Thanks Bo for your reply, It seems you may have some insight to the logic of it all. Having returned to VHF TX operation again, after a four year gap, what isMessage 1 of 10 , Jun 22View SourceThanks Bo for your reply,
It seems you may have some insight to the logic of it all.
Having returned to VHF TX operation again, after a four year gap, what is of interest to me is this new Region 1 band plan that came into affect on 1st January 2012.
I saw a station on the DXcluster the other day complaining about every single European data station he saw operating below 50.300 MHz and that is what made me look up what had changed.
Obviously all the 50 MHz European data activity has remained exactly where it has always been and hasn't migrated to this new band plan.
(The same thing happened when the 40m band plan changed and PSK31 stayed where it had always been around 7.034 MHz and not the new 7.040 MHz.)
In my opinion part of the problem is we all want to work each other across Europe and in particular DX that may be outside our own Region i.e. Transatlantic openings to the US or further on 50 MHz from Europe, via Sporadic-E or F2 at solar maximum.
If the US are operating on 50.293 MHz JT9-1 (for example) then that is where you would expect European stations to go to try to work them. They are not going to work each other if they are on entirely different frequencies. Same with WSPR allocations, they are not going to hear each other.
I don't know what the solution is other than to have truly World-wide co-ordinated Regional allocations for mode types such as SSB, data, etc. on 50 MHz, but even on HF the allocations often don't overlap well and clash.
We have co-ordinated Worldwide SSB voice DX segments on 50 MHz, but not now with data modes?
I'm just trying to understand what is going on, maybe that is why this new band plan for Region 1 is being largely ignored?
But, if that is the case why were these new frequencies for Region 1 data suggested, if they move them away from where the US and other DX is found? I think I read somewhere it was to free up more SSB voice space, which makes sense but only if everyone then moves data to the same segments.
73 de Philip G0ISW
Hi Philip I agree that global bandplands would be great. I don t know if work is ongoing on this matter. However, everybody wants development, but, nobodyMessage 2 of 10 , Jun 23View SourceHi Philip
I agree that global bandplands would be great. I don't know if work is ongoing on this matter.
However, everybody wants development, but, nobody wants change :-)
In some countries there are regulator defined bandplan(s), thus law or law like. In other countries, and I guess most, this is not the case, i.e. often IARU bandsplands are recommended but by nature they cannot be anything else than a recommendation. If people chose not to follow them then there is nothing to do about it.
Specifications are easy - implementation is difficult, i.e. old habits die hard.
Also the 50 MHz beacons have to move.
When the world wide locator system was proposed many European stations were against it and threatened to leave the hobby. When it was decided to use the world wide locators they stayed on board but kept using the obsolete system for more than a decade. Another thing is that people stay where others are - few pave the way by being first movers.
Radio amateurs not frequency-claustrophobic, e.g. on 6 m a lot of people squeeze themselves in a very small segment around 50,110 MHz. The same applies on 2 m to 144,300 MHz where I remember having seen articles about this and spots, for three decades, like "spread out everybody" during an Es opening.
Similarly, even a very rare DX station or DX-pedition chose a frequency in a crowded segment instead of a "remote" frequency. I am 100% sure that after a few QSOs/spots moving to a "remote" frequency will be very advantageous for everybody.
Over time I am sure that the IARU Region 1 50 MHz bandplan will be implemented. But we can all start by doing out part today.
There is plenty of room to establish a WSPR-users area somewhere in the 50,3 MHz to 50,4 MHz segment. Personally, I am against stipulating a particular MGM into the bandplan(s) as it is an area of rapid change these days. I find it much better to let evolution handle these matters.