Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?

[Andras B. <ha6...@gm...>]

Hi all,
let me repeat a URL which is to be read and someone is to call the
attention of members of IARU Administrative Council.
http://www.iaru.org/administrative-council-meetings.html
I guess it's the high time for them to meet asap!
gl de ha6nn
Andras

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:48 AM, David Alloza <da...@al...> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I would like to add something to the discussion.
>
> At my location (JN25UE) at maximum propagation ( near noon) , the FT8
> band's noise floor on the 30M is 5db higher than on the rest of the 30M
> band.
>
> The concentration of traffic on the narrow 2.5khz (certainly at excessive
> power)  causes a significant rise in the noise floor and therefore reduces
> the performance of this mode.
>
> I think this is something that needs to be considered for the future of
> these digital mode.
>
> My 73,
>
> David, F4HTQ.
>
>
>
> *De :* ga...@is... [mailto:ga...@is...]
> *Envoyé :* vendredi 23 mars 2018 00:41
> *À :* 'WSJT software development'
> *Objet :* Re: [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?
>
>
>
>    - *“There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it
>    is imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be
>    identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly for
>    normal day to day FT8 operations.”*
>
>
>
> On the contrary, Rich, it is plainly evident that in normal use we can
> successfully pack in *loads* of FT8 signals sharing the present fairly
> narrow slices of the HF bands.  Don’t get me wrong, I fully support the
> idea of monitoring trends and projecting forward but, as things stand, I
> see very little hard evidence of an impending crisis.  Just because there
> are few obvious clear columns on the waterfall does not mean the band
> segment is “full”, since in practice FT8 is extremely good at separating
> overlapping signals.  So I refute your assertion that “there is no doubt”
> that additional frequences are needed.  There most certainly is doubt,
> hence I disagree that expansion is “imperative”.
>
>
>
> A more scientific way to address issue this would be to gather and analyze
> data, objectively, rather than us simply asserting and refuting stuff,
> subjectively.  So what data would be needed?  How would it be gathered and
> analyzed?  By whom?  These questions are worth exploring.
>
>
>
> If the data indicate impending crisis, there are other concerns about the
> options for avoiding or resolving it.  Aside from the problems
> making/taking/stealing space from other modes to allow for more FT8, being
> able to monitor all the FT8 activity on one screen at once is a major
> advantage of the current arrangement, whereas splitting it up across
> additional band segments will make things harder.  It could prove
> counterproductive.
>
>
>
> Having said that, though, I agree there clearly are incompatibilities and
> conflicts between normal everyday FT8 activity and the new DXpedition
> fox-n-hounds mode, so I would agree with the suggestion to make more space
> for DXpedition use, specifically.
>
>
>
> I’d therefore like to make a suggestions: how about we designate a *digimode
> DXpedition zone* on each of the HF bands *without* specifying the
> digimode?  That way, the same chunk of band can be used for RTTY, PSK, FT8,
> JT9, JT65, CW or whatever the DXpeditioners choose, and revert to being a
> multimode segment when no DXpeditions are using it.  It would be a good
> place to experiment with new modes and variants, for instance.
>
>
>
> There will still be occasional conflicts if multiple DXpeditions attempt
> to use the area at the same time, which suggests they might need to slice
> the zone more thinly and stick to narrowmode digimodes with tighter
> pileups, or agree amongst themselves some sort of schedule, or simply check
> that the area is clear before transmitting – standard practice for polite
> DXers.
>
>
>
> 73
>
> Gary  ZL2iFB
>
>
>
> PS  This thread is not really about WSJT-X software development, hence we
> should probably shift over to the other WSJT-X reflector.
>
>
>
> *From:* Rich - K1HTV <k1...@co...>
> *Sent:* Friday, 23 March 2018 10:18 a.m.
> *To:* WSJT <wsj...@li...>
> *Subject:* [wsjt-devel] New FT8 Frequencies?
>
>
>
> *As we all know, when bands are open, it is not unusual to find the
> standard FT8 frequencies packed, end-to-end with stations. The waterfall is
> full of dozens of QSOs and many more dozens of stations calling others.
> There is no doubt that with the super success of the FT8 mode, it is
> imperative that additional frequency “Channels” within each HF band be
> identified for not only the new DXpedition mode, but more importantly for
> normal day to day FT8 operations. Although the number of JT65 users has
> greatly dwindled, there are still many of them using the mode on HF, so
> these frequencies and their JT65 users should be left alone.*
>
>
>
> *The same holds for PSK31 and its army of Hams who like its rag chew
> capabilities that the FT8 and JT65 modes can’t provide. Then there is, on a
> normal weekday, a vast wasteland of the 14.080 to 14.099 RTTY band. When
> you tune across that frequency range during the week, rarely do you hear
> more than a few RTTY signals, while at the same time, packed into 2 KHz,
> many dozens of FT8 stations can be heard working each other. The only times
> that the RTTY band comes alive is during weekend RTTY contests and during
> DXpeditions to countries that RTTY users need to work for digital DXCC.
> DXpeditions usually operate around the upper 10 KHz of the RTTY
> frequencies. There are around a dozen major RTTY contests spaced throughout
> the year, all scheduled over weekend days.*
>
>
>
> *A proposal needs to be made to the community of RTTY operators, most of
> whom probably already use FT8, to see if there would be a serious problem
> if some of the present RTTY frequencies could be shared with FT8. These
> might consist of the 4 KHz at the low end of each of the presently used HF
> RTTY bands. Floating the idea on the ‘rttycontesting.com
> <http://rttycontesting.com>’website would be a good place to start.*
>
>
>
> *The frequencies above the NCDXF HF beacons flagged for digital use, but
> as ‘Packet’ where you probably will find Winlink transmissions, so those
> frequencies probably should be left alone.*
>
>
>
> *Of course, the final additional FT8 frequencies chosen must adhere to
> Regions 1, 2 & 3 band plans.*
>
>
>
> *So, where do we start? Time is flying by and the number of FT8 users are
> quickly growing.*
>
>
>
> *Comments?*
>
> *73,*
>
> *Rich – K1HTV*
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
>