[Elecraft] Fwd: [psk31] Wideband digital operation

[Charles Greene]

Hi All,

There are a number of Digital Operators in this reflector and some others 
who may have interest.  So I am forwarding this mail from Peter Martinez 
concerning the use of wideband digital signals in the bands



>Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 09:11:12 +0000
>From: Peter Martinez <Peter.Martinez@btinternet.com>
>To: PSK31 <psk31@bipt106.bi.ehu.es>
>Subject: [psk31] Wideband digital operation
> >From Peter G3PLX
>I commented a few days ago about the potential problems of activity on
>some of the new wide bandwidth digital modes. The present convention is
>to separate voice (SSB) from digital (CW/PSK31 etc), and this works fine
>because SSB is wide and digital modes have so far always been narrow,
>and it makes a lot of sense to keep modes of different bandwidth
>separate, or to put it another way, to keep modes of similar bandwidths
>together. I was prompted to make this comment after hearing a new type
>of signal which I provisionally labeled "Pactor 3", which is about 2.4
>kHz wide, operating in the middle of the 80m digital band. Other people
>have also commented about wide-band digital signals (known as STD188 or
>STANAG 4285) which are effectively 2400 baud PSK, appearing in the 40
>and 20m PSK31 areas causing immense amounts of interference to existing
>narrow-band activity.
>A few people have pointed out that the same type of signal has also
>appeared recently on 14109 kHz USB, but I would actually suggest that
>this is the ideal spot for this type of activity. It's at the boundary
>between existing packet (600Hz wide) and existing SSB activity (3kHz
>wide). The same principle could easily be applied on 80m, with the new
>wide digital modes setting up just above 3600. In fact our existing
>bandplans already permit digital modes in these areas shared with SSB,
>so this should be the natural choice for such activity, not down in the
>14070/3580 parts of the band.
>While listening this morning on 14109, I noticed with a smile what
>looked to be a jamming war between one operator on the new mode and
>another trying to use MT63, which is about 1 kHz wide. MT63 is very
>successful at eliminating corruption from narrow-band QRM, but evidently
>is not so good when faced with another wide-band interference source.
>I do believe we need to debate this issue urgently. If any readers of
>this relector also subscribe to other reflectors, especially those where
>operators of other modes contribute, please try to get a discussion
>going. Should we keep digital modes together regardless of bandwidth, or
>should we keep wide modes together regardless of modulation?
>73
>Peter G3PLX

73, Chas, W1CG