transmit anywhere in the full band. "But wait, there's more!" If I set the VFO (or a memory) to the exact published dial frequencies of the four remaining channels, the TX icon border becomes solid, indicating "OK." It appears that these channels are hard-coded in. I also programmed additional memories with the four channels' center frequencies, for CW use. These channels do not change the TX icon border, indicating "not OK." But I can still transmit.
Interesting points. However you are emphasizing legacy rather than optimization. It SOUNDS like you are optimizing but your point on SSB is irrelevant: As a human enterprise, voice communication is not going away. Now your point would certainly apply in the case of digital voice. Once you find a way to get hams to do digital voice--commonly-- with the ionosphere, let me know. To date its a 40 year failure. We are not leading the fray in new innovative modes in 2025. 73 Chip W1YW
No, voice communication is not going away. But SSB phone is a pretty wide signal. It is going to be practical on the new 60m segment at <2w average power output and get thru the noise on 60? Probably not. Worldwide there's all sorts of "band plans" popping out of the woodwork for the new 60m segment. Some of them have SSB phone "reserved" for roughly the top half of it. But practicality says this is not going to happen @ 9.15w ERP. The current FT8 dial frequency at 5357 may stay as it is at lower power, or it may move to one of the other 60m channels since the FT8 guys like to run everything wide open. Experience says the FT8 guys don't stay on their frequencies, and even on 80m last night where JS8 is 5 above the FT8 frequency, we get FT8 in the JS8 passband. JS8 is a QRP mode. With its multi-frame modulation scheme it does not work well at power levels much above 5w. When FT8 appears in the passband, FT8 operators pay no attention to JS8 signals and just transmit right over the top of them because they don't know the difference. This makes JS8 unusable. So we elected to set the JS8 frequency at 6 above the current FT8 frequency for the new 60m segment and we'll see how this all shakes out. https://github.com/JS8Call-improved/JS8Call-improved/commit/385fb0dc92ac538fc80d6111a28f803c7776a867 We think there will be initial excitement over the new segment. But then interest will die out and it will become a QRP version of 30 meters where low power digital modes dominate the entire segment. For JS8 operators it will become a summer nighttime replacement for 80m where the noise floor is often S9+ due to thunderstorm activity in the northern hemisphere. JS8 currently does not operate on 60m because technically it's not legal, and neither is FT8. But since when did FT8 operators ever pay attention to this? FT8 is the ham radio version of CB radio - signals stomping on each other in random fashion, and who ever has the biggest signal wins. So where ever FT8 ends up, JS8 will be far enough away to prevent interference from it.
Been making SSB contacts on 60 meters with 5 watts or less for several years now. Not ideal of course, but out of the 400 contacts or so that I've had on 60 meters 80-85 percent of them were SSB, QRP power levels. I think the lower power limits will be fine for many who chose to operate phone on 60.
Actually, FT8 has been legal on 60m since Joe Taylor invented it. It's just that some hams like to invent rules so that they can complain about violators and call them "CBers" or something stupid like that. It seems to me that this non-rule comes from a 2012 ARRL letter saying what could be used on the band, which was 5 years before FT8 existed and was probably wrong anyway. It is of course good practice on FT8 to try to avoid others in the same 50Hz bandpass but to some extent the decoder handles overlapping signals. It's not like fone. I think JS8 uses the same decoders, just a different payload format. So a little overlap is not a problem. 5357 and 5358.5 kHz are the same: One is the suppressed carrier frequency that would be used to describe SSB, while the other is the center of the channel. I notice on the FT710 that when I switch to fixed channel mode, required currently to transmit on 60m, it displays 5358.5. But switching to VFO mode it shows 5357 and is tuned to the same place. So JS8 is probably using the same frequency as FT8, channel 3. Once the 15 kHz segment opens up it could move, if the radio vendors update the firmware (apparently not necessary with Icom, necessary with Yaesu).
