[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@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
Re: [Elecraft] 80 m CW and Digital Operation
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: Elecraft@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
Re: [Elecraft] 80 m CW and Digital Operation
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: Elecraft@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
Re: [Elecraft] 80 m CW and Digital Operation
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Elecraft Discussion List elecraft@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
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: Elecraft@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
Re: [Elecraft] 80 m CW and Digital Operation
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Elecraft Reflector elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
[Elecraft] 80 m CW and Digital Operation: It's a new ballgame!
The FCC Report and Order 06-149 has thrown us a curve by extending the Amateur Extra Class phone band down to 3600 kHz (far more than the ARRL had requested), meaning that practical CW and digital operations, which have had lots of spectrum to play with on 80 m, will soon have to squeeze into the bottom 100 kHz of the 80 m band. We have to live with this new reality. We need to negotiate amongst ourselves so that our turf battles take place off the air before Report and Order 06-149 takes effect. We need to develop a band plan which will serve all USA 80 m operators, and we need to start immediately. The band plan must not actually exclude CW stations from operating anywhere from 3500 kHz to 4000 kHz. For example, cross-mode communications between CW stations and stations operating in other modes must be recognized as legitimate. Here are the major issues as I see them: 1) On CW and digital contesting weekends, everywhere from 3500 kHz to 3600 kHz will be dominated by USA contesters unless contest sponsors decide to limit 80 m operations by USA stations to a substantial, but limited, portion of that 100 kHz AND to enforce those limits by disqualifying USA contesters who stray outside of them. Major contest sponsors like ARRL, CQ Amateur Radio, JARL, RSGB and RAC need to consult with one another immediately and come up with a common proposal. 2) A CW DX window needs to be designated and respected by USA operators seven days a week, and most especially during contest weekends. 3) CW nets whose schedules include weekend operation need to be protected from both CW and digital contesting. 4) Digital net managers need to decide whether or not they want protection during digital contest weekends. For example, PSK-31 operations typically center on 3580.15 kHz in the 80 m band. Do the operators who manage PSK-31 nets want to accommodate fixed-frequency stations? If so, then they either will have to accept crowding during digital contest periods, or in effect exclude fixed-frequency PSK-31 stations from participating in those contests. This proposal assumes that they will tolerate disruption of their nets during digital contest weekends. 5) Specialized groups like QRPers and FISTS need calling frequencies. They now occupy the vicinity of: a. QRP: 3560 kHz b. FISTS: 3528 kHz Even though those frequencies are below 3600 kHz, I think it is important that those groups not insist on retaining those frequencies, but agree to be part of the negotiations which will produce a comprehensive 80 m CW band plan which will accommodate their interests. 6) Many 80 m CW nets which now operate above 3600 kHz will have to relocate below the phone band. Because of reduced total spectrum, some nets which currently operate below 3600 kHz will need to relocate as part of a new band plan. Some Canadian and Latin American CW nets will also best be served by changing frequency. I think that it will work much better if all CW nets in ITU/IARU Region 2 operate outside of the contesting and digital sub-bands. 7) Digital operators are important users of the 3500 kHz to 3600 kHz segment of the 80 m band. Since some digital operators will have little or no CW skills, and since few CW operators are able to decode digital transmissions while operating CW, digital and CW operations must be accommodated and be confined to specific portions of the band. This is an especially important consideration when priority or emergency traffic is being passed on CW and digital traffic-net frequencies. I think our first step is to think through how much spectrum is needed by the various groups. Almost all 80 m operators currently using the 3500 kHz to 3600 kHz spectrum will need to prepare for a shift in operating frequencies. Yes, that includes QRPers like me who will have to buy new crystals for rock-bound 80 m CW rigs! Very likely my Rock-Mite 80, which now operates in the vicinity of 3560 kHz, will have to be modified to operate near a new QRP calling frequency. Similarly, fixed-frequency digital transceivers may have to be modified. We all need to ask for a piece of the pie without demanding that our piece will be the exact frequencies which we now habitually occupy. In order to get the discussion going, let me offer a spectrum allocation proposal: CW DX window: 5 kHz [protected from all contesting] CW contesting: 60 kHz Digital contesting: 40 kHz Digital nets: 5 kHz [whether protected from digital contesting or not needs to be decided by digital net managers] Digital ragchewing: 15 kHz High-speed CW (say, 30 WPM and faster) ragchewing: 20 kHz High-speed CW nets: 5 kHz [protected from all contesting] Slow-to-medium-speed CW ragchewing: 60 kHz Slow-to-medium-speed CW nets: 15 kHz [partially shared with specialized groups] Specialized group operations like FISTS, QRP and perhaps County Hunters: 5 kHz [shared with slow-to-medium-speed CW nets] Obviously,
