Some Comments on the Expansion of 80-75 meter Phone Bands


Ever since the FCC went about their "refarming" of the Novice band
on 80 meters by immensely "expanding" the phone band, I have wanted
to get some of my thoughts on paper. From what I have observed in the
first few months after this event, I have felt that the lowest phone
segment is drastically underutilized. The band 3500-3600 kHz is used
for all the "narrow" modes, like CW, PSK31, Hellschreiber, MFSK16, and
RTTY. The "wider" modes are in use from 3600-4000 kHz and LSB voice is
used almost exclusively.

A simple listening test on a typical Friday night (2-23-07) at 9 pm CST
showed 9 CW QSOs in progress from 3500-3582 kHz and 4 digital QSOs in
progress from 3570-3600 kHz. Three LSB phone QSOs were in progress in
3600-3700 kHz. What this seems to show is that in band segments where
phone is allowed, only phone will be used. Also all the cw activity and
the digital activity has been compressed into 100 kHz from over 200 kHz,
and still manages to coexist.

Just to check out the accuracy of this conclusion, the 80 meter band was
also observed a few days later. At 10 pm CST on Sunday night (2-25-07),
8 CW QSOs were observed from 3500-3582 kHz with 2 digital QSOs in progress
in 3570-3600 kHz. Checking a larger band segment this time, 8 LSB QSOs
were observed from 3600-3800 kHz.

Just a comment on my background here: I am currently an Amateur Extra Class
licenseholder. I have spent time as a Novice, Technician, Advanced, and Extra.
I have been a ham for over 40 years.
I have operated most bands from 160 meters to light, on most modes, CW,
voice, keyboard, TV camera. I currently find most of my HF activity is on
digital keyboard modes, followed by slow CW, followed by SSB. My VHF
activity is primarily on SSB phone, followed by FM phone.

I agree that phone is inherently at least a 4 times wider mode than CW or
PSK31, but does that mean that it deserves 4 times the frequency allocation?
If so, then there is no incentive to conserve or control, just to consume
as much bandwidth as possible.

Say for instance, that 250 kHz were allocated to "narrow" modes (250 Hz)
and 250 kHz were allocated to "wide" modes (2500 Hz). One could easily
"fit" 500 QSOs in the "narrow" section and 50 QSOs in the "wide" section
with no interference. Since HF bands with ionospheric propagation, like
80 meters, can cover a thousand mile radius at once, there will be almost
no frequency reuse, like at VHF or UHF, with their 100 mile radio horizons.
As it stands now, the 100 kHz for "narrow" modes can easily handle 200 QSOs
and the 400 kHz for "wide" modes can easily handle 80 QSOs.

Now ham radio may get a chance to "rethink" this again if and when we go to
band segment allocation by bandwidth, not by mode. Then SSTV some digital
voice, SSB phone, and some of the faster digital modes would all fall in a
3000 Hz channel "wide mode" segment, while CW, PSK31, RTTY, MFSK16,
Hellschreiber would all fall in a 500 Hz channel "narrow mode" segment.
Meanwhile, DSB-AM, digital voice, and still faster digital modes could fit
in 10000 Hz channels. I personally might suggest 200 kHz for modes under
500 Hz wide, 250 kHz for modes under 3000 Hz wide, and 50 kHz for modes
under 10000 Hz wide. Note, I suggested only three channel bandwidths.
These three should be enough to separate the incompatible modes from each
other. Also note that the same approach can be taken on other ham bands.
I have no real criticisms of the refarming on 40 meters or 15 meters.