[600MRG] HF-MF band planning

[John Langridge]

Thanks for the response Steve... I have heard grumblings at talks and conventions from the emcomm crowd as well but never that blatant.  I'm a pretty aggressive guy so they may be holding their punches to avoid a beat down.  They might be trying to get under your skin.  Shortsighted comments as you describe usually come from the guys with a "big bag of nothin'" anyway.

I guess I would like to see it play out like on 160, where the band is self policed and those of us who use the band make the decisions about how its used.  Its kinda working that way now.  I don't like phone guys ragchewing in the DX window on 160 but we certainly don't need more regulations to stop it.  Same on 630m...

I suspect there will be more small signals on the band than large and that may lend itself to multiple QSO's on a given freq in geographically isolated areas.  The judicious use of RX antennas will help that so I'm inclined to believe that we can all live together if guys properly equip their stations.  I would not worry about the emcomm crowd.  Around here they are mired in such bureaucracy and generally lack the necessary technical skill that I suspect its going to be tough for them to get much going.  That may be harsh but that's a fact.  We have gotten back to real radio with 630m.

73!

John XIQ






________________________________
 From: "sbjohnston at aol.com" <sbjohnston at aol.com>
To: 600mrg at w7ekb.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: [600MRG] HF-MF band planning
 

John, thanks for the additional info.  Where have I heard these no-CW comments?  In emails, and in-person and on-the-air discussions.  If I were to summarize, there seemed to be two main reasons offered:  (1) Emergency communications is the reason for the new band and these networks need to use computerized below-the-noise demodulation modes and the should be protected against interference from "routine" amateur operations.  (2) There isn't enough room in a 7 kHz band for anything but machine-precision modes.  As you might expect I pushed back on these ideas, making the point that CW is good for emergency comms and there needs to be room for both modes.  



Perry and Marshall, I agree that CW is "digital" in nature.  But that is not usually what is meant when some people speak of "digital modes" - they are referring to DSP-generated waveforms from personal computers soundcards or specialized modems such as listed on http://wb8nut.com/digital/ .  So it is wise to be clear on that point.

Band planning has several times been claimed to be voluntary and then there were subsequent efforts to get the plans implemented into governmental rules.  For example, the IARU claims their bandplans are voluntary, but actively promote their bandplans as templates for future regulation.  That's why I care about bandplans and try to work toward fair and open plans that makes sense for as wide a variety of amateur operations as possible.

Let me emphasize that just because I am passing along these views it does not mean I support them!  I've already gotten a direct email mad at me for saying there should be no CW on the new band - that's the exact opposite of my view!



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