An interested link
Locked
 
|
I don't understand why some people like to limit other peoples activity, or
choices. It seems to me like there is very little important communication going on in ham radio, so why stress the narrow bandwidth? Would it block some critical or important communication? Ham radio just seems like a bunch of people who enjoy fooling with radio equipment, so why not just let them fool with it? What about operating on an empty band, the operator still must (by law) sound like a cheap cell phone? There are other modes much narrower than ssb, why not not ban ssb as wasting spectrum? People should try to get along, I dislike contests, they can take over and ruin a band, I am not fond of RTTY, or slow scan TV, or ssb, or many other things other hams do, but the last thing I would want to do is restrict something that others find enjoyable. Brett N2DTS ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
ESSB and Selfishness (or Learning to Play Nice in the Sandbox)
|
|
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:31:19 -0400, Brett Gazdzinski wrote:
>I don't understand why some people like to limit other peoples activity, or >choices. Human society DEPENDS on limitations on other peoples activity. To name only a few simple ones, we have traffic lights, speed limits, lane changing rules, and parking rules. If I play loud music I'll disturb my neighbors. There are hundreds of other ways that we as human beings must be considerate of our neighbors. Most of these include limits on someone's behavior. >It seems to me like there is very little important communication going on in >ham radio, so why stress the narrow bandwidth? Would it block some critical >or important communication? One roundtable of a half dozen guys on ESSB transmitting as described in a previous email can easily chew up 25 kHz of a band, and in extreme cases, twice that. >What about operating on an empty band, the operator still must (by law) >sound like a cheap cell phone? I have no problem ESSB or similar modes on an empty band. But propagation, lousy receivers, a big power amp, and local noise can turn one guy's hot DX band into another's dead band. >People should try to get along, I dislike contests, they can take over and >ruin a band, I've been working the CQWWRTTY contest this weekend. That is burning about 40 kHz on 80M (3560-3600), less than 75 kHz on 40M, and about 100 kHz on 20M (14050-14150). There are probably more than 1,000 active stations worldwide sharing that bandwidth, and this isn't a BIG contest -- the big contests have 5-10 times that number. That's just over 200 kHz divided between more than 1,000 guys, and it's 20 times less piggish than those six guys in an ESSB roundtable! These contests prohibit activity on 160M, 30M, 17M, and 12M, and it is few contests burn more than one-third of a band. Compare this with "normal" activity. A few days ago, I wanted to check out a new 40M dipole I'd put up for contesting. It was 3pm on a weekday in CA, and I heard one one CW or digital signal (a guy in Detroit, more than 2,000 miles away), and only two SSB QSOs. And my QTH is quiet, in a redwood forest with few neighbors! 73, Jim K9YC ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Brett Gazdzinski
On Sep 27, 2009, at 1:31 PM, Brett Gazdzinski wrote: > I don't understand why some people like to limit other peoples > activity, or > choices. Because, like everything else, ham radio is "tribal". And we always want to limit other's activities (ham radio, architectural committees, political parties, religions -- all the tribes we belong to have something to say about kicking the other guy. > It seems to me like there is very little important communication > going on in > ham radio, so why stress the narrow bandwidth? Would it block some > critical > or important communication? Because the figurative "MY" rights to communicate are always more important than the figurative "YOUR" rights to communicate. There seem to be more and more hams who are just angry that their are any other hams who don't do precisely what they do, and we have more "road rage" than makes any sense at all. We're killing our valued hobby by all of the screaming, literal anger, and infighting over mode, frequencies, bandwidth, operating -- and maybe just enjoy picking fights, to the detriment of all of us. Grant/NQ5T ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Brett Gazdzinski
Brett Gazdzinski wrote:
N2DTS: "I don't understand why some people like to limit other peoples activity, or choices." AB7E: So it's OK for me to hold a keg party on the street in front of your house late at night? It isn't about arbitrarily wanting to limit the activities of the wide-band ESSB folks ... it's about not wanting the activities of the wide-band ESSB folks to arbitrarily limit the number of hams who can enjoy themselves on the relatively narrow HF bands. N2DTS: "It seems to me like there is very little important communication going on in ham radio, so why stress the narrow bandwidth? Would it block some critical or important communication?" AB7E: There is relatively little "important" communication going on at all in ham radio, and that applies at least as much to the wide-band ESSB folks. How "important" is it to spend an hour critiquing that last 0.1 db of voice frequency response below 50 Hz? The issue isn't the importance of the content ... the issue is the right to reasonable opportunity to express it. N2DTS: "Ham radio just seems like a bunch of people who enjoy fooling with radio equipment, so why not just let them fool with it?" AB7E: While ESSB has endured scorn from mainstream hams for some time, it really wasn't too much of an issue while their experiments (and their splatter) were held to rather few frequencies that everyone else could generally manage to avoid. Now that ESSB has found a way to take up even more space with wide bandwidths and its practitioners are openly advocating operation anywhere on the HF bands, it has become a totally different issue. If your upwind neighbor enjoyed burning tires in his back yard, would you be inclined to "just let him fool with it"? N2DTS: "There are other modes much narrower than ssb, why not not ban ssb as wasting spectrum? AB7E: There aren't any practical VOICE modes narrower than SSB. FCC regulations and common-use band plans try to provide room for everyone to enjoy the hobby without unduly infringing on others right to do the same. Wide-band ESSB is like insisting on wearing a big hat in a crowded movie. N2DTS: "I am not fond of RTTY, or slow scan TV, or ssb, or many other things other hams do, but the last thing I would want to do is restrict something that others find enjoyable." AB7E: So why not open up the HF bands to wide-band FM? I have no problem at all with people using the K3 for clean ESSB when the band activity allows it. I do have a problem with people using ESSB on any rig when the bands are crowded, and I have a significant problem with people extending ESSB to ridiculous bandwidths like 6 KHz and beyond, and I have a huge problem with people generating splatter by pushing a rig that can't handle it to ESSB bandwidths. Dave AB7E ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
«
Return to [K3]
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |