80 m CW and Digital Operation

[Julius Fazekas n2wn]

I'm not sure how crowded the 75/80M SSB band is at any
given time. I can speak on contest conditions on 80
CW. Basically you have 3 major DX contests that will
pack 80 CW: ARRL DX, CQ WW DX, CQ WPX (ARRL SS also
packs the band on this side of the pond). DX is all
over the lower 100 khz of 80, so the DX window in
effect expands.

I think contest conditions in EU are probably worse
than in NA. More major EU contests on more weekends,
so there is a different set of concerns.

Smaller contests in the US (QSO Parties), tend to run
in the 3530-3560 range. Although it can be busy, it's
rare that it is insane.

You have a number of groups that use that area as
well: FISTS, NAQCC, QRP to name a few. Most respect
the other groups activities and everyone seems to get
along just fine. They have been in this area for a
long time. The area is refered to on many sites for CW
and QRP enthusiasts. I think that should remain the
case.

I've not heard much digital activity between
3500-3600. I have heard lots of jammers, invaders and
general crud, particularly in the lower 25. No one
seems to be able to police them...

Frankly, I don't see why folks can't coexist
multi-mode with the changes. Of course, I tend to
think most folks are decent and flexible. Gradual
changes may happen, nets will stay or relocate as
needed. Forcing the issue will drive some away from
the hobby and cause bitterness in others, I don't see
it as productive.

Also, I don't see how it can effectively be policed,
even if mandatory changes were made. Peer pressure
works, if everyone signs on. Intentional jamming is a
big problem with many working on it, but in my 30
years as a ham, it seems like it has remained the same
or maybe become worse in some instances.

As to the increase in power on the WARC bands, I think
it is a mistake. 30 and 17 (12 is quiet most of the
time now) are almost as level a playing field as one
can find. Even the folks with a modest station have a
shot at rare DX. I guess I still like skill and luck
versus brute force.

Sorry to take up the space with my ramblings...

Cheers,
Julius
n2wn
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Bob Nielsen]

On Oct 17, 2006, at 5:39 AM, J F wrote:

>
> As to the increase in power on the WARC bands, I think
> it is a mistake. 30 and 17 (12 is quiet most of the
> time now) are almost as level a playing field as one
> can find. Even the folks with a modest station have a
> shot at rare DX. I guess I still like skill and luck
> versus brute force.

I can't see any increase in power on the WARC bands.  97.313 changes  
to increase the allowed power in the former novice bands, but 30  
meters remains at 200W.  12 and 17 did not have this power limitation.

73 - Bob, N7XY


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Sandy W5TVW]

If the latest FCC FPRM holds with no changes, I think the 80 meter people will
be in trouble.  So far on 80, we haven't had much of a "digital vs. CW"
conflict.  Most digital ops are above 3600 and most CW ops below 3600
generally speaking.  The RTTY people seem to operate the entire CW sub-band
during RTTY contests no matter what the "band plan" happens to be.
We should be mindful that a lot of the digital types using MFSK, PACTOR,
etc. modes, especially the "non CW" types tend to completely ignore CW QSO's
in whaever area they populate.  Some of it is ignorance of CW ops, some
of it is just being plain rude.
Some segregation is almost demanded if the CW/digital operations are combined
in a 100 khz. sub-band, no matter where it happens to be.  This is created by
the fact neither mode "user", in many instances, is able to 'decode' the other's
emission.  This will be even more especially true if the FCC acts favorably
on the elimination of Morse tests from the examinations!  Therefore some
seperation plan must be implemented. ARRL and other organizations will have
to do it as FCC couldn't be bothered as long as we stay within the amateur service
allocations!
As "obsolete" as some people think CW/Morse emissions are, now or in the future,
we must preserve a place for their use without other modes capable of jamming or
over-riding CW due to wider bandwidths.  Certainly the trend is towards a lot
of the newer "GEE WHIZ" technology which requires a plethora of additional
equipment for their use.  QRP CW will probably be here for a very long time
and is extremely popular and still capable of serving as a system for emergency
backup communications when all the newer stuff fails.  (As happened after
the Katrina and Rita hurricanes when trunking systems, cellphone systems,
and other "hi tech" systems went down!)
Back some sensible plan for a place for different modes on the CW/digital
sub-band to keep interference from the modes at a minimum.

