Elecraft

Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency

Classic

List

Threaded

24 messages Options

Elecraft mailing list

Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency

What up with all the Lids running JT-65 right over the top of existing JT65 QSO's
Haven't they ever head of Listen before you transmit?
Better Yet have they heard of a Band Plan?

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Ken G Kopp

Re: Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency

Unfortunately, many digital mode users don't listen. After all, there's no
"intelligence" to listen to ... only "noise".

Perhaps the OP honestly couldn't hear you ... or your QSO partner.

73

Ken - K0PP
______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

WB4SON

Re: Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency

In reply to this post by Elecraft mailing list

I love JT65/JT9 personally, but the published band plans shows it as "Data"
without getting into specific modes like PSK/RTTY/JT65. While there are
"gentleman's agreements" as to how "Data" is divided up. Those agreements
go out the window during RTTY and CW contests -- so I just stick to
30/17/12 meters then and avoid the mess on those days. And I generally
have no issue decoding JT65 or JT9 even with several RTTY signals in and
around the '76 frequencies.

73, Bob, WB4SON

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Harry Yingst via Elecraft <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> What up with all the Lids running JT-65 right over the top of existing
> JT65 QSO's
> Haven't they ever head of Listen before you transmit?
> Better Yet have they heard of a Band Plan?
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

73, Bob, WB4SON

Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT

Re: Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency

In reply to this post by Elecraft mailing list

I'm just guessing, but didn't someone on the list say there was an RTTY
contest?

Isn't it fairly common for contesters to get a bit "enthusiastic" and
overlook things, especially when the op is a contester, and not
necessarily on RTTY at any other time?

On 1/3/2015 5:39 PM, Harry Yingst via Elecraft wrote:

> What up with all the Lids running JT-65 right over the top of existing JT65 QSO's
> Haven't they ever head of Listen before you transmit?
> Better Yet have they heard of a Band Plan?
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

Michael Walker

Re: Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency

Like it or not, the bands are shared usually based on bandwidth of the
signal (depending on your country). If you want channelized operation you
may have to look elsewhere--just not ham radio.

Be very happy we have this flexibility.

Mike va3mw

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm just guessing, but didn't someone on the list say there was an RTTY
> contest?
>
> Isn't it fairly common for contesters to get a bit "enthusiastic" and
> overlook things, especially when the op is a contester, and not necessarily
> on RTTY at any other time?
>
>
> On 1/3/2015 5:39 PM, Harry Yingst via Elecraft wrote:
>
>> What up with all the Lids running JT-65 right over the top of existing
>> JT65 QSO's
>> Haven't they ever head of Listen before you transmit?
>> Better Yet have they heard of a Band Plan?
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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
>> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>>
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Re: Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency

> Like it or not, the bands are shared usually based on bandwidth of the
> signal (depending on your country).

While that is true, IARU recognize the "center of activity" concept.
The JT65/JT9 "center of activity" is x.076-x.080 *and that does not*
*change* just because there is a RTTY contest - any more than the
PACTOR autobots leave 14.095-14.0995/14.1005-14.115 and PSK31/63
abandons xx.070-xx.074 for the duration of the contest.

RTTY contesters need to learn if the dial reads less than xx.0805 they
are causing *intentional QRM* to other modes and find another frequency
or band. I was frankly disgusted by the number of *big guns* who should
know better coming up on top of existing TJT9 and JT65 QSOs all weekend.

It is time that RTTY contest sponsors make a strong effort to educate
their participants about other digital activity below xx.080 (between
xx.070 and xx.080) particularly on 20 and 15 meters.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 2015-01-05 9:34 AM, Michael Walker wrote:

> Like it or not, the bands are shared usually based on bandwidth of the
> signal (depending on your country). If you want channelized operation you
> may have to look elsewhere--just not ham radio.
>
> Be very happy we have this flexibility.
>
> Mike va3mw
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I'm just guessing, but didn't someone on the list say there was an RTTY
>> contest?
>>
>> Isn't it fairly common for contesters to get a bit "enthusiastic" and
>> overlook things, especially when the op is a contester, and not necessarily
>> on RTTY at any other time?
>>
>>
>> On 1/3/2015 5:39 PM, Harry Yingst via Elecraft wrote:
>>
>>> What up with all the Lids running JT-65 right over the top of existing
>>> JT65 QSO's
>>> Haven't they ever head of Listen before you transmit?
>>> Better Yet have they heard of a Band Plan?
>>>

NK7Z

Re: Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency

OMG Joe! You are flat wrong here!

