[NLRS] [Fwd: [WSVHF] 222 SMA band plan proposal]

[Dr. Gerald N. Johnson]

-------- Forwarded Message --------
> From: Dave Sublette <k4to at arrl.net>
> To: Weak Signal eMail Remailer <wsvhf at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: [WSVHF] 222 SMA band plan proposal
> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 06:32:29 -0400
> Dear VHF'ers,
> 
> I received a response to my email from Jim Fortney, K6IYK. It is quoted 
> below.
> 
> 
> Dave -
> 
> Thank you for your comments.  As I suspect you know, this is not a new 
> issue.  The fact of the matter is that the 220SMA Band Plan for the last 
> 10+ years has had FM voice and packet as low as 222.06 MHz.  The 
> intensity of band use in Southern California made this necessary in 
> order to provide space for everyone.  Even with this condition the 
> impact on weak signal activities has been minimal.
> 
> The impetus for this revision was recognition that the digital community 
> was no longer using all the allocations they were provided during the 
> hay day of packet radio.  Reallocation of the band in this revision has 
> allowed us to move all of the non weak signal uses above 222.11 offering 
> a small guard band.  Several weak signal mode advocates participated in 
> the year long discussions that led to the current proposal, and all of 
> them agree that this is a workable alternative.  Some operators in 
> Southern California still object to moving FM off of 222.06 and 222.08 
> MHz.  Most of us feel that clearing the beacon and SSB zone is a major 
> step forward.
> 
> An idea that was discussed during our review was the concept of SSB 
> operators suggesting a QSY "down" of 10 or 20 kHz from the calling 
> channel instead of "up", as is the norm.  The plan also encourages low 
> intensity (non weak signal) uses in the 222.12 - 222.15 MHz segment. 
> Typically these activities don't cause any significant interference to 
> SSB operations.
> 
> Although the proposal has gone through several rounds of discussion 
> before getting this far, it is still subject to further consideration. 
> My personal opinion is that this is such a major gain for the weak 
> signal community, they should support it now and look for additional 
> opportunities to make further improvements in the future
> 
> 73,
> 
> - JimF  K6IYK
> 
> 
> 
> I replied. Here is my reply:
> 
> 
> Dear Jim,
> 
> Thanks for your timely response and explanation of the rationale for the 
> proposal. Some thoughts came to mind almost immediately as I read your 
> comments.
> 
> First, I can appreciate that Southern California has a higher amateur 
> population and may have higher usage of the 222 mhz band.  However, this 
> proposed plan is in conflict with the ARRL band plan for this band. I 
> would hope that ARRL would consider the overall needs of the amateur 
> community of the entire country and thus their approach would be the one 
> that would be best for the band.
> 
> Second, the line of reasoning behind encroachment of FM operation into 
> the weak weak signal portion of the 222 mhz band sounds scarily like the 
> rationale that commercial interests are using to take the band from us. 
> Reduced to the simplest form it is, "We need more frequencies. There are 
> more of us than there are of them. Let's take it." Surely there is 
> enough spectrum in the 222 mhz band for everyone and there should be 
> enough respect for each interest to allow space for each to operate 
> without the threat of interference.
> 
> Third, I did not know that a form of this band plan had been in effect 
> for over ten years and has had, as you point out, some effect on weak 
> signal operation in the region. If this is so, it is wrong and should be 
> fixed now.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Dave Sublette, K4TO
> 
> 
> I believe from the tone of the reply I received that the issue has 
> already been settled, at least in the minds of the leadership of the 
> SMA222 group, or what ever the official name is. That doesn't mean we 
> should let it lie. I would hope that the inboxes of each of the listed 
> officers and perhaps the ARRL should be flooded with comments from the 
> weak signal community.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Dave, K4TO
> _______________________________________________
> WSVHF mailing list
> WSVHF at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/wsvhf