|
Dear Walter, Roland,
Klaus,
thanks very much for working out this
detailed suggestion!
I do share the views
of Alan and Rik that we
should not now (and perhaps net ever) impose a "plan", in the sense
that everyone is expected to adhere to it, or (even worse) that frequency
usage may be enforced by authorities. I think that we do need "freedom to
operate" on an experimental band - the aim is not to maximize amateur traffic
throughput but to find inventive ways of dealing with existing difficulties. But
still some form of "preliminary suggested usage" may be
helpful.
It is certainly a good idea
to have narrow guard bands around existing aeronautical beacons. But
there will be different ones in other regions, like outside
Europe.
Coming from LF, I am a strong
promoter of the narrow QRSS/DFCW 60 slots for intercontinental work. They should
be free of faster usage (eg QRSS-3), and reasonably spaced from
subbands with local signals from within the assigned receive area. We
may again adopt a scheme with different, nonadjajend slots for different
target areas ("TA / Eu").
One thought I keep pondering is
whether we could somehow mitigate QSB by frequency diversity. Current ruling
here has an 800 Hz bandwidth limitation. But it may be ok to
transmit two "separate" but complementary narrowband signals, each say 100
Hz wide but 6 kHz apart. This could go from a simple FSK-CW scheme (eg.
keydown on 472.6, key up on 478.6), all the way to digitally processed
"multi-narrowband" modes.
One day we may want to perform
"ionosonde"-type channel sounding, by sweeping or stepping a GPS-controlled
carrier all over 7 kHz.
Or how about analog narrowband
voice transmissions, fitting in 0.8 kHz? It is neither CW nor
digital, but certainly something worthwhile playing with.
Best 73,
Markus (DF6NM)
PS I'm posting this on Yahoo as well,
to avoid missing half of our community.
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 12:18 AM
Subject: LF: 630m Band Plan
Dear All
as a first proposal for discussion we present a "plan" that we
coined the "B31 Band Plan for 630m". The name derives from the DOK to which all
who shared ideas, belong.
Just to state it once more: it is a first basis and
proposal and those who have an interest in operation between 472kHz and 479kHz
(up to now the slot allocated by the BuNetzA to German hams) are invited to
agree, discuss or provide better ideas.
Several hams already provided
specific proposals which were incorporated.
We deliberately did not detail
too much, as we do not think, that all can be fixed prior to actual
demand.
Please see attached gif-file.
1. A CW slot from 472kHz to 475kHz (=3kHz).
2. Within that, a region for
beacons (472,000kHz to 472,150kHz) followed by a region for Slow CW (472,150kHz
to 472,300kHz).
3. For TA-CW DX traffic or other long-haul DX, a calling
frequency shall be established at 472,600kHz.
4. For other CW traffic,
another calling frequency (if the necessity exists) shall be established in the
upper region of the CW allocation at 474,750kHz (474,500 occupied by
"SA").
5. The frequency 472,500kHz will not be allocated for special use (at
least for the time being), as a continuous carrier is audible 24/7 throughout
DL.
6. A slot for Digital Modes from 475,0kHz to 479,0 (= 4kHz).
7. Today
it is much too early to decide which digital modes will be used on 630m. We
propose to leave this open for the future. WSPR (474,200kHz Dial USB), OPERA and
ROS (477,000kHz DIAL USB) have established themselves on the shown frequencies.
Some other modes that may be useful for MW but can not yet be used (e.g. JT65HF)
because they allow no suitable frequency selection.
8. Digital Modes should
not overlap each other (minor relocations may be necessary).
9. Whether or
not the shown "protection zones" of e.g. +/- 50Hz around active NDB frequencies
are necessary or not, ist still being discussed.
10. No further stipulations
will be given.
Walter DJ2LF, Roland DL3NDR, Klaus DJ6LB
NB (DJ6LB): Upon request I provide (via separate mail) a picture with
better resolution .
|
