Good point, Joe, on 160 not being an HF frequency band. Although most of us do tend to lump it in with the other HF frequencies.
The change on 80 meters I bet is almost shocking to ARRL since I can not imagine that they would have wanted the competition to many of the traffic nets that operate in the mid 3600's. Ironically, then, this means that the digital portions of the 80 and 40 meter bands will be reduced does it not? You won't be able to operate any of the digital modes, except CW, above 3600. This means that a number of Pactor operations will be forced to operate in a much smaller subband. So wouldn't the Pactor and other wide band modes wreak even more "havoc" with the change? Your view that SSTV would fill the non-phone bands if they could operate there seems misplaced. If you operate much SSTV, you know that the stations are often chatting on SSB analog voice and use it to coordinate the sending of images. I am beginning to think that those of us who are in the older category, and who want to be able to coordinate images and data with voice may not see this in our lifetime, except on 160 (where it is very rare) and VHF and up. One thing that may come of this is more development of combination image/data modes that keep within the 500 Hz bandwidth. But, it is going to be a bit complicated in that you can send wide bandwidth data in the non-phone portion of the HF bands, but if you want to switch to image you have to use a narrow band mode. And conversely, when you are on the phone bands, you still won't be able to send data unless it is an "image." I wonder how the Bandwidth proposal will play out now that they have preempted some of the frequencies that some of us thought would be digital but now will be phone/digital voice/image? 73, Rick, KV9U Joe Veldhuis wrote: >160 meters is MF, not HF. > > > >Else the digital bands could be filled with wide SSTV, leaving >no room for RTTY, PSK31 and the like. Just look at the havoc that >2KC-wide Pactor 3 signals are wreaking already. Despite the paranoid >rants posted earlier, the intent of this rule change, as I understand >it, is merely to allow US hams to use the analog image feature of MFSK16 >(which is no wider than the digital text mode, just 316 Hz); to solidify >the legal status of Feldhell, considered by some interpretations to be >an image mode, either analog or digital depending on how you look at it; >and permit future experimentation with similar modes. > >-Joe, KD8ATU > > >Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > >Other areas of interest: > >The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ >DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