We all need to live together, this sort of thing is going to happen, so
get used to it. I have heard JTers lower than the allotted 2 KHZ they
have as a suggested frequency, and I don't consider them causing
intentional QRM, I consider them correctly using the spectrum allowed to
them. I will slide lower than the .76 and do JT as well, so does that
make me an intentional QRMer?

All of the digital subbands are suggested, not mandated, as you know.
You have a few impolite people transmitting on top of each other, mode
does not matter! That's all it is, impolite people not listening
improper to transmitting.

Because I find a clear, unused frequency, with no one transmitting on it
within a JT sub band, and I find a full sub band for RTTY, and transmit
there does not make me an intentional QRMer... It makes me an efficient
user of spectrum space.

I try and not do this of course, but to be honest during a contest if no
one is there and the entire RTTY sub bands are full, I will slide into
the JT subband, assuming there is a clear 200 hz., and I am not next to
someone. If I see that it is getting crowded in the JT bands, I'll
slide back out to leave some room for them... None of this makes me an
intentional QRMer. It makes me a polite used of the spectrum.

We are going to have to get away from all of the "this mode goes here,
and that modes goes there" mindsets... It wastes spectrum, as evidenced
by your reaction to RTTY in the JT sub bands. THis is just like putting
little boxes in a drawer, and saying just red pencils go box A, and blue
pencils go in box B, and green ones go in a box C... Pretty soon you
have 3 or 4 pencils taking up the entire drawer with empty boxes.

--
Thanks and 73's,
For equipment, and software setups and reviews see:
www.nk7z.net
for MixW support see;
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/mixw/info
for Dopplergram information see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dopplergram/info
for MM-SSTV see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MM-SSTV/info

On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 10:05 -0500, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

> > Like it or not, the bands are shared usually based on bandwidth of the
> > signal (depending on your country).
>
> While that is true, IARU recognize the "center of activity" concept.
> The JT65/JT9 "center of activity" is x.076-x.080 *and that does not*
> *change* just because there is a RTTY contest - any more than the
> PACTOR autobots leave 14.095-14.0995/14.1005-14.115 and PSK31/63
> abandons xx.070-xx.074 for the duration of the contest.
>
> RTTY contesters need to learn if the dial reads less than xx.0805 they
> are causing *intentional QRM* to other modes and find another frequency
> or band. I was frankly disgusted by the number of *big guns* who should
> know better coming up on top of existing TJT9 and JT65 QSOs all weekend.
>
> It is time that RTTY contest sponsors make a strong effort to educate
> their participants about other digital activity below xx.080 (between
> xx.070 and xx.080) particularly on 20 and 15 meters.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 2015-01-05 9:34 AM, Michael Walker wrote:
> > Like it or not, the bands are shared usually based on bandwidth of the
> > signal (depending on your country). If you want channelized operation you
> > may have to look elsewhere--just not ham radio.
> >
> > Be very happy we have this flexibility.
> >
> > Mike va3mw
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm just guessing, but didn't someone on the list say there was an RTTY
> >> contest?
> >>
> >> Isn't it fairly common for contesters to get a bit "enthusiastic" and
> >> overlook things, especially when the op is a contester, and not necessarily
> >> on RTTY at any other time?
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/3/2015 5:39 PM, Harry Yingst via Elecraft wrote:
> >>
> >>> What up with all the Lids running JT-65 right over the top of existing
> >>> JT65 QSO's
> >>> Haven't they ever head of Listen before you transmit?
> >>> Better Yet have they heard of a Band Plan?
> >>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Re: Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency

> Because I find a clear, unused frequency, with no one transmitting on
> it within a JT sub band, and I find a full sub band for RTTY, and
> transmit there does not make me an intentional QRMer... It makes me
> an efficient user of spectrum space.

