Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X: Working frequency suggestions

[Jim B. <k9...@au...>]

On Mon,6/26/2017 11:07 AM, Bill Somerville wrote:
> On 26/06/2017 18:36, Jim Brown wrote:
>> On Mon,6/26/2017 10:27 AM, Bill Somerville wrote:
>>> To give an example of what we face, the current IARU region 1 band 
>>> plan requires all MGM activity to be between 50300 and 50400 so 
>>> expecting to run transatlantic QSOs on 6m JT9E/H on 50290 or indeed 
>>> JT65/JT9 on 50276 is going to cause the region 1 band police a problem.
>>
>> Any bandplan that does not facilitate QSOs between regions is a 
>> bandplan destined for failure. :)
>>
>> 73, Jim K9YC 
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> I agree but the region band plan coordinators would reply that, at 
> least on 6m, there is no problem since the 50300 - 50400 section is 
> available everywhere for narrow band digital modes.
>
> BTW the definition of narrow band digital modes is problematic as 
> region 3 defines NB as not exceeding 2kHz bandwidth even though it 
> shares spectrum with SSB which is allowed up to 6kHz b/w. That means 
> region 3 cannot use MSK144 (>2.4kHz b/w) in sections allocated to 
> narrow band digital (NB). Therefore in region 3 MSK144 on 6m would 
> have to be above 50500 amongst the other wide band (WB) users like FM. 
> As such a KL7 to Asiatic Russia digital MS contact would have to be 
> cross frequency!! That seems rather unreasonable but that is where we 
> currently are.
>

That's a great example that exposes issues with the IARU allocation and 
coordination process. And these are often issues that take decades to be 
worked out.

73, Jim K9YC