Time to end the digital charade on 60M ? #JT65


Andrew O'Brien
 

After listening a lot over the weekend, I have concluded that no one is the USA is heeding the "guidelines"  for one signal at a time with a precise center frequency. Over the past weekend, on Channel 3,  there were constantly 6-7  JT65A or JT9  signals at the same time, all varying from around 600 Hz to 1800 Hz. It may be time for the ARRL to give up on this idea and accept (as some suggested in early proposals) that digital modes can be allocated one 60M channel and squeeze as much as they can within 3 kHz. I'd advocate 2 new channels for digital on 60M . One for narrow band modes under 500 Hz and one for wider modes like ALE 144, ARDOP, and Pactor .All the narrow digital modes co-existed quite well, I did here a few SSB voice operators complain about "all these digital signals" preventing use of Channel 3 for a voice QSO. 

Andy K3UK


Ken Meinken
 

Andy,

Is the "single signal centered on 1500 HZ" an FCC/NTIA requirement, or just an ARRL fantasy?

73, Ken WA8JXM

On 1/5/17 7:36 PM, Andrew O'Brien wrote:

After listening a lot over the weekend, I have concluded that no one is the USA is heeding the "guidelines"  for one signal at a time with a precise center frequency. Over the past weekend, on Channel 3,  there were constantly 6-7  JT65A or JT9  signals at the same time, all varying from around 600 Hz to 1800 Hz. It may be time for the ARRL to give up on this idea and accept (as some suggested in early proposals) that digital modes can be allocated one 60M channel and squeeze as much as they can within 3 kHz. I'd advocate 2 new channels for digital on 60M . One for narrow band modes under 500 Hz and one for wider modes like ALE 144, ARDOP, and Pactor .All the narrow digital modes co-existed quite well, I did here a few SSB voice operators complain about "all these digital signals" preventing use of Channel 3 for a voice QSO. 

Andy K3UK



Chris Robinson KF6NFW DMR ID 3153250
 

I think there may be an assumption that everyone could hear the others, and that is more than likely not true. Many times i have been on a freq, and never heard a sound only to be told later I came in over top of someone else, and it too has happened to me many times.
 I am sure there are the handful who will just operate wherever they feel like, and then there are others that will move along.
 Overall though, I dont think that much of the issues you experienced were intentional.
Lets also not forget that it is common even if not right for many to group together in hopes of drawing others to them.

Of course I could be of the mindset that if you dont like it turn the dial, either one, they both work! Or go and calibrate everyone's rig that you heard, that is off freq!

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Ken Meinken <ken.meinken@...> wrote:

Andy,

Is the "single signal centered on 1500 HZ" an FCC/NTIA requirement, or just an ARRL fantasy?

73, Ken WA8JXM

On 1/5/17 7:36 PM, Andrew O'Brien wrote:

After listening a lot over the weekend, I have concluded that no one is the USA is heeding the "guidelines"  for one signal at a time with a precise center frequency. Over the past weekend, on Channel 3,  there were constantly 6-7  JT65A or JT9  signals at the same time, all varying from around 600 Hz to 1800 Hz. It may be time for the ARRL to give up on this idea and accept (as some suggested in early proposals) that digital modes can be allocated one 60M channel and squeeze as much as they can within 3 kHz. I'd advocate 2 new channels for digital on 60M . One for narrow band modes under 500 Hz and one for wider modes like ALE 144, ARDOP, and Pactor .All the narrow digital modes co-existed quite well, I did here a few SSB voice operators complain about "all these digital signals" preventing use of Channel 3 for a voice QSO. 

Andy K3UK




Andrew O'Brien
 

Ken, I thought there was some FCC requirement when 60m was first authorized in the USA but I think I was gullible and now suspect it was ARRL fantasy .  

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 5, 2017, at 9:28 PM, Ken Meinken <ken.meinken@...> wrote:

Andy,

Is the "single signal centered on 1500 HZ" an FCC/NTIA requirement, or just an ARRL fantasy?

73, Ken WA8JXM

On 1/5/17 7:36 PM, Andrew O'Brien wrote:

After listening a lot over the weekend, I have concluded that no one is the USA is heeding the "guidelines"  for one signal at a time with a precise center frequency. Over the past weekend, on Channel 3,  there were constantly 6-7  JT65A or JT9  signals at the same time, all varying from around 600 Hz to 1800 Hz. It may be time for the ARRL to give up on this idea and accept (as some suggested in early proposals) that digital modes can be allocated one 60M channel and squeeze as much as they can within 3 kHz. I'd advocate 2 new channels for digital on 60M . One for narrow band modes under 500 Hz and one for wider modes like ALE 144, ARDOP, and Pactor .All the narrow digital modes co-existed quite well, I did here a few SSB voice operators complain about "all these digital signals" preventing use of Channel 3 for a voice QSO. 

