Are Bandplans Fit for Purpose?

Bandplans mean different things to different people.  Because they are not legally-binding on operators, they are not a directive on where and how to operate on the bands, but are intended to "aid operating".

In that sense, bandplans are a good idea, if we all want to limit the amount of interference from different powers, modes and activities.

Coming from an aviation communications background into amateur radio, I have to be frank and say the standard of operating on the hams bands is extraordinarily poor.  It is little better - if at all - than the CB radio of the 1980s.  You'd think going to the trouble of studying for an exam or set of exams would make things better.  But it doesn't seem to.

Contests are one of my biggest source of concern.  The competitive, macho nature of this activity is of course worthwhile, but brings problems.  The need to gather points and win brings with it a 'couldn't care less' approach to stamping on other transmissions, notably the weak signal modes.

True, the weak signal modes have come along quite recently, and have had to pick frequencies which might suit them best.  Like any other mode, they do not have priority.  But, in keeping with any nation's operating terms, no operator has a right to stamp on ongoing transmissions, either.  The FCC have recently made this point very clear through a series of high-profile, high-consequence court cases, issuing severe penalties of the order of $20,000 for persistent stamping.

Last night, the VK9CK team were busy stamping on on-going WSPR signals, which exist permanently at 14.095.60.  WSPR isn't that new, and as a vital probe of propagation conditions, as well as informing antenna performance tests, there is no justifiable reason why they ought to have been operating highly-intrusive RTTY there.  The herds of people desperate to bag the DX, of course, only made the already bad QRM infinitely worse.

I have to say I was quite irritated by the VK9CK team.  They ought to have known better.  I left a question on the cluster to prompt them to consider whether stamping on other transmissions already underway was a breach of their licence terms?  In all honesty, the only rational answer is: yes, it was a breach.

In fairness to the VK9CK team, by design or accident, they had moved away from the WSPR frequency a few minutes later.

But the VK9CK team are not alone.  Most weekends see a contest, and an ensuing, two-day long interruption of WSPR.  Some will claim that WSPR has to compete for its place within the band.  But that is not true when WSPR is already established and transmitting on a frequency, and the single RTTY operator decides to obliterate the transmissions of perhaps several hundred WSPR operators anyway.  It is even more true when WSPR occupies a spot frequency, with a pretty wide band where other modes can operate without causing problems.

Rather oddly, whilst the RTTY operators will claim that there's nothing wrong with operating down at or very near to WSPR, the same operators don't have the guts to transmit their mode in the SSB portion of the bands - even though that is also perfectly legal, if not in keeping with the bandplan.  It seems to me, therefore, that WSPR is ranked by some as 'unimportant' or less worthwhile than SSB, and so can be stamped upon with impunity.

In practice, I suspect the real reason why RTTY operators don't transmit on the SSB portion is because they will soon end-up with lots of people shouting at them.  WSPR operating is just too gentle and unobtrusive to bring that consequence - though my patience is wearing thin!

The real problem for WSPR is that it hasn't reached any prominence within national societies and IARU, because those bodies seem often to be heavily or even solely preoccupied with contests.  The RSGB suggested to me that the whole WSPR world QSY when QRM occurs - which only underlines their total ignorance about the mode.  IARU only accept concerns from national societies.  So that means the UK won't be getting anywhere with it!

WSPR must now be seen for what it is, and protected as a beacon mode.  Legal arguments aside as to whether it strictly meets the definition of a beacon mode, the principle is clear: alongside true beacons, it is the only objective means we have of assessing propagation and antenna performance.  Unlike true beacons, WSPR is, crucially, accessible to all operators at no charge, and without complexity.

If you are concerned about the care-free way in which operators simply stamp on WSPR transmissions because they are too careless or stupid to realise they are breaching their licence terms in doing so, then please consider making a careful representation to your national society.  It's about time they all did something to defend modes, and not just contests!