What you find as an "unused frequency" in the JT sub-band is *not*
necessarily unused - and you know it. What may appears to you to be
unused is someone listening to the 48 second transmission from another
station you can not hear.

Unfortunately, the RTTY Contesters have been trained to believe any
frequency that has not been used in the last 100 ms is "unused" and
they are free to "press F1".

> I will slide lower than the .76 and do JT as well, so does that
> make me an intentional QRMer?

Although very little JT65 is done below .076, what does happen there
is always done with listen first - the waterfall shows any activity.
However, RTTY contesters do not looking at the frequency over a two
minute period to make sure there is no JT65 or JT9 activity there ...
they only care about "their 400 Hz slice for the last two seconds at
most.

RTTY contest participants need to be taught about the characteristics
of other data signals. They need to avoid those narrow centers of
activity where other digital modes concentrate rather than simply hit
F1 on any frequency that shows no activity in the last second. Contest
sponsors need to educate their entrants - including score reductions,
if necessary, to get the point across.

> Pretty soon you have 3 or 4 pencils taking up the entire drawer with
> empty boxes.

The JT65/JT9 frequencies *were not empty* of JT65/JT9 activity this
past weekend. If you have any doubt, research the spots activity for
those modes on HAMSPOTS. Centers of activity concentrate specific
modes in specific areas - they do not promote inefficient spectrum
use unless you consider any frequency that is not used 100% of the
time to be "inefficient spectrum use."

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 2015-01-05 10:48 AM, David Cole wrote:

> OMG Joe! You are flat wrong here!
>
> We all need to live together, this sort of thing is going to happen, so
> get used to it. I have heard JTers lower than the allotted 2 KHZ they
> have as a suggested frequency, and I don't consider them causing
> intentional QRM, I consider them correctly using the spectrum allowed to
> them. I will slide lower than the .76 and do JT as well, so does that
> make me an intentional QRMer?
>
> All of the digital subbands are suggested, not mandated, as you know.
> You have a few impolite people transmitting on top of each other, mode
> does not matter! That's all it is, impolite people not listening
> improper to transmitting.
>
> Because I find a clear, unused frequency, with no one transmitting on it
> within a JT sub band, and I find a full sub band for RTTY, and transmit
> there does not make me an intentional QRMer... It makes me an efficient
> user of spectrum space.
>
> I try and not do this of course, but to be honest during a contest if no
> one is there and the entire RTTY sub bands are full, I will slide into
> the JT subband, assuming there is a clear 200 hz., and I am not next to
> someone. If I see that it is getting crowded in the JT bands, I'll
> slide back out to leave some room for them... None of this makes me an
> intentional QRMer. It makes me a polite used of the spectrum.
>
> We are going to have to get away from all of the "this mode goes here,
> and that modes goes there" mindsets... It wastes spectrum, as evidenced
> by your reaction to RTTY in the JT sub bands. THis is just like putting
> little boxes in a drawer, and saying just red pencils go box A, and blue
> pencils go in box B, and green ones go in a box C... Pretty soon you
> have 3 or 4 pencils taking up the entire drawer with empty boxes.
>
>
>

Gary G7USC

Re: Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency

Guys this is true of any mode when a contest is taking place. Out of what ever mode band signals appear all over the place.
Perhaps contesting needs to become regulated by the contest organisers and those that take up excessive band width or are out of the appropriate segment need to be penalised.
This behaviour is not just limited to RTTY.
73 Gary G7USC