Andy K3UK



Andrew O'Brien
 

I'm not suggesting that I dislike the practice , I'm suggesting that it is time to give up on the idea if everyone is establishing a more reasonable approach 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 5, 2017, at 9:41 PM, Chris Robinson <kf6nfw@...> wrote:

I think there may be an assumption that everyone could hear the others, and that is more than likely not true. Many times i have been on a freq, and never heard a sound only to be told later I came in over top of someone else, and it too has happened to me many times.
 I am sure there are the handful who will just operate wherever they feel like, and then there are others that will move along.
 Overall though, I dont think that much of the issues you experienced were intentional.
Lets also not forget that it is common even if not right for many to group together in hopes of drawing others to them.

Of course I could be of the mindset that if you dont like it turn the dial, either one, they both work! Or go and calibrate everyone's rig that you heard, that is off freq!

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Ken Meinken <ken.meinken@...> wrote:

Andy,

Is the "single signal centered on 1500 HZ" an FCC/NTIA requirement, or just an ARRL fantasy?

73, Ken WA8JXM

On 1/5/17 7:36 PM, Andrew O'Brien wrote:

After listening a lot over the weekend, I have concluded that no one is the USA is heeding the "guidelines"  for one signal at a time with a precise center frequency. Over the past weekend, on Channel 3,  there were constantly 6-7  JT65A or JT9  signals at the same time, all varying from around 600 Hz to 1800 Hz. It may be time for the ARRL to give up on this idea and accept (as some suggested in early proposals) that digital modes can be allocated one 60M channel and squeeze as much as they can within 3 kHz. I'd advocate 2 new channels for digital on 60M . One for narrow band modes under 500 Hz and one for wider modes like ALE 144, ARDOP, and Pactor .All the narrow digital modes co-existed quite well, I did here a few SSB voice operators complain about "all these digital signals" preventing use of Channel 3 for a voice QSO. 

Andy K3UK




James Redding WA9VEZ
 

The FCC comments back in 2012 on the following link:

https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2012-2477/p-27

It says "may" and not "shall" and there is a difference between "carrier" (set to 1.5khz below frequency and the modulation side bands. Bandwidth number for digital and RTTY modes is 2 khz for the "B" and "D" tho and not 2.8khz.  PSK31 specification leaves me a bit puzzled as it calls for the PSK31 and CW to be on the center of the channel. For everything else with a "published" mode, keep within the channel and avoid any "primary" user.


47 CFR 97.307 (Cut and pasted)


(14) In the 60 m band:


(i) A station may transmit only phone, RTTY, data, and CW emissions using the emission designators and any additional restrictions that are specified in the table below (except that the use of a narrower necessary bandwidth is permitted):


60 M Band Emission Requirements

Emission typeEmission designatorRestricted to:
Phone2K80J3EUpper sideband transmissions (USB).
Data2K80J2DUSB (for example, PACTOR-III).
RTTY60H0J2BUSB (for example, PSK31).
CW150HA1AMorse telegraphy by means of on-off keying.


(ii) The following requirements also apply:


(A) When transmitting the phone, RTTY, and data emissions, the suppressed carrier frequency may be set as specified in § 97.303(h).


(B) The control operator of a station transmitting data or RTTY emissions must exercise care to limit the length of transmission so as to avoid causing harmful interference to United StatesGovernment stations.


[54 FR 25857, June 20, 1989; 54 FR 30823, July 24, 1989, as amended at 54 FR 39537, Sept. 27, 1989; 60 FR 15688, Mar. 27, 1995; 65 FR 6550, Feb. 10, 2000; 69 FR 24997, May 5, 2004; 77 FR 5412, Feb. 3, 2012; 79 FR 35291, June 20, 2014]

No mention of the ARRL in there. . .

Jim 'vez




Ken Meinken
 

Jim,


Thanks for the references.  Indeed you are correct, the FCC said "may".  However, the first sentence is more restrictive I believe, stating that stations "may transmit ONLY on the five CENTER frequencies".  IDK, IANAL.