73,

Sandy W5TVW

----- Original Message -----
From: "J F" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>; "Elecraft Discussion List" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:39 AM
Subject: [Elecraft] 80 m CW and Digital Operation


| I'm not sure how crowded the 75/80M SSB band is at any
| given time. I can speak on contest conditions on 80
| CW. Basically you have 3 major DX contests that will
| pack 80 CW: ARRL DX, CQ WW DX, CQ WPX (ARRL SS also
| packs the band on this side of the pond). DX is all
| over the lower 100 khz of 80, so the DX window in
| effect expands.
|
| I think contest conditions in EU are probably worse
| than in NA. More major EU contests on more weekends,
| so there is a different set of concerns.
|
| Smaller contests in the US (QSO Parties), tend to run
| in the 3530-3560 range. Although it can be busy, it's
| rare that it is insane.
|
| You have a number of groups that use that area as
| well: FISTS, NAQCC, QRP to name a few. Most respect
| the other groups activities and everyone seems to get
| along just fine. They have been in this area for a
| long time. The area is refered to on many sites for CW
| and QRP enthusiasts. I think that should remain the
| case.
|
| I've not heard much digital activity between
| 3500-3600. I have heard lots of jammers, invaders and
| general crud, particularly in the lower 25. No one
| seems to be able to police them...
|
| Frankly, I don't see why folks can't coexist
| multi-mode with the changes. Of course, I tend to
| think most folks are decent and flexible. Gradual
| changes may happen, nets will stay or relocate as
| needed. Forcing the issue will drive some away from
| the hobby and cause bitterness in others, I don't see
| it as productive.
|
| Also, I don't see how it can effectively be policed,
| even if mandatory changes were made. Peer pressure
| works, if everyone signs on. Intentional jamming is a
| big problem with many working on it, but in my 30
| years as a ham, it seems like it has remained the same
| or maybe become worse in some instances.
|
| As to the increase in power on the WARC bands, I think
| it is a mistake. 30 and 17 (12 is quiet most of the
| time now) are almost as level a playing field as one
| can find. Even the folks with a modest station have a
| shot at rare DX. I guess I still like skill and luck
| versus brute force.
|
| Sorry to take up the space with my ramblings...
|
| Cheers,
| Julius
| n2wn
| _______________________________________________
| Elecraft mailing list
| Post to: [hidden email]
| You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
| Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
|  http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   
|
| Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
| Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
|
|
|
| --
| No virus found in this incoming message.
| Checked by AVG Free Edition.
| Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.4/477 - Release Date: 10/16/2006
|
|
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Michael E. Dobson]

Several comments:

This is not an FCC proposal but a Report & Order, the changes spelled
out are the new regulations 30 days after publication in the Federal
Register, there is no chance for change at this point.  RTTY
generally starts at 3585, I participate in an RTTY net that has met
on 3586 for years.  PSK is around 3580.  40M seems to do pretty well
with the vast majority of CW/RTTY/data in the 7.0-7.1MHz range even
though technically it runs up to 7.15.  Regardless of the mode,
during world wide or other large contests, the mode in use will
dominate the band segment extending well above and below the "normal"
locations simply because of the large number of stations.  It is
totally unrealistic to expect them to remain in a tiny area of the
band. The CW contesters certainly operate up to and above the normal
PSK/RTTY/data spots during major contests and on 40M during world
wide contests you will find SSB down to 7.025 and sometimes lower.
When a lot of operators are on they spread out as far as the regulations allow.