Sent from my iPhone

> On 5 Jan 2015, at 16:06, Joe Subich, W4TV <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>> Because I find a clear, unused frequency, with no one transmitting on
>> it within a JT sub band, and I find a full sub band for RTTY, and
>> transmit there does not make me an intentional QRMer... It makes me
>> an efficient user of spectrum space.
>
> What you find as an "unused frequency" in the JT sub-band is *not*
> necessarily unused - and you know it. What may appears to you to be
> unused is someone listening to the 48 second transmission from another
> station you can not hear.
>
> Unfortunately, the RTTY Contesters have been trained to believe any
> frequency that has not been used in the last 100 ms is "unused" and
> they are free to "press F1".
>
> > I will slide lower than the .76 and do JT as well, so does that
> > make me an intentional QRMer?
>
> Although very little JT65 is done below .076, what does happen there
> is always done with listen first - the waterfall shows any activity.
> However, RTTY contesters do not looking at the frequency over a two
> minute period to make sure there is no JT65 or JT9 activity there ...
> they only care about "their 400 Hz slice for the last two seconds at
> most.
>
> RTTY contest participants need to be taught about the characteristics
> of other data signals. They need to avoid those narrow centers of
> activity where other digital modes concentrate rather than simply hit
> F1 on any frequency that shows no activity in the last second. Contest
> sponsors need to educate their entrants - including score reductions,
> if necessary, to get the point across.
>
>> Pretty soon you have 3 or 4 pencils taking up the entire drawer with
>> empty boxes.
>
> The JT65/JT9 frequencies *were not empty* of JT65/JT9 activity this
> past weekend. If you have any doubt, research the spots activity for
> those modes on HAMSPOTS. Centers of activity concentrate specific
> modes in specific areas - they do not promote inefficient spectrum
> use unless you consider any frequency that is not used 100% of the
> time to be "inefficient spectrum use."
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
>> On 2015-01-05 10:48 AM, David Cole wrote:
>> OMG Joe! You are flat wrong here!
>>
>> We all need to live together, this sort of thing is going to happen, so
>> get used to it. I have heard JTers lower than the allotted 2 KHZ they
>> have as a suggested frequency, and I don't consider them causing
>> intentional QRM, I consider them correctly using the spectrum allowed to
>> them. I will slide lower than the .76 and do JT as well, so does that
>> make me an intentional QRMer?
>>
>> All of the digital subbands are suggested, not mandated, as you know.
>> You have a few impolite people transmitting on top of each other, mode
>> does not matter! That's all it is, impolite people not listening
>> improper to transmitting.
>>
>> Because I find a clear, unused frequency, with no one transmitting on it
>> within a JT sub band, and I find a full sub band for RTTY, and transmit
>> there does not make me an intentional QRMer... It makes me an efficient
>> user of spectrum space.
>>
>> I try and not do this of course, but to be honest during a contest if no
>> one is there and the entire RTTY sub bands are full, I will slide into
>> the JT subband, assuming there is a clear 200 hz., and I am not next to
>> someone. If I see that it is getting crowded in the JT bands, I'll
>> slide back out to leave some room for them... None of this makes me an
>> intentional QRMer. It makes me a polite used of the spectrum.
>>
>> We are going to have to get away from all of the "this mode goes here,
>> and that modes goes there" mindsets... It wastes spectrum, as evidenced
>> by your reaction to RTTY in the JT sub bands. THis is just like putting
>> little boxes in a drawer, and saying just red pencils go box A, and blue
>> pencils go in box B, and green ones go in a box C... Pretty soon you
>> have 3 or 4 pencils taking up the entire drawer with empty boxes.
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

NK7Z

Re: Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency

In reply to this post by Joe Subich, W4TV-4

On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 11:06 -0500, Joe Subich, W4TV spewed forth with:

> What you find as an "unused frequency" in the JT sub-band is *not*
> necessarily unused - and you know it. What may appears to you to be
> unused is someone listening to the 48 second transmission from another
> station you can not hear.

So because there MIGHT be someone on a frequency then no one should use
it, ever! Bzzzzt! Wrong again Joe! Your logic is not sound-- and you
know it. If we all followed that logic then the bands would not have
anyone on them, we would all be respecting the silence and not
transmitting because someone we don't hear might be on. Your model
fails the scale test.