(h) 60 m band: (1) In the 5330.5-5406.4 kHz band (60 m band), amateur stationsmay transmit only on the five center frequencies specified in the table below. In order to meet this requirement, control operators of stations transmitting phone, data, and RTTY emissions (emission designators 2K80J3E, 2K80J2D, and 60H0J2B, respectively) may set the carrier frequency 1.5 kHz below the center frequency as specified in the table below. 
73, Ken WA8JXM


On 1/6/17 10:53 AM, JAMES REDDING via Groups.Io wrote:

The FCC comments back in 2012 on the following link:

https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2012-2477/p-27

It says "may" and not "shall" and there is a difference between "carrier" (set to 1.5khz below frequency and the modulation side bands. Bandwidth number for digital and RTTY modes is 2 khz for the "B" and "D" tho and not 2.8khz.  PSK31 specification leaves me a bit puzzled as it calls for the PSK31 and CW to be on the center of the channel. For everything else with a "published" mode, keep within the channel and avoid any "primary" user.


47 CFR 97.307 (Cut and pasted)


(14) In the 60 m band:


(i) A station may transmit only phone, RTTY, data, and CW emissions using the emission designators and any additional restrictions that are specified in the table below (except that the use of a narrower necessary bandwidth is permitted):


60 M Band Emission Requirements

Emission type Emission designator Restricted to:
Phone 2K80J3E Upper sideband transmissions (USB).
Data 2K80J2D USB (for example, PACTOR-III).
RTTY 60H0J2B USB (for example, PSK31).
CW 150HA1A Morse telegraphy by means of on-off keying.


(ii) The following requirements also apply:


(A) When transmitting the phone, RTTY, and data emissions, the suppressed carrier frequency may be set as specified in § 97.303(h).


(B) The control operator of a station transmitting data or RTTY emissions must exercise care to limit the length of transmission so as to avoid causing harmful interference to United StatesGovernment stations.


[54 FR 25857, June 20, 1989; 54 FR 30823, July 24, 1989, as amended at 54 FR 39537, Sept. 27, 1989; 60 FR 15688, Mar. 27, 1995; 65 FR 6550, Feb. 10, 2000; 69 FR 24997, May 5, 2004; 77 FR 5412, Feb. 3, 2012; 79 FR 35291, June 20, 2014]

No mention of the ARRL in there. . .

Jim 'vez




prof.engineer@...
 

That just brings up the issue of equipment frequency accuracy.  Not everyone has even 100 hz accuracy which is about the range one can copy an off frequency USB voice. . . And the limit for out of band signals (harmonics…splatter… everything) is 25 mW. for newer equipment. So I really wouldn’t expect everyone to net their transmissions unless they have a GPS disciplined reference or a working trusted reference.
JIm ‘VEZ
Sent from Windows Mail


 

I'm new to the group and was looking through these hashtags. I like the 60 meter band and would like to see it expanded and more oversight by the ARRL.
73,
KI4VMK 


Andrew O'Brien
 

Welcome . The 60m situation is Indeed a mess. This group was at a major factor in gathering evidence to overcome the ARRL’s earlier claim that only PSK31 and PACTOR were allowed on 60m. It is time the nonsensical limits on practice are replaced with a more common sense approach that includes acknowledgment that current common practice of multi signals at same time are allowed on each channel. 

Andy K3UK



On Dec 21, 2017, at 5:53 PM, Charles Odom <ki4vmk@...> wrote:

I'm new to the group and was looking through these hashtags. I like the 60 meter band and would like to see it expanded and more oversight by the ARRL.
73,
KI4VMK 


 

Thanks for the welcome. ARRL needs to get more involved in the "gentlemen agreement" on the band plans. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

73,
KI4VMK


On Dec 21, 2017, at 6:33 PM, Andrew O'Brien <andrewobrie@...> wrote:
Welcome . The 60m situation is Indeed a mess. This group was at a major factor in gathering evidence to overcome the ARRL’s earlier claim that only PSK31 and PACTOR were allowed on 60m. It is time the nonsensical limits on practice are replaced with a more common sense approach that includes acknowledgment that current common practice of multi signals at same time are allowed on each channel. 

Andy K3UK



On Dec 21, 2017, at 5:53 PM, Charles Odom < ki4vmk@...> wrote:

I'm new to the group and was looking through these hashtags. I like the 60 meter band and would like to see it expanded and more oversight by the ARRL.
73,
KI4VMK 


Graham
 

Andy,

An interesting  exchange   between  k6qi  and the  fcc  a while back over the  emissions allowable  on the  , then new, 5 meg  band,  ending  in simplicity , with  the  FCC pointing out that the  band  was under the  direct  control  of NITA and as such, it  was nothing  to  do  with  them 'squire' 

This post  from wa1wa would indicate, this  still  to  be the  case , as long  as it fits in b/w ,  anything go's ,  [this  reflects  rest of world regulations on this  subject] .

http://www.wa1wa.net/filespdf/NTIAClarifiesPositionon60MeterDigitalPrivileges.pdf

The wording of the fcc  document linked, may  reflect this  , as its appears to  be  comparative  as opposed to directive ,  'pactor 111 technique , I assume to  loosely infers  mfsk type ,  similarly for  psk31 psk carrier ?

