I totally disagree. Expanding the auto sub-bands would only make room for more PMBO's which later on would want more spectrum because the last bit they got was not sufficient enough. When is enough, enough. Why are we thinking about using these band hogging protocols like Pactor 3 instead of trying to find ways to use spectrum efficient modes like PSK31? The problem with giving more room is simple. You give them more and they will start getting fatter and then ask for more and more and more. Why can't the space hogs learn to try and use more efficient modes. P3 is only 30% faster than P2 or P1 yet it takes up 500% more bandwidth. Where is the gain there?
The point is Bonnie I have seen digital radio going down the tubes thanks to winlink. Most hams have cold shivers when they hear that word. Is this a new way to try and get more space since RM11306 was defeated by a majority of hams? Until winlink and other spectrum inefficient modes can cooperate and share the hf spectrum then I don't think they need more space to operate in. They already are a menace in the auto sub bands as it is. Greg KC7GNM --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "expeditionradio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The use of the Automatic Sub Bands on HF ham radio for digital data > has been increasing tremendously over the past 5 years. Obviously, > automatic and similar types of operation have become extremely popular > with ham operators. This growth pattern appears to be continuing into > the future as more digital methods and innovation are forged. The use > of HF radios interfaced with computers is now commonplace, especially > for ham radio emergency communications systems. > > When the Automatic Sub Bands were originally defined in the 20th > century, the number of HF operators using automatic systems was much > smaller than it is now. Currently, hams using these segments are > experiencing severe congestion and longer waiting times for frequency > availability, while adjacent band segments lay nearly dormant. > > There is now a great need to expand the Automatic Sub Bands, > especially for the North America and European regions. > > A reasonable suggestion is that automatic sub bands be approximately > 10% of each HF ham band. In other words, if an HF band is 350kHz wide, > then at least 35kHz of it should be available as an automatic sub band > for standard 3kHz bandwidth signals. It is especially important that > 3kHz bandwidth be available, because this provides the best > flexibility and enables modern fast time-division sharing methods for > efficient spectrum use, with many stations sharing the same spectrum > in short intervals of time. This trend is away from older slow data > methods using frequency division sharing. > > Here are some suggested expanded frequency ranges > for HF automatic band segments. > > 1805-1815 Worldwide > 1990-2000 North America > 3560-3610 North America > 3590-3630 Worldwide > 7100-7125kHz North America > 7100-7110kHz Worldwide (in the new international band) > 7035-7045kHz Worldwide > 10140-10150 Worldwide > 14085-14125kHz Worldwide (n 14099.5-14100.5 IARU beacon net) > 18100-18109.5kHz Worldwide > 21090-21135kHz Worldwide > 24920-24929.5kHz Worldwide > 28100-28199.5kHz Worldwide > > A push should be made by digital operators everywhere around the world > to recognize and allocate band segments that are the same, or > overlapping worldwide. This is needed to assure the interoperability > and standardization necessary for emergency communications. It is in > the interest of all HF ham operators for bandplanners and spectrum > regulating authorities to designate adequate and reasonable portions > of the HF bands for automatic use. > > 73---Bonnie Crystal VR2/KQ6XA > > . >