To expect the worldwide Amateur Radio community, to clear out space on
every band, for the few hundred JT users, on the off chance someone
might be transmitting, is simply insane and selfish.

A better solution might be for people to try and avoid those areas,
(which for the most part is happening already), or actually set some
areas aside in a meaningful, thoughtful, way, for ALL, low signal level
modes (read that as not just JT modes, but ALL low signal level modes),
to use!

There is already a JT9 area, AND a JT65 area, they should be mixed, you
know it, and the users know it! There is ZERO reason for the
separation, other than a way to expand a gentleman’s agreement beyond
what is already there. The modes take so little space to use, set aside
10 KHZ for ALL low power modes, not just JT modes! I would be all for
that! Do it via rules, and give it some teeth, but not just for JT
modes!

> Unfortunately, the RTTY Contesters have been trained to believe any
> frequency that has not been used in the last 100 ms is "unused" and
> they are free to "press F1".

Untrue Joe, and a very prejudicial statement to be making! Please DO
NOT judge all RTTYers by a few, and please do not put all contest flaws
on the RTTYers heads.

> Although very little JT65 is done below .076, what does happen there
> is always done with listen first - the waterfall shows any activity.

What if there is a QRSS mode QSO happening, will the JTer see it, if he
does, will he wait the three days it takes to send a letter of code to
be sure he is not transmitting on top of the QRSS signal, I think not!

Your model fails the scale test again! Same logic applies! Stay in
your JT65 sub band, there might be a low level contact happening YOU
can't see...

You don't get it both ways, no one can encroach on the JT bands, because
they can't tell if a QSO is in progress, but the JTers don't have to
even care because they are special... Sorry Joe, you are just wrong
here! BTW, MixW, and FLDigi, the two major pieces of software also show
JT activity, almost as well as the JT software does if one has then set
correctly and one looks, so the JTers don't have "special" eyes that
RTTYers and other contesters don't have.

> However, RTTY contesters do not looking at the frequency over a two
> minute period to make sure there is no JT65 or JT9 activity there ...
> they only care about "their 400 Hz slice for the last two seconds at
> most.

That applies to ALL contesters, not just RTTYers! I see CW in the JT
bands during some contests! Not to justify that behavior, ut you are
talking about contesters, not RTTYers here... It also applies to the
"out of band" JTers, they better wait three days to be sure there is not
a QRSS contact in place...

> RTTY contest participants need to be taught about the characteristics
> of other data signals. They need to avoid those narrow centers of
> activity where other digital modes concentrate rather than simply hit
> F1 on any frequency that shows no activity in the last second. Contest
> sponsors need to educate their entrants - including score reductions,
> if necessary, to get the point across.

Wrong again! That should apply to ALL Amateur Operators, not just
contesters, ALL of us could use a refresher on this, not just RTTYers,
or SSTVers, or JTers.

> > Pretty soon you have 3 or 4 pencils taking up the entire drawer with
> > empty boxes.
>
> The JT65/JT9 frequencies *were not empty* of JT65/JT9 activity this
> past weekend. If you have any doubt, research the spots activity for
> those modes on HAMSPOTS. Centers of activity concentrate specific
> modes in specific areas - they do not promote inefficient spectrum
> use unless you consider any frequency that is not used 100% of the
> time to be "inefficient spectrum use."

I run JT all the time Joe, and we both know that 50% of the time, the JT
frequency’s are not even close 50% of full utilization. You know it,
and I know it, and every JTer knows it.

Next time you think the JT63 band is full switch to JT9 sub band, it's
ALWAYS empty.

Better yet, switch to JT9 mode! My God man, you can put a billion JT9
signals in a KHz... We both know the JT9 band is 90% empty, 90% of the
time!

I have a neighbor with a KW, that he fires up on RTTY now and then 10
KHz from me while on JT mode, and it does not bother my JT one bit.

