Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 frequency choice - problematic

[Joel I. <co...@gm...>]

Ok

El mar., 30 de abril de 2019 7:14 p. m., Grant VK5GR <vk5...@gm...>
escribió:

> Bill,
>
>
>
> I know the IARU claims DV on 7070 impinge on 7065 – but then DV voice
> modes like FreeDV only need 1-2kHz – so perhaps it wont in fact interfere
> with 7065 USB? Incidentally  – Ive never heard any there. I have heard it
> up around 7177-7180 by convention rather than band plan – and that is
> because it is perceived as ultimately a wideband voice mode. (US hams tell
> me they are not allowed to run DV on the IARU planned frequencies because
> the base modulation is voice – and the US generals can only start using
> voice above 7175kHz – hence they use 7177 and above).
>
>
>
> All of this highlights what I said earlier, the 40m band plan is a mess
> <sigh>. You make some good points too about 7065/7067 and I would love to
> hear from other ops across R1 and 2 of those modes to see if they really
> are using it. In Region 3 we more often than not have plain QRM in that
> part of the band from illegals. At least FT8 (and I presume FT4) can cut
> through a lot of that.
>
>
>
> AT some point given all the angst, I have to come back to the other
> suggestion, and that is that WSJT should reuse frequencies that have been
> mostly abandoned. Put JT65 and JT9 together but in the software design it
> so JT9 stays above 2000Hz and JT65 below. Both are today low utilisation
> modes yet they have 4kHz notionally consumed by them. So place JT65/9 on
> 7078 (spilling up to 7081) and insert FT4 on the JT65 channel. If it takes
> over from FT8 as suggested (although its drop in sensitivity wouldn’t
> encourage me I will say) then in time FT4 moves down to canabalise FT8 (or
> at least push FT8 back below 7076 – as today  it uses the full 7074-7077
> slot and still is congested currently).
>
>
>
> Meanwhile, I will begin more actively engaging with IARU globally to get a
> global band plan group set up rather than a set of regional ones. It is
> clear that the interest in digital modes is growing but that the space
> available isn’t keeping up. Global coordination is paramount. Its time this
> issue was fixed head on.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Grant
>
>
>
> *From:* Bill Somerville [mailto:g4...@cl...]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 1 May 2019 8:07 AM
> *To:* wsj...@li...
> *Subject:* Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 frequency choice - problematic
>
>
>
> Hi Grant,
>
>
>
> thanks for the suggestions.
>
>
>
> Isn't 7065 going to clash with the DV CoA at 7070 in regions 1, and 2 at
> least. 7060 - 7100 is also designated as an SSB contest preferred segment,
> particularly heavily used in region 1 when working region 2 stations split
> above 7200 on darkness paths. I can't imagine a mode designed for digital
> contests will go down well in the middle of that prime territory during
> international phone contests!
>
>
>
> I'm not disagreeing but the problems of using an all modes section is that
> is is very hard to establish what rights are already claimed, e.g. long
> established nets. I understand you preference to lead the way for more DM
> allocation in the band plans, or at least some more rationalization of what
> there is, but is there really any chance of DM segment expansion in the
> near future?
>
>
>
> 73
> Bill
> G4WJS.
>
>
>
> On 30/04/2019 23:20, Grant VK5GR wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
>
>
> Dont move down lower. Globally 7040-7043 is PSK land - JT/FT modes have stepped on enough PSK watering holes over the years. RTTY has to be left with something too. Again I come back to the original; desire to have some separation between RTTY contesters and FT4 contesters. 7047 was never a good choice from that perspective either. The first 10kHz of 7040-7050 in a contest is the busiest. It thins out some between 7050-7060. It then spills into the beginning of a mixed SSB segment (R1/3)+digital segment (USA) 7060-7070. EMCOM was moved to 7110 in Region 3 years ago (and the other regions should follow suit).
>
>
>
> In Region 1,2&3 7060-7100 is in fact marked all modes. Given the objectives I outlined for frequency selection earlier:
>
>  1.       provides separation between RTTY and FT4 contesters when they are running simultaneously (RTTY runs above the FT8/JT9 segments currently)
>
> 2.       avoids/limits impact on known QRP CW centres of activity
>
> 3.       avoids impact on the PSK community on .070-.074
>
> 4.       avoids pushing digital modes far into the voice segment of the bands particularly on 80/40/20m but is a major compromise on 40m. 40m’s digital modes segments are a mess anyway and harmonisation is difficult at best on that band.
>
>
>
> 7065 in my mind is looking like a better outcome or even 7067kHz.
>
>
>
> For consideration.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Grant VK5GR
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Bill Somerville [mailto:g4...@cl... <g4...@cl...>]
>
> Sent: Wednesday, 1 May 2019 6:19 AM
>
> To: wsj...@li...
>
> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] FT4 frequency choice - problematic
>
>
>
> On 30/04/2019 19:10, rj...@gm... wrote:
>
> Hi Joe, Bill, Steve and team,
>
>
>
> I'm getting feedback about the frequency choices for the initial FT4
>
> rollout. There is conflict with users because it is so low down in the
>
> band on 40 meters (7047). The QRP fox hunt (CW) guys are up in arms
>
> because that's where they operate. Other hams have been complaining to
>
> their ARRL officials (including me) about the QRM.
>
>
>
> I love the FT/JT modes and think that what the WSJT development team
>
> is doing is absolutely fantastic but I think some more thought has to
>
> go into where we want these modes to live so we can have peaceful
>
> coexistence on the bands.
>
>
>
> vy 73
>
> Ria
>
> -- Ria Jairam, N2RJ Director, Hudson Division ARRL - The national
>
> association for Amateur Radio™ +1.973.594.6275 https://hudson.arrl.org
>
> n2...@ar...
>
> Hi Ria,
>
>
>
> we had several requests, including some from members of band planning
>
> committees, that we should choose a spot below 7050 on 40m, this based
>
> on that being the upper edge of any globally coordinated narrow band
>
> digital section. It was also pointed out that region three has an EMCOMM
>
> frequency at 7050 so with hindsight 7047 is not that good. Region 1 has
>
> digital modes up to 2700 Hz bandwidth including automatic stations
>
> between 7050 and 7053 and more automatic unattended <= 2700 Hz bandwidth
>
> allocation between 7053 and 7060 where the digital modes section ends.
>
> Region 2 is similar except 7060 is another EMCOMM QRG.
>
>
>
> Given that 7047 does not look so low as far as I can see. I missed that
>
> there was a W1AW code practice broadcast on 7074.5, which was
>
> unfortunate, but it looks to me that further down towards 7040 is the
>
> only way to go unless there are better options up in the all modes
>
> sections above 7060?
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance for any helpful input you can provide, we do have the
>
> advantage that in general everyone using a WSJT-X mode on HF tend to
>
> stick very close together and move as a pack. So changes are possible
>
> and we really want to find the least contentious spot.
>
>
>
> 73
>
> Bill
>
> G4WJS.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>