[Elecraft] 80 m CW and Digital Operation

[J F]

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 <ebjr at i-55.com> 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" <phriendly1 at yahoo.com>
> To: <dave at davesergeant.com>; "Elecraft Discussion
> List" <elecraft at mailman.qth.net>
> 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: Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
> | 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
> | 
> | 
>