Dear All, do you remember?
We wrote: “as a first proposal for discussion we present a "plan”.
The key words were: “first”, “proposal” and “”plan”” (in quotation
marks!).
We continued to emphasize again: “it is a first basis and
proposal” and “those who have an interest in operation between 472kHz and
479kHz ... are invited to agree, discuss or provide better ideas”.
We got 13 replies and we would like to summarize what we
learned.
- We never wanted to “impose upon the rest of the world” our ideas.
Webster explaines: to impose – to establish or apply as compulsory. As stated
above, it was meant as an idea, a proposal. Maybe our use of the word “plan”
(although in q.m.) was feared as an insinuation to a rigid enforcement. Never
our idea!
- “Let’s wait and then decide”. Do you remember that there was
already an open question whether or not there is a plan to follow. In the WSPR
forum the same question was asked by a ham from UK. Our idea was: let us
discuss now, so we have a basis / proposal for the times when (hopefully) many
countries are allowed to join. And who is going to “decide”? Upon what basis?
And when?
- “I remember that dividing regular CW and QRSS/digital modes
in the old days on 136 kHz had helped to coexist peacefully for over a decade
now.” Obviously it is good practice to think about where on the band what mode
is practised. On all HF bands CW has no restrictions, but it is practised in
the lower portion. So why not follow that habit here?
- “calling frequency / frequencies” was the request of a very active
ham. “So it is important to have some 100 Hz of free spectrum arround a
CW calling frequency”; reason: because CW filters may be not narrow
enough.
- “good idea to have narrow guard bands around existing aeronautical
beacons”: it is trivial, that other regions in the world will probably need
different such guards. Just to clarify: a pilot will tune to the frequ (in
kHz, no fractions) of a NDB and expects that the relevant Instrument will show
him the direction to that NDB relative to his AC. He will listen to the ID
just to make sure. Hopefully e.g. a QRSS Station on top will not disturb the
instrument? Most probably our power restrictions will show that this safeguard
unnecessary; we introduced it as an additional good will act. NDBs are a dying
species.
- “(I am a) strong promoter of the narrow QRSS/DFCW 60 slots for
intercontinental work ... and reasonably spaced from subbands with local
signals” this calls for some sort of regulation within the community.
- “I intend to work primarily CW ... I do not intend to use
UNATTENDED BROADCAST/BEACON MODES”. OK, fine, but this is a personal view and
preference and does not help any further. As we wrote: “those who have an
interest in operation between 472kHz and 479kHz ... are invited to agree,
discuss or provide better ideas”.
- “Beacons within the IF filter bandwidth of many analog receivers
around 472.5 kHz, ... - please don't. Also consider that, at the moment, the
"lower end" of the band is the most valuable part of it. ...IMHO, beacons
there are evil.” This implies, that a certain portion of the band is “better”
and should be used only for a certain type of operation. Others, please go
somewhere else and esp. beacons are regarded as “unwelcome”. Hams are a
multifaced community, we can not hinder someone from establishing a (e.g.
WSPR) “beacon”. They can not be compared with the existing NDBs. So a mutual
agreement has to be reached in the future (see above: “first” &
“proposal”!).
“Let's coordinate things here, and on "the other" group as
necessary. We need a lot of flexibility on MF” Fine!.
Gentlemen: “Switch
black box Beacon on then go away for the day or go to bed and check later on
the Internet database to see if Black box has made it to Kalahatungutee. ...
Not forgetting to click on 'auto QSO' and 'upload QSL' buttons.” remarks like
that do not help in any way and are humiliating to others.
- “... if you understand ‘band plan’ as a useful hint for newcomers
(RX- and TXwise) where it may be useful to listen or to call e.g. in CW
or where to set the ‘dial’ for WSPR decoding, then i cannot find something bad
on it.” Correct, our idea!
“If we start to collect our experiences why it
is useful to use that QRG for that mode, then why not. ... But many countries,
experiences and time should form this plan, not only the German amateurs, ....
That means, probably the plan will form itself!” This hopefully will happen,
but we thought, that discussed on a proposal would be a better starting. And
remember: the question re such a proposal already exists.
- “About QRSS/DFCW i think one can use a frequency which is close to
the carrier of a NDB: First, there will be no CW station close to the
carrier. Second, the QRSS/DFCW signal is not affected by the presence of the
NBD carrier.” Hopefully it is not quite the reverse.
- “Concentrating the digimodes on the upper part of the band is not
bad ... the active stations will define where the center or "dial" frequency
of which mode will be.” Exactly, but now they are sitting on top of each
other.
- “Dial frequency means nothing for those of us in CW rx mode”.
Correct (personal statement) but does not help in any way for others: “Modern
data modes are ... frequency agile ... so the rx end has to know where
to set the rx dial to intercept them.” Which leads to some sort of mutual
understanding / rules.
And further: “Many of the transmissions will be
under the noise level ... and require a defined slot to function”.
End of inputs.
Please think about the remarks of your fellow hams and their approach
re. a “band plan”; and think about the future of this special band, that
hopefully will see many more countries participating.
And be prepared, that
without some generally accepted rules to follow, it will be more complicated
to enjoy the allocated 7kHz.
73
de
Walter, Roland,
Klaus