73,
Mike WA3KYY


At 02:22 PM 10/17/2006, Sandy W5TVW wrote:
>If the latest FCC FPRM holds with no changes, I think the 80 meter
>people will
>be in trouble.  So far on 80, we haven't had much of a "digital vs. CW"
>conflict.  Most digital ops are above 3600 and most CW ops below 3600
>generally speaking.  The RTTY people seem to operate the entire CW sub-band
>during RTTY contests no matter what the "band plan" happens to be.

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Julius Fazekas n2wn]

Sandy,

I guess I need to listen above 3600 more.

I know 20M can be quite a challenge duringb the DX
contests when CW spread 125 khz and everyone is
looking for space in the digital/RTTY area. There's
grumblin' but everyone seems to make it thru 48 hours
of insanity.

Maybe 3600 to 3700 should be "all-mode", regardless I
don't see folks taking kindly to being shoved about or
out of traditional areas on the band.

Thanks for your insight.
Cheers,
Julius
n2wn

--- Sandy W5TVW <[hidden email]> wrote:

> If the latest FCC FPRM holds with no changes, I
> think the 80 meter people will
> be in trouble.  So far on 80, we haven't had much of
> a "digital vs. CW"
> conflict.  Most digital ops are above 3600 and most
> CW ops below 3600
> generally speaking.  The RTTY people seem to operate
> the entire CW sub-band
> during RTTY contests no matter what the "band plan"
> happens to be.
> We should be mindful that a lot of the digital types
> using MFSK, PACTOR,
> etc. modes, especially the "non CW" types tend to
> completely ignore CW QSO's
> in whaever area they populate.  Some of it is
> ignorance of CW ops, some
> of it is just being plain rude.
> Some segregation is almost demanded if the
> CW/digital operations are combined
> in a 100 khz. sub-band, no matter where it happens
> to be.  This is created by
> the fact neither mode "user", in many instances, is
> able to 'decode' the other's
> emission.  This will be even more especially true if
> the FCC acts favorably
> on the elimination of Morse tests from the
> examinations!  Therefore some
> seperation plan must be implemented. ARRL and other
> organizations will have
> to do it as FCC couldn't be bothered as long as we
> stay within the amateur service
> allocations!
> As "obsolete" as some people think CW/Morse
> emissions are, now or in the future,
> we must preserve a place for their use without other
> modes capable of jamming or
> over-riding CW due to wider bandwidths.  Certainly
> the trend is towards a lot
> of the newer "GEE WHIZ" technology which requires a
> plethora of additional
> equipment for their use.  QRP CW will probably be
> here for a very long time
> and is extremely popular and still capable of
> serving as a system for emergency
> backup communications when all the newer stuff
> fails.  (As happened after
> the Katrina and Rita hurricanes when trunking
> systems, cellphone systems,
> and other "hi tech" systems went down!)
> Back some sensible plan for a place for different
> modes on the CW/digital
> sub-band to keep interference from the modes at a
> minimum.
>
> 73,
>
> Sandy W5TVW
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "J F" <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>; "Elecraft Discussion
> List" <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:39 AM
> Subject: [Elecraft] 80 m CW and Digital Operation
>
>
> | I'm not sure how crowded the 75/80M SSB band is at
> any
> | given time. I can speak on contest conditions on
> 80
> | CW. Basically you have 3 major DX contests that
> will
> | pack 80 CW: ARRL DX, CQ WW DX, CQ WPX (ARRL SS
> also
> | packs the band on this side of the pond). DX is
> all
> | over the lower 100 khz of 80, so the DX window in
> | effect expands.
> |
> | I think contest conditions in EU are probably
> worse
> | than in NA. More major EU contests on more
> weekends,
> | so there is a different set of concerns.
> |
> | Smaller contests in the US (QSO Parties), tend to
> run
> | in the 3530-3560 range. Although it can be busy,
> it's
> | rare that it is insane.
> |
> | You have a number of groups that use that area as
> | well: FISTS, NAQCC, QRP to name a few. Most
> respect
> | the other groups activities and everyone seems to
> get
> | along just fine. They have been in this area for a
> | long time. The area is refered to on many sites
> for CW
> | and QRP enthusiasts. I think that should remain
> the
> | case.
> |
> | I've not heard much digital activity between
> | 3500-3600. I have heard lots of jammers, invaders
> and
> | general crud, particularly in the lower 25. No one
> | seems to be able to police them...
> |
> | Frankly, I don't see why folks can't coexist
> | multi-mode with the changes. Of course, I tend to
> | think most folks are decent and flexible. Gradual
> | changes may happen, nets will stay or relocate as
> | needed. Forcing the issue will drive some away
> from
> | the hobby and cause bitterness in others, I don't
> see
> | it as productive.
> |
> | Also, I don't see how it can effectively be
> policed,
> | even if mandatory changes were made. Peer pressure
> | works, if everyone signs on. Intentional jamming
> is a
> | big problem with many working on it, but in my 30
> | years as a ham, it seems like it has remained the
> same
> | or maybe become worse in some instances.
> |
> | As to the increase in power on the WARC bands, I
> think
> | it is a mistake. 30 and 17 (12 is quiet most of
> the
> | time now) are almost as level a playing field as
> one
> | can find. Even the folks with a modest station
> have a
> | shot at rare DX. I guess I still like skill and
> luck
> | versus brute force.
> |
> | Sorry to take up the space with my ramblings...
> |
> | Cheers,
> | Julius
> | n2wn
> | _______________________________________________
> | Elecraft mailing list
> | Post to: [hidden email]
> | You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> | Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
> |  http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft 
>  
> |
> | Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> | Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
> |
> |
> |
> | --
> | No virus found in this incoming message.
> | Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> | Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.4/477 -
> Release Date: 10/16/2006
> |
> |
>

