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
