I did some playing with the IC-7610 and I'm pretty sure it is now excluding transmit outside of the ranges I specified. I will see what happens on the IC-7300 later today and we'll compare notes. I would think the two radios would act very similar. The 7300 is is my mobile rig and the engine's thermostat is stuck open so I'm hesitant because brrrr...
Do you know if AllStar uses the FreeDV codec? It really sounds very good compared to other proprietary digital codecs we use (i.e. DMR, etc.).
I will admit I have a good time with some digital modes. Digital voice just doesn't make sense to me unless you want it to be easier for computers to listen to what you are saying. If you can't be heard by a 2-3 khz wide signal then work on your station a little bit. I hear guys go on and on about how terrible AM is. I still work dx with that inefficient mode and it is a lot of fun! There is plenty of room on the bands and all that would do is set up even more barricades to keep people from talking to each other. Not saying it wouldn't be fun to experiment with, but the old analog modes are here to stay as the gold standard. Even on VHF/UHF, if you are into simplex, analog FM is king.
Happy Holidays Chip! Slow reluctant DV adoption is a bit like the early days of AM vs suppressed carrier Slopbucket Back in the day, innovative hams had a significant part as influencers when a major manu led by WØCXX and a government customer led by KØGRL created a market which helped push HF SSB technology, accelerating pathways for amateur adoption. However, despite digital qualities, today there appear to be dwindling commercial uses for any HF voice, as DRM seems to have foundered. Presently DV seems mainly a voice mode throwback for the legacy Rag Chewers era; younger gens shun most long vocal conversations through any medium. Even the proponents of DV point out a negative of it being the constant carrier and latency, a regression from any analog voice modes abilities to distinguish or hear through doubles in real-time, useful for fast-break style contest ops, casual VOX usage, and why FAA ATC still uses it. In the UK it appears amateur DV users are meeting daily on 5.3685 MHz USB which while OK for seems to be outside the new harmonized band. 73 John WØPV
I understand Chip's point that hams tend to not like digital voice on HF, but I could see it changing in part for some purposes. For rag chewing, nets, and the like, it could work. What seems hard to fathom are DX pile-ups in digital modes. We're kinda used to it in SSB. It was probably no fun in AM, what with all the heterodynes, but DX was mostly CW before SSB (still largely is. though FT8 beats it now and tends to dominate) mostly replaced AM. It might be interesting to see how the different failure modes, in cases of interference, work in different DV modes. FreeDV does seem like the most logical choice, though, because it is open, vendor-neutral (like FT8, it runs inside an SSB channel), well designed, and efficient. Maybe I should try it... I also note that there are multiple options within FreeDV so I wonder if that will cause a compatibility problem (I haven't checked to see if or how it adapts). The real world is largely all-digital by now. The telephone phone network is digital. Cell phones are digital (LTE is wicked complex but very effective). Police radios are mainly digital, but P25 is a lousy standard, so fire fighters in particular tend to need FM, especially for on-site simplex (i.e., firefighter inside a building talking to someone outside -- P25 is not good at that).
Digital modulation mode for voice has become a universal standard across many fields. For example, in audio 'DV' equivalent has been used actively for almost 45 years. All your TV and media are 'D' modulated. Smart phones? Yep. Digital voice in ham radio has been around since the 80's and has never been universally adopted. We like to blame the 'manu's for this for being greedy and leading us to adopt their own separate standards that lack compatibility with each other. Dumb excuse IMO. The problem is us. SSB does what we want it to do. Things like HF QSO's with weak and or antenna-limited situations are clearly enamored withFT-8; we just don't feel the overall need to take the voice analogy overall. My opinion on what we should do en masse is irrelevant; I strongly favor DV. But the tipping point only happens when the legacy mode(s) have far less to offer. For AM, SSB took hold because the bands got too crowded on phone and SSB had far less bandwidth, addressing a key issue of interference. With DV, bandwidth is far less, signal to noise is superior. But **SINR** is not. Aliasing and other funky decoding issues can make DV in an interference environment (think contests) sound like flatulence; rips; empty clipped caverns, robots. That is why you have never seen a 'digital voice' only contest. Now you can certainly encode DV for robustness for low SINR but there are still latency issues, cost, etc. FT8 was adopted because it was free--and enabling for low power rigs and modest antenna environments at HF. That translates to a one to one mapping of the geographic centers where there are the most hams, who have HOA's , hostile neighbors, power lines noise, etc. Where does DV voice PLAY on HF? Find that answer and you build a base. 73 Chip W1YW
I think the article is clear if you read it carefully. Nothing has changed on the four discrete, existing channels, the new frequencies are highly restrictive and almost worthless.