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[k6dgw]

Sandy W5TVW wrote:

 > Some segregation is almost demanded if the CW/digital operations
 > are combined in a 100 khz. sub-band, no matter where it happens
 > to be.  This is created by the fact neither mode "user", in many
 > instances, is able to 'decode' the other's emission.

True, but I'm somewhat more troubled by the lack of discussion, concern,
and formal comments on this issue regarding the ARRL's "Regulation by
Bandwidth" petition now before the FCC (RM-11036).  I think the comment
period has closed, unfortunately.  You can find it and what comments
that have been filed at the FCC's website.  If you want a copy of mine,
email me direct.  For the record, I am a long term member of the ARRL,
will remain so, and nearly always find myself in support of its actions
before the FCC.  In this case, I am most assuredly *not*.

Just because two emissions have similar bandwidths does *not* imply that
they can operationally coexist in the same spectrum, for a number of
reasons.  Sandy has pointed out one of them.  It now appears that, for
totally different reasons and in response to a totally different
petition, the FCC has given us a real live laboratory to watch this happen.

"Beware what you ask for, you might just get it, although not in the
manner you wanted it."

73,

Fred K6DGW
Auburn CA CM98lw
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Sandy W5TVW]

Firstly, I want to state I do not imply that the RTTY bunch has run away
with 40 meters.  All in all, they have, along with the other digital modes,
pretty much stayed within the "sub band"/band plan "Gentlemen's
Agreement" for the appropriate emissions except for contest time when
almost everyone goes "bonkers".  Someone else took up my "flag" in
another post somewhere recently about weekenders who have no place
to make casual QSO's on "contest weekends".  More on that later.

