The FCC has been saying until recently that the narrow modes belong in the text data area, but then they recently made a big change in reinterpreting what narrow band means in order to include Pactor 3 type modes which are similar to the passband of a standard SSB signal.
The change to include image transmission in the text data area (as long as it does not exceed 500 Hz) , does blur things a little more, but then I am in favor of that. HF digital voice can operate anyplace that you are licensed for that permits voice (except 60 meters). Anyone listening to the data sound of such a transmission would have no way of knowing if you were sending a picture, FAX, talking to another ham, or even sending text or a mixture of content. It all sounds the same with an OFDM modulation scheme. It seems reasonable to me that eventually the FCC is going to allow any content as long as the mode is of a certain width. It may require narrower modes to stay in the narrow area (except CW), although the ARRL proposal from some time again did not specifically say that. There would be band plans to help keep things from getting too far out of hand. And, yes, bandplans can apparently be used in enforcement actions in terms of meeting "good amateur practice." The amount of space needed for CW is going to continue to decrease over the next decade since there just are not that many new hams that are going to be involved with CW to replace the older hams who will become SK's. And the amount of space needed for PSK31 seems miniscule. Perhaps the peak use of these very narrow modes has stabilized and often they can all be accomodated within the passband of an SSB signal width. 73, Rick, KV9U n6vl wrote: > John, > > I would be perfectly content to leave things in the status quo. If > the ARRL really wants wider digital signals on HF, then I would > prefer they not penalize those of us who operate narrower modes such > as many in the digitalradio group. I would prefer they move up higher > in each HF band. After hitting the send button, I realized many ssb > operators would not like my proposal. It would make more sense for > wide bandwidth digital to share spectrum with the new HF digital > voice users than to share it with narrow band modes. > > The recent changes to allow pictures to be transmitted with MFSK16 is > a case in point. Images and data are segregated under the current > rules. SSTV transmits images and has traditional been in the phone > sections. Yet now SSTV is evolving into digital which is an image > assembled into data. That is why I think these wider digital signals > belong up with digital voice. They have more in common. > > I am undecided if wide bandwidth digital even belongs in HF anyway. > There is a lot more room in VHF/UHF for such things. As frequency is > increased, a given bandwidth is a lower percentage of the operating > frequency. That is why bands above 30 MHz have much larger > allocations. > > I have been a long time ssb operator on HF since the 70s. It has only > been since 2000 that I actively started using HF digital modes. OK I > used AMTOR briefly in the late 80s even TOR modes were still keyboard > to keyboard. I jumped on the PSK31 bandwagon and then MFSK16 and > Oliva. Being apartment bound at the time, I wanted an efficient > narrow band mode for the little guy who did not want to mess with CW. > The narrow modes speak to these kinds of operators. I don't want to > see them squashed. > > In the past six months I have tried CW for the first time in my ham > career. I am not that good at it, maybe 13 wpm tops. I wanted an > efficient mode that did not require a computer to use it. It is a fun > mode and not for everyone. I am not that upset over the dropping of > morse testing. But I am disturbed by the reduction in spectrum for CW > and other narrow band modes, especially PSK31. These modes need a > safe haven. > > My initial comments were based on compromise and not my ideal. My > ideal would be to leave the rules alone. My compromise would be to > allow wide band HF digital modes to mingle among the HF digital voice > users. The ARRL has not proposed a compromise. They have proposed > hardships on narrow band users. > > 73, > > Steve N6VL > > >
