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:
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
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:
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
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:
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
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:
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
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
(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:
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
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.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Andy K3UK
On Dec 21, 2017, at 5:53 PM, Charles Odom <ki4vmk@...> wrote:
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
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.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Andy .
On Jan 10, 2018, at 2:16 AM, Ken Sprouse <wa3fkg@gmail.com> wrote:
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|