 Commission restricts emission designator 2K80J2D to data using PACTOR-III technique and emission designator 60H0J2B to data using PSK31 technique.

I don't know, what propagation  is  like at the  moment,  but Ive certainly managed  a psk31 beacon  decode to the  usa , Opera  to  yourself ? and  VK with the  help  of vk3kck as rx   [ no tx permit in vk]  , 

can set  up if  anyone  wants  to try to uk ?

73-Graham
G0NBD


Ev Tupis <w2ev@...>
 

Graham,
If you're interested in a group of folks that use PSK31 as a propagation indicator...and may even be interested in giving 60 meters a try...visit http://www.PropNET.org

If you formatted your TX's like a PropNET ID, you may find people in the USA willing to be RXing around the clock to document when the band is open across the Atlantic.

'just making the offer.

Cheers,
Ev, W2EV



On Friday, December 29, 2017, 4:13:02 PM EST, Graham <g0nbd@...> wrote:


Andy,

An interesting  exchange   between  k6qi  and the  fcc  a while back over the  emissions allowable  on the  , then new, 5 meg  band,  ending  in simplicity , with  the  FCC pointing out that the  band  was under the  direct  control  of NITA and as such, it  was nothing  to  do  with  them 'squire' 

This post  from wa1wa would indicate, this  still  to  be the  case , as long  as it fits in b/w ,  anything go's ,  [this  reflects  rest of world regulations on this  subject] .

http://www.wa1wa.net/filespdf/NTIAClarifiesPositionon60MeterDigitalPrivileges.pdf

The wording of the fcc  document linked, may  reflect this  , as its appears to  be  comparative  as opposed to directive ,  'pactor 111 technique , I assume to  loosely infers  mfsk type ,  similarly for  psk31 psk carrier ?

 Commission restricts emission designator 2K80J2D to data using PACTOR-III technique and emission designator 60H0J2B to data using PSK31 technique.

I don't know, what propagation  is  like at the  moment,  but Ive certainly managed  a psk31 beacon  decode to the  usa , Opera  to  yourself ? and  VK with the  help  of vk3kck as rx   [ no tx permit in vk]  , 

can set  up if  anyone  wants  to try to uk ?

73-Graham
G0NBD


Graham
 

Tnx  Ev,

Will have a look at that , could  try that ,  set  up  fldigi in beacon mode  , not  used psk on 5  for a  long time . 

though I must admit,  psk  might  not give  a true indication  of  local , short distance communications,  most  data  modes fall  over  , I remember trying , when the  band was first  released [uk] rtty  with the  pk232 , only to watch a  s9 signal . just print nonsense,  using the [ new then]  software  RTTY  decoder  from  Japan  MMTTY , improved  copy , but it  was only with the  introduction  of  mt63 and later olivia , that  reliable contacts could be  made , perhaps the  mfsk systems , of their   time,  did  perform better . 

To track  band  conditions , opera  provides a  unique solution . being  good s/n and  single pass , it  provides a  'what you see  is what  you get' , its also  immune to doppler and survives 'disturbed propagation' , I often see  spots  from  Russia , Moscow area 2000 miles, with  20  watts /40 ft vert  in the  night , which is  another  aspect , the  vertical performers very  well  for  Dx , something  worth noting  , as most  use lon low  systems  ..    

This was a  qrp  test  with  ros-4  on 5  meg  ,  240 miles  , via  web-sdr  >   you  tube  >  5 meg 1 watt
some  data  loss , but 100% print at  -16 dB  average , note also  being  spotted  at 400 miles  by SWL

73-Graham
G0NBD


Ken Sprouse <wa3fkg@...>
 

Ken wa3fkg died November of 2015. Please release him from your group.
His wife
Linda

Sent from my Kindle Fire
Life without God is like an un-sharpened pencil. It has no point.
The app said Windows 7 or better. So I installed Linux!
Beretta - The ultimate point and click user interface.


Andrew O'Brien
 

Sorry to hear that news . I am traveling in Europe for a few days but will attend to this when I get back.

Andy .

On Jan 10, 2018, at 2:16 AM, Ken Sprouse <wa3fkg@gmail.com> wrote:

Ken wa3fkg died November of 2015. Please release him from your group.
His wife
Linda

Sent from my Kindle Fire
Life without God is like an un-sharpened pencil. It has no point.
The app said Windows 7 or better. So I installed Linux!
Beretta - The ultimate point and click user interface.