I bought my K3 for that very reason, hams close in... You JT guys go
nuts at each other over power levels all the time... Lets see, JT
people fight with RTTYers, JT people fight with CW ops, JT people fight
with each other... And always about "their" sub band. I am sensing a
pattern here Joe!

Honestly what does it take to get a segment set aside by the FCC for low
level signaling? Has anyone even looked at this, and if so what steps
were taken... Try and get a 10 KHz section cut out for Low Level
signals, I'd support that in a moment! Until then expect incursions
into what the users are trying to make a private band...

Work with people Joe, stop telling them that as a class they suck. Not
all contesters are fools and bad people, and for the most part they are
as careful as possible in that environment.

Maybe all contesting should be banned? I don't think that will happen--
ever! And before you get wound up about the "that environment" comment
I just made, get used to it, contesting is not going away, nor are
contesters. Your ONLY option here is to work with people, not tell them
how rotten they are.

--
Thanks and 73's,
For equipment, and software setups and reviews see:
www.nk7z.net
for MixW support see;
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/mixw/info
for Dopplergram information see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dopplergram/info
for MM-SSTV see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MM-SSTV/info

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Jim Brown-10

Re: Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency

On Mon,1/5/2015 10:54 AM, David Cole wrote:
> To expect the worldwide Amateur Radio community, to clear out space on
> every band, for the few hundred JT users, on the off chance someone
> might be transmitting, is simply insane and selfish.

I've made a lot of QSOs using the WSJT modes, but I wouldn't dream of
doing so when a contest is occupying the same space. The same is true of
CW or SSB on contesting bands during a contest. We hams have a lot of
spectrum, but none of us owns any frequency, either individually or as a
group. Contest organizers intentionally avoid the WARC bands, and RTTY
contesting intentionally avoids 160M. Someone who wants to work JT65 or
PSK31 on HF during a RTTY contest can QSY to 160M, 30M, 17M, or 12M. So
can CW operators. At least one of these bands will usually be open
enough to have fun.

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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Wes (N7WS)

Re: Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency

I agree with both of you. If you want to use (and brag about) modes where you
(your computer) work signals inaudible to human beings then you should not
complain when those same human beings don't know your computer is using the
frequency.

Wes N7WS

On 1/5/2015 12:23 PM, Jim Brown wrote:

> On Mon,1/5/2015 10:54 AM, David Cole wrote:
>> To expect the worldwide Amateur Radio community, to clear out space on
>> every band, for the few hundred JT users, on the off chance someone
>> might be transmitting, is simply insane and selfish.
>
> I've made a lot of QSOs using the WSJT modes, but I wouldn't dream of doing so
> when a contest is occupying the same space. The same is true of CW or SSB on
> contesting bands during a contest. We hams have a lot of spectrum, but none of
> us owns any frequency, either individually or as a group. Contest organizers
> intentionally avoid the WARC bands, and RTTY contesting intentionally avoids
> 160M. Someone who wants to work JT65 or PSK31 on HF during a RTTY contest can
> QSY to 160M, 30M, 17M, or 12M. So can CW operators. At least one of these
> bands will usually be open enough to have fun.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
> ______________________________________________________________
>

Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Re: Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency

On 2015-01-05 2:36 PM, Wes (N7WS) wrote:
> I agree with both of you. If you want to use (and brag about) modes
> where you (your computer) work signals inaudible to human beings then
> you should not complain when those same human beings don't know your
> computer is using the frequency.

This has progressed past the "OT limit" but the issue isn't QRM to
signals "inaudible to human beings" ... it is QRM to signals that
*ARE* audible but using a different and incompatible encoding system.
The RTTY operators are transmitting where they know (or should know)
that other protocols are regularly used *without listening* for the
other activity.