I only recently realized that Icom has been offering HF capable rigs like the IC-705 with their DV (D-Star) mode. Below is a recent demo video that is quite positively impressive for me. With substantially less BW than SSB and a huge SNR quality improvement, it would seem an ideal Voice Mode alternative for the new 60m QRP segment. Why has Icom not offered this feature on the ubiquitous IC-7300 (I have one) now being released in a MK2 version? With its SDR basis I assume it would be simply internal coding. Upgrading 100K + units already in the field would be one big boost for HF DV! 73 & HNY, John, WØPV PS - I know Free DV is always available as an external source via USB port, but that requires a PC / device.
JS8 does not use the same decoder as FT8. The symbols aren't even the same. The JS8 decoder cannot decode FT8, and vice-versa. The FT8 decoder is written in Fortran. The JS8 decoder is C++. While the protocol timing was derived from FT8, JS8 is a different mode. I don't know what version of the regulations you got, and the ARRL has nothing to do with it. I don't see FT8 signals centered on that middle channel, and the regulations explicitly state this must be the case. As far as I know, no hams "invented" any rules here, the FCC did. Does it state FT8 is illegal? No. Does it state that FT8 signals can be scattered all across the channel? No. It says their emissions (meaning anybody who transmits there) must be centered on that center freq. There is no exceptions. It doesn't say you can transmit a signal anywhere as long as it stays within 2.8khz. To me, this is pretty clear. So what makes ham operators any different from CB except for different equipment and frequencies, and a license that says they're supposed to know what they're doing?
I think DStar is much wider than SSB, maybe around 9-10KHz of bandwidth, or around the width of 3 SSB channels.
My point was not taken, so I will repeat it: SSB will be used because hams use it and for the most part do not use digital voice on HF. That may not be what you and I want but that is the reality. Reality my friend. Never argue against reality 73 Chip W1YW
The real question is why arent we using digital voice---commonly-- at HF? Hams are WAY behind the times.
The Order did not specify how power would be measured, but the FCC never applies duty cycle to You may be having reading comprehension issues: The rule explicitly states that "For CW emissions (emission designator 150HA1A) the carrier frequency is set to the center frequency." FT8 is not 150HA1A. Data is treated like voice, and just has to stay within the 2.8 kHz channel. Is that a big 10-4, good buddy?
Icom's DV demo sounds good, sure. But we're suffering from the lack of network effect caused by multiple digital voice systems. Everybody does SSB. But if Icom only talks to Icom and Yaesu to Yaesu, it's not going to succeed. Of course the manufacturers can be pretty stupid and think that their special sauce is better and keep it to themselves, and not implement, say, FreeDV which at least is open, or some other open spec.
Correct. I conflated D-Star with FreeDV which with the latest RADE (Radio Autoencoder) is purported to be 1500 Hz BW (at 6 kHz D-Star as is would not fit the new 60m). So my question now is, if the current D-Star is unnecessarily wide, why doesn't Icom or other manu's using SDR tech in their latest black box offerings, provide a firmware update incorporating, or a way for users to upload and internally link, new DV modes, such as those developed by hams like Free DV. That could spur movement, from a small number simply experimenting with Free DV, which requires running on a clunky external PC / mobile device, to a cleaner radio-only experience more likely to get broader mainstream adoption. My own answer may open a thread "can-of-worms"; is it because FreeFV is so called "Open Source"?
That's not it. We-- hams as a whole-- just don't LIKE DV on HF. Don't blame manu's... they just reflect the desires of the market. DV on HF is niche and not growing fast, no matter what standard one chooses.
That's really too bad. DV on HF could be a way to "work smarter" rather than harder. The demo posted above shows it's possible. On VHF, the current DV modes can be a bit annoying in quality. But they do work. And on HF, especially with some good error correction, it could be a godsend to those of us who don't have big gun stations and/or live in less than optimum locales.
