[600MRG] HF-MF band planning

[John Langridge]

I don't disagree with that at all.

XIQ




________________________________
 From: Marshall Cross <mcross at megawave.com>
To: John Langridge <jlangridge at sbcglobal.net>; "sbjohnston at aol.com" <sbjohnston at aol.com>; "600mrg at w7ekb.com" <600mrg at w7ekb.com> 
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2014 5:08 PM
Subject: RE: [600MRG] HF-MF band planning
 


 
CW (OOK) is a digital waveform. 73, Marshall, W1HK, #41

Sent from my Windows Phone

________________________________
 From: John Langridge
Sent: 3/3/2014 5:14 PM
To: sbjohnston at aol.com; 600mrg at w7ekb.com
Subject: Re: [600MRG] HF-MF band planning

>I've heard/read several guys make the case for 630 meters as 
digital-only.  To be clear, they meant digital" to mean 
computer-controlled DSP-generated modes, not to include CW.  That idea 
didn't appeal to me - I think CW is very appropriate to the 630m band, 
for historical and practical reasons.

Out of curiosity, where did you hear or see those comments?  Like you, I am not in favor of a CW-free band but I've never seen anyone bold enough to seriously make that statement.  I can't see it holding up.  Most of the people I can imagine making that statement
 are using modes that will likely be wider than allowed on the band anyway.

A couple of things that I tried to hit on in my comment was how the band currently seemed pretty harmonious and offered specific examples of where many of us operate CW, JT9, MSK and MFSK QSO modes and that WSPR has settled in worldwide where it is.  SO far,
 not really a problem and we are cramming a lot into a very small area.

I also pointed out that the average casual op using a very small antenna is going to be pretty well locked in to where they operate so moving from one of the band to another to work different modes might be problematic. 
 Many of us have implemented the ability to slide around the band remotely but I doubt the guy casually trying the band out would go to that expense or trouble unless they get really enthusiastic as a lot of us have.

I'm personally glad that guys here are making comments.  It would be a shame if someone from the league who might otherwise know nothing about the band and what is going on there now, painted with a broad brush where things were to take place going forward
 since some structure is already in place and working.

The other side to that is that its *just* a bandplan.  Historically that has only been listed as "recommended", not compulsory.

73!

John WG2XIQ/KB5NJD










________________________________
 From: "sbjohnston at aol.com" <sbjohnston at aol.com>
To: 600mrg at w7ekb.com 
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2014 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: [600MRG] HF-MF band planning
 



Rudy N6LF wrote:

>Because the band is so narrow (only 7 kHz) careful band planning is essential.


What sort of band planning would you like to see?  For a 7-kHz-wide band I would think segments for different modes would be unnecessary - but I am open to hearing other ideas.  The 30m band is a similar situation - just one 25-kHz band for CW and digital modes
 with voluntary congregation of each toward the lower and upper ends of the band, respectively.

I've heard/read several guys make the case for 630 meters as digital-only.  To be clear, they meant digital" to mean computer-controlled DSP-generated modes, not to
 include CW.  That
 idea didn't appeal to me - I think CW is very appropriate to the 630m band, for historical and practical reasons.  


Steve WD8DAS

sbjohnston at aol.com
http://www.wd8das.net/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Radio is your best entertainment value.
--------------------------------------------------------------------






_______________________________________________
600MRG mailing list
600MRG at w7ekb.com
http://w7ekb.com/mailman/listinfo/600mrg_w7ekb.com
_______________________________________________
600MRG mailing list
600MRG at w7ekb.com
http://w7ekb.com/mailman/listinfo/600mrg_w7ekb.com