Contesters do not have a "priority right" to any frequency they want
and should be expected to listen long enough to determine whether the
frequency is occupied and go someplace else if it is - contest or not.
With JT65/JT9, it takes *at least* 70 seconds of listening to be sure
to catch either side of a QSO. Listen for 5 seconds at 50 seconds
into the minute and the entire JT65/JT9 "segment" is going to sound
unused ... but that's not the fact.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 2015-01-05 2:36 PM, Wes (N7WS) wrote:

> I agree with both of you. If you want to use (and brag about) modes
> where you (your computer) work signals inaudible to human beings then
> you should not complain when those same human beings don't know your
> computer is using the frequency.
>
> Wes N7WS
>
>
> On 1/5/2015 12:23 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
>> On Mon,1/5/2015 10:54 AM, David Cole wrote:
>>> To expect the worldwide Amateur Radio community, to clear out space on
>>> every band, for the few hundred JT users, on the off chance someone
>>> might be transmitting, is simply insane and selfish.
>>
>> I've made a lot of QSOs using the WSJT modes, but I wouldn't dream of
>> doing so when a contest is occupying the same space. The same is true
>> of CW or SSB on contesting bands during a contest. We hams have a lot
>> of spectrum, but none of us owns any frequency, either individually or
>> as a group. Contest organizers intentionally avoid the WARC bands, and
>> RTTY contesting intentionally avoids 160M. Someone who wants to work
>> JT65 or PSK31 on HF during a RTTY contest can QSY to 160M, 30M, 17M,
>> or 12M. So can CW operators. At least one of these bands will usually
>> be open enough to have fun.
>>
>> 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
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

mcduffie

Re: Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency

In reply to this post by Elecraft mailing list

> It is time that RTTY contest sponsors make a strong effort to educate
> their participants about other digital activity below xx.080 (between
> xx.070 and xx.080) particularly on 20 and 15 meters.

Amen, Joe. And let's not forget that many of these non-RTTY modes are supposed
to be QRP modes. RTTY definitely is not. There are lots of stations out there
running less than 10 watts on the JT modes.

Gary
______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

John McBee-2

Re: Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency

In reply to this post by NK7Z

On 1/5/2015 1:23 PM, Jim Brown wrote:

> On Mon,1/5/2015 10:54 AM, David Cole wrote:
>> To expect the worldwide Amateur Radio community, to clear out space on
>> every band, for the few hundred JT users, on the off chance someone
>> might be transmitting, is simply insane and selfish.
>
> I've made a lot of QSOs using the WSJT modes, but I wouldn't dream of
> doing so when a contest is occupying the same space. The same is true
> of CW or SSB on contesting bands during a contest. We hams have a lot
> of spectrum, but none of us owns any frequency, either individually or
> as a group. Contest organizers intentionally avoid the WARC bands, and
> RTTY contesting intentionally avoids 160M. Someone who wants to work
> JT65 or PSK31 on HF during a RTTY contest can QSY to 160M, 30M, 17M,
> or 12M. So can CW operators. At least one of these bands will usually
> be open enough to have fun.
>
> 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
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

Not to be rude, but why is this on the Elecraft site? It has nothing to
do with Elecraft!!

John
KM5PS
______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Bill Turner-2

Re: Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency

In reply to this post by Wes (N7WS)

------------ ORIGINAL MESSAGE ------------(may be snipped)

On Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:36:09 -0700, you wrote:

>I agree with both of you. If you want to use (and brag about) modes where you
>(your computer) work signals inaudible to human beings then you should not
>complain when those same human beings don't know your computer is using the
>frequency.
>
>Wes N7WS

REPLY:

Best summation so far.

Bill W6WRT
______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Elecraft mailing list

Re: Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency

In reply to this post by Wes (N7WS)

JT65 is indeed audible and has a very distinct sound.
Not sure about the bragging you speak of???

Since Contesting is supposed to teach Amateurs to be better operators (for emergencies and the like)I would be led to believe that the contester of all people should be one to take the most stringentsteps to operate in a manner as to not cause interference to other operators, would you not agree?
After all in a real emergency you would mot want to be causing interference, correct?

