From: rdewan@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Rajiv Dewan)
Subject: Re: ARRL DIGITAL COMMITTE REVISED REPORT 9/26/92
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:25:05 GMT

In a follow up to my article, that protested the sub band allocation for
unattended automatic packet on 30m and 160m, Gary Coffman (gary@ke4zv.UUCP)
writes:
> 
>>>        30  M:  10.140  -       10.150  MHz
>>
>>TWENTY PERCENT OF THE BAND SPACE!  I think that this way too much  
>>on a band that is a haven for non-contesting cw operators.
>>How about *no* allocations on this band.  Consider the fact that 
>>the max power is 200W.  This would heighten the hidden transmitter problem
>>in AX.25 style (or any carrier sense multiple access) operation.
>
>This is exactly the section of the 30 meter band *currently* being used
>by the STA stations. It's consistently been the most useful band during
>the STA period. A casual listening survey of the band indicates that there
>are *currently* more packet signals in this small segment than there are
>CW signals in the entire 30 meter band. I think you protest too much.

Well, Gary, you have just hit upon one of aspects of unattended automatic
hf packet. Consider two cases:

i) Good 30m band condx.  I betcha you will find the cw portion of the
band wall to wall full of cw activity.  And yes, you will also find the 
packet stations.

ii) Bad 30m Condx: intelligent cw operators move to some other band
or mow the grass.  Unattended automatic packet stations are still trying
to send the photons thru ad-nauseum.  Yes, in such cases when you can
still hear some near by packet stations or some station along a path
that is not fully degraded it will appear that the 30m band is being 
used primarily by packet.  

Unfortunately, this summer has not been great for hf.  We have had 
some really bad propagation conditions for weeks this summer.  
So a random casual examination or a time average might indicate that 
30m is used mostly for hf packet.  

So, I still stand by my remarks that 20% of the 30m band is excessive.

>

>>>        160M:   1.810   -       1.820   MH
>>>                                 
>>
>>Whoa!! This is just about the hub of cw activity on this band.  Of my
>>last 10 cw contacts on this band, eight are in this segment.  In my mind
>>this is like requesting 50Kcs in the 28.3 to 28.5 band.  
>
>No, it's like requesting 10 kHz in the 28.1 to 28.3 MHz band. In fact,
>the request on 10 meters is for 69 kHz in that segment. There's
>already a unique 10 kHz of DX window on 160, another small window in
>a sparsely populated band is not excessive. You still have 40 kHz of
>CW *exclusive* bandwidth, something no other amateur band shares, and
>150 kHz of mixed mode space. Buy another crystal for crying out loud.
>

Now let us see: Most of the CW activity on 160m takes place in 1.800 to
1.840 (which includes the DX window that is shared with phone).  A subband
allocation of 1.810 to 1.820 represents 25% of the part of the band
where most of the activity takes place.  

Correspondingly, 28.300 to 28.500 represents the hub (but by no means all
of) of phone activity on the 10m band.  A  50Kc sub band would be 25%
of that in Kcs and in the number of potential qso channels.

So, I ask those of you who use phone:  How would you like to have a
sub band allocation for unattended automatic packet from, let us say,
28.350 to 28.400?  

Not a pleasant thought, is it?  

Precisely, how I feel about the 160m unattended automatic packet subband 
proposal for the 160m band.

Nuts.

And, I do not think I protest too much.  If you still have doubts, please
re-read the previous few paragraphs.


Rajiv                                 
aa9ch    
Address: r-dewan@nwu.edu
Phone:   None. Only CW.
And occasional AMTOR.