George, Kyu and others,
160m is a right PITA actually because the band plan structure there varies wildly by region and many countries have restrictions on what they can access. The digital segment for 160 in at least region 2 and 3 (Americas and Asia/Pacific) is actually 1800-1810kHz! Many countries in the Asia Pacific also do not have access to the whole band also (HL has 25kHz, JA is not much better, VK only has 75kHz etc). In region 1, the band doesn’t even start until 1810kHz in many countries. So what to do? Originally I had been researching pushing IARU to assign 1810kHz as an FT8 watering hole globally. The problem is that Japanese operators can strictly only use CW on that band segment. Short of convincing the Japanese equivalent of OFCOM/FCC/ACMA to allow JA hams digital modes above 1810kHz that was not going to work. For sure there would be some CW resistance to an 1810kHz digital signal channel as well. Mind you, in Region 3 there is a lot of resistance to going any higher than 1840 as well (at 75kHz there isn’t enough room for what we do have today) and going below 1836kHz will certainly eat into the more popular section of the CW band (which apart from contests appears to be 1815-1835kHz). I don’t think it fair to push into what is active prime CW territory. Is there a good solution for 160m you might ask? Probably not. Is there some sort of case for a regional based approach? Yes. If we can push IARU to raise the digital segment up to say 1816kHz (from the current 1800-1810) in exchange perhaps for FT8 QSYing away from 1840kHz completely – is that something to consider? For example, say 1810kHz for FT8 and 1813kHz for FT4, and on 160m (only) allow the FT8 frequency to be shared with F/H activity (or perhaps F/H FT8 stays on 1840?) Is that something that might work? It would maximise the number of countries that could access a harmonised single 160m channel (excluding for now JA – perhaps they can lobby their regulator?). Failing that, again consider my earlier comments on 40m about JT65 and JT9 sharing, in this case on 1836 and put FT4 on 1838 – noting that locks the HL and JA amateurs out of the band? Going near 1815-1830 will cause significant anger from the CW community for sure. 1810-1815 – will too but hopefully less so. For discussion – not an easy one to solve. Regards, Grant VK5GR From: George J. Molnar [mailto:geo...@molnar.tv] Sent: Wednesday, 1 May 2019 10:52 PM To: WSJT software development Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] [HL2WA] Request of 80m band review for FT4 frequency The bottom 25 kHz of each band generally are used pretty heavily for CW DX, with DXpeditions often in the xx30 to xx40 range. I would encourage keeping away from that space to avoid conflict. Geo/KF2T On May 1, 2019, at 8:36 AM, 이동규 <hl...@naver.com> wrote: Hi, Bill (G4WJS) Thank you for your kind and quick email reply. About 80m band FT4 frequency 3.523MHz and I think Korean DX members are very positive. We will respond to your opinions in a short period of time by collecting opinions from Korean HAMs. In addition, we request a review to be able to assign the 60m Band to 1.822 KHz or another frequency( ex) 1819 , 1820....) from 1.800 to 1.825 MHz. de HL2WA ( KYU )
_______________________________________________ wsjt-devel mailing list wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