All, I first must admit I have been outof radio for a bit due to health issues. Nor have I processed GMF equivalents for any agencies in a bit, but... What is the emission designator for FT8? Why you may ask....US 23 from the NTIA Redbook. Available from NTIA.gov (Publications). "....restricted to a maximum effective radiated power of 100 W PEP and to the following emission types and designators: phone (2K80J3E), data (2K80J2D), RTTY (60H0J2B), and CW (150HA1A)." I did not see designators listed in the FCC PDF document at my cursory glance. What say you all? V/R, Trent
19 minute update - Dang, already got a call from down the road. John and others, My previous DoD MOS and contract job involved creating and updating Government Master File records (GMF), and Spectrum XXI records which are radio frequency authorizations to both federal and FCC administered stations. 60 meters in the Table of Allocations is a "federal band". History - Ross Merlin talked the NTIA into squeezing some slivers out for amateur use...under the premise of interop after such events as Katrina. At one time, placeholder records were in the database for spectrum management purposes. Amateurs should realize....a few bad apples can spoil a good thing. As for lack of any enforcement....silence is not always consent or "golden". Get it? Got it? Good. V/R, Trent
FT8 into an SSB transmitter could be seen as a subset of 2K80J2D (50HJ2D), or perhaps by itself as 50HF1D. Note however that the NTIA documents do not regulate amateur radio, Part 97 does. It allows unspecified but documented data modes.
I beg to differ, Both the NTIA and FCC operate on equal basis under the Department of Commerce (Act of 1934 as ammended). Both glean from Title 47, CFR (eCFR.gov) and apply changes to regulations. Radio spectrum overlaps, so do authorities governing. Elsewhere in the NTIA Manual (Control F) you will find the definitions for Primary, co-Primary, NIB and Secondary authorities for use and coordination. It will also address designators. The Table of Allocations; FCC Regulations contain verbiage that the Table (as ammended) is the guiding document. Also look at US 270. Who is Primary in the UHF spectrum? Why would the Redbook state " the following provisions shall apply to the amateur service:" if there was not definitive CFR to support that comment? We (amateurs) need to be better stewards of spectrum and even better at operating practices. In the current political/tech climate, Spectrum equates to money. Will AI need RF spectrum for anything? How much money does amateur radio pump into federal coffers? NADA. V/r, Trent
The mechanism by which the NTIA and FCC cooperate is by having NTIA make the rules for federal users and the FCC make rules for non-federal users, and have both agencies talk to each other in the process. This includes primary/secondary relationships. NTIA does not always give agencies what they want, and the FCC doesn't always take NTIA literally. Even if they say something about amateur, it's up to the FCC to take it or leave it. By what I assume your estreñido interpretation of the rules, a data mode 2.8 kHz wide would be allowed but a narrower one wouldn't. That is nonsensical. And I did raise the issues during the FCC's Comment process; the new Order strongly suggests that 2.8 kHz was always the maximum bandwidth for data, not the only allowable one, and that multiple narrowband users can share 2.8 kHz: We also carry forward the requirement of section 97.303(h) of the Commission’s rules, currently applicable to the discrete channels at 5332, 5348, 5373, and 5405 kHz, which stipulates that amateur operators shall ensure that emission bandwidth not exceed 2.8 kilohertz, which we also agree will preserve access to the limited spectrum in this secondary allocation. Amateurs utilizing the discrete channels located at 5332, 5348, 5373, and 5405 kHz should already be familiar with these requirements and they have been quite successful in the mitigation of interference to primary users. We found the comments that favored channelization to be unpersuasive, due to both the record reflecting substantial opposition to channelization and the fact that narrow band modes of operation allow a multitude of signals to transmit on a single 2.8 kilohertz channel. I've worked on FCC/NTIA issues professionally, having been deeply involved in the WInnForum standards for implementing Part 96 NTIA/FCC shared spectrum and the 6 GHz FCC Part 101/Part 15 shared spectrum. And the new shared 37 GHz band, and more. I've talked personally to the FCC staffers who work the relationships with NTIA and to NTIA staffers on other shared spectrum issues of interest. So we don't need to amend NTIA documents in order to use new modes on 60 meters.
This was always my expectation, and I'm fine with that. I would include CW as well as digital modes, as they are common on 30 meters today, and work well QRP. I hope to see more JS8 on any band where it works well. I expect that will include 60. I've made a few JS8 contacts on 40, but it's challenging to find anyone on when I am active (not counting heartbeat).
60m had a great opening between Europe and the Pacific Northwest around European sunrise this past evening. I worked a bunch of EU stations. 100w to a dipole on FT8. Based on the S/N numbers, I suspect 9w would not have been enough from here in Seattle. It probably would have been just enough from the East Coast states. I hope we eventually are allowed 50w. I'd even settle for 25w. 9w is going to be challenging for anything more than one- to two-hop contacts under good conditions.