From: Wes (N7WS) <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency

I agree with both of you. If you want to use (and brag about) modes where you
(your computer) work signals inaudible to human beings then you should not
complain when those same human beings don't know your computer is using the
frequency.

Wes N7WS

On 1/5/2015 12:23 PM, Jim Brown wrote:

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Michael Adams

Re: Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency

I thought that contesting was a manifestation of how boys with toys naturally like to see whose toys are the best / or who can use their toys the best.

"Best toys" is, of course, the reason that we're here (to bring the thread sorta on topic). :)

--
Michael Adams | N1EN | [hidden email]

-----Original Message-----
From: Elecraft [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Harry Yingst via Elecraft
Sent: Monday, 5 January, 2015 19:51
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency

JT65 is indeed audible and has a very distinct sound.
Not sure about the bragging you speak of???

Since Contesting is supposed to teach Amateurs to be better operators (for emergencies and the like)I would be led to believe that the contester of all people should be one to take the most stringentsteps to operate in a manner as to not cause interference to other operators, would you not agree?
After all in a real emergency you would mot want to be causing interference, correct?

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Karl Erb

Re: Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency

In reply to this post by John McBee-2

I'm with you John. Enough, at last.

W3BF

Karl Erb
5253 Strathmore Ave
Kensington, MD 20895
301 456 6212

> On Jan 5, 2015, at 7:09 PM, John McBee <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 1/5/2015 1:23 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
>>> On Mon,1/5/2015 10:54 AM, David Cole wrote:
>>> To expect the worldwide Amateur Radio community, to clear out space on
>>> every band, for the few hundred JT users, on the off chance someone
>>> might be transmitting, is simply insane and selfish.
>>
>> I've made a lot of QSOs using the WSJT modes, but I wouldn't dream of doing so when a contest is occupying the same space. The same is true of CW or SSB on contesting bands during a contest. We hams have a lot of spectrum, but none of us owns any frequency, either individually or as a group. Contest organizers intentionally avoid the WARC bands, and RTTY contesting intentionally avoids 160M. Someone who wants to work JT65 or PSK31 on HF during a RTTY contest can QSY to 160M, 30M, 17M, or 12M. So can CW operators. At least one of these bands will usually be open enough to have fun.
>>
>> 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
>> Message delivered to [hidden email]
> Not to be rude, but why is this on the Elecraft site? It has nothing to do with Elecraft!!
>
> John
> KM5PS
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

Wes (N7WS)

Re: Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency

In reply to this post by Elecraft mailing list

Well, if it's audible, then why not use CW? Much faster, even with slow keying,
and they are human-to-human contacts. The bragging I've heard is of the type,
"I worked VK0H with 100 mW into a wet string antenna laying on the ground. Who
needs QRO?"

I don't know what contesting is "supposed to do." Seems to me that humans are
naturally competitive and sooner or later almost every activity turns
competitive for some. (I've been told, by the President of the Arizona Outlaws
Contest Club no less, that I am not a contestor, so right from the horse's rear,
I've been exonerated.)

Nevertheless---and here lies the source of condemnation---I sometimes operate in
contests to work new DXCC slots or states. When push comes to shove, DXCC, WAS,
IOTA, WAZ, and most any other award you can think of are "contests."

Wes N7WS

On 1/5/2015 5:50 PM, Harry Yingst via Elecraft wrote:

> JT65 is indeed audible and has a very distinct sound.
> Not sure about the bragging you speak of???
>
> Since Contesting is supposed to teach Amateurs to be better operators (for emergencies and the like)I would be led to believe that the contester of all people should be one to take the most stringentsteps to operate in a manner as to not cause interference to other operators, would you not agree?
> After all in a real emergency you would mot want to be causing interference, correct?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Wes (N7WS)<[hidden email]>
> To:[hidden email]
> Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 2:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency
>
> I agree with both of you. If you want to use (and brag about) modes where you
> (your computer) work signals inaudible to human beings then you should not
> complain when those same human beings don't know your computer is using the
> frequency.
>
> Wes N7WS
>