I am glad someone is recognizing that separation of modes purely by
bandwidth, appears to have "merit" or is a "solution" to a potential
interference problem, is really not the answer.  Some digital modes
can compact a very large numbers of QSO's into a very narrow
space, while other do not.  PSK is an example of the cramming of
stations every 100-200Hz is viable.  If one PACTOR station comes on
in the 3-4 Khz most PSK stations operate it can cause havoc!  One strong
PACTOR or MFSK station can raise all sorts of hell in "PSK space"
or CW space.  This is greatly compounded by a few who totally ignore
any mode except the one they are using.  Thank goodness it isn't the
"norm"!  It does come across to "newbies" in amateur radio that this
practice is "OK" to some I'm sure, but should be discouraged.  
Separation of digital and CW is essential if we are all going to live together
and have any harmony at all, or maintain communications instead
of "bedlam".  Further, we must also maintain separation of narrow band
digital modes (PSK for example) and wider digital modes (PACTOR and
wider modes).  Any "AUTOMATIC" or "ROBOT" internet access stations
should be limited to a very small chunk of spectrum, especially those
using proprietary systems.  In my humble opinion, HF access to
internet via Amateur Radio is opening up a very large "can of worms"
that will eventually come back to bite us in our posteriors!  There IS
a radio service for this via the MARISAT satellite system to do this for
you rich yachtsmen out there.  It should not be via Amateur Radio.

SSB/digital radiotelephony will continue to demand more spectrum space
in the future, no doubt, but room must be maintained for "older modes"
as well.  Especially for last ditch emergency and relief operations as
well as simple old fashioned "ragchewing".  

In keeping with efforts to not "monopolize" spectrum space, a lot of
contests now specify a band of frequencies to be used during these
contests.  This allows some space for casual QSO's for those who do
not wish to operate a particular contest, but still would like to QSO
friends, etc.  On contest weekends.  This procedure is practically
impossible to maintain during the very large contests like CQ WWDX,
ARRL DX, Sweepstakes, etc.  It would be nice to have a very small
area (5 khz on CW or Digital bands, 10 khz on SSB/voice mode bands)
reserved for this purpose?  Something to think about when designing
a band plan.  

We all will have to work at it to make smaller amounts of spectrum space
to all concerned.  Rest assured the FCC these days "doesn't give a damn"
about whatever QRM exists as long as it isn't interfering with another
"radio service" under their jurisdiction and we stay within our assigned
pieces of the spectrum.  If we do not plan well, none of us will be able
to pursue viable communications, especially in the HF spectrum as more
people join our ranks.

Just some thoughts for what they are worth, to keep our hobby alive and
well in the future.

73,

Sandy W5TVW
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Jensen" <[hidden email]>
To: "Elecraft Reflector" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 80 m CW and Digital Operation


| Sandy W5TVW wrote:
|
|  > Some segregation is almost demanded if the CW/digital operations
|  > are combined in a 100 khz. sub-band, no matter where it happens
|  > to be.  This is created by the fact neither mode "user", in many
|  > instances, is able to 'decode' the other's emission.
|
| True, but I'm somewhat more troubled by the lack of discussion, concern,
| and formal comments on this issue regarding the ARRL's "Regulation by
| Bandwidth" petition now before the FCC (RM-11036).  I think the comment
| period has closed, unfortunately.  You can find it and what comments
| that have been filed at the FCC's website.  If you want a copy of mine,
| email me direct.  For the record, I am a long term member of the ARRL,
| will remain so, and nearly always find myself in support of its actions
| before the FCC.  In this case, I am most assuredly *not*.
|
| Just because two emissions have similar bandwidths does *not* imply that
| they can operationally coexist in the same spectrum, for a number of
| reasons.  Sandy has pointed out one of them.  It now appears that, for
| totally different reasons and in response to a totally different
| petition, the FCC has given us a real live laboratory to watch this happen.
|
| "Beware what you ask for, you might just get it, although not in the
| manner you wanted it."
|
| 73,
|
| Fred K6DGW
| Auburn CA CM98lw
| _______________________________________________
| Elecraft mailing list
| Post to: [hidden email]
| You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
| Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
|  http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   
|
| Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
| Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
|
|
|
| --
| No virus found in this incoming message.
| Checked by AVG Free Edition.
| Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.4/477 - Release Date: 10/16/2006
|
|
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com