Re: Topband: FT-8 gentleman's agreement for 160?
FB Prasad, I worked a VU2 on 1840 on DEC 23 2018 so I assume that was just before the new rulings. Thanks for the new info. 73 Merv K9FD/KH6 Merv and all, We had 1820-1860 kHz in VU but a newly released National Frequency Allocation Plan has changed it to 1800-1825 kHz. Talks are under way to try and get back the old frequency allocation but until then we will have to go low and work split on FT8 or other digital modes. Couple of folks are still using the old allocation based on their interpretation :) Putting up my 160 vertical back up today after my lightning hit in May, hope to work a few in CQ160. 73, Prasad VU2PTT. Sent from my iPhone On 26-Jan-2019, at 5:21 AM, K9FD wrote: I have worked VU2 on FT-8 on 1840 and see them calling cq quite often, JA work split, there is no reason to work down at 1826 or there abouts unless your just trying to irritate others. Merv K9FD Peter, Not all countries allow FT-8 ops on 1840. JA's work split on 11908. Last night attempts to work a VU2 he was only able to legally TX around 1816 with my FT-8 being on 1844. The agreement came way before FT-8 or other digital modes. They also don't take in consideration for some DX-peditions where split operating is required. Herb, KV4FZ On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 12:49 PM Peter Bertini wrote: I recall hearing FT8 activity on 1830 kHz last evening ... isn't a bit low in the band for digital modes? I hope FT-8 activity doesn't squeeze all of the CW activity down into the DX portion before the dust settles. Pete k1zjh _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: FT-8 gentleman's agreement for 160?
Hello All, As stated by Prasad already, the new allocation has limited our allocation to 1800-1825 kHZ. We were hoping to get a clarification from our licensing authority and were told in December last week that the new allocation plan would be followed. You would have seen me QRV on FT8 before that, but now we are all limited to 1800-1825. Thanks Merv for the QSO on FT8 and CW. For those who don’t do CW and looking for a QSO with VU, we will have to come to an agreed QRG to transmit within our allocation. Herb and me tried a test 2 days back and I had tried same with Miriam VY2HH a few weeks back. So, even though we got 3 new bands including 60m in the new allocation, we lost a big usable chunk on 160m. I am hoping efforts to restore the band plan bear some fruit soon. If you hear an FT8 signal within 1800-1825, it may be a VU2 calling… BTW, Good luck to all for the contest.. 73 Manoj VU2CPL > On 26-Jan-2019, at 7:15 AM, Prasad VU2PTT wrote: > > Merv and all, > > We had 1820-1860 kHz in VU but a newly released National Frequency Allocation > Plan has changed it to 1800-1825 kHz. > > Talks are under way to try and get back the old frequency allocation but > until then we will have to go low and work split on FT8 or other digital > modes. Couple of folks are still using the old allocation based on their > interpretation :) > > Putting up my 160 vertical back up today after my lightning hit in May, hope > to work a few in CQ160. > > 73, > > Prasad VU2PTT. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 26-Jan-2019, at 5:21 AM, K9FD wrote: >> >> I have worked VU2 on FT-8 on 1840 and see them calling cq quite often, >> JA work split, there is no reason to work down at 1826 or there abouts >> unless your just trying to irritate others. >> >> Merv K9FD >>> Peter, Not all countries allow FT-8 ops on 1840. JA's work split on >>> 11908. Last night attempts to work a VU2 he was only able to legally TX >>> around 1816 with my FT-8 being on 1844. The agreement came way before FT-8 >>> or other digital modes. They also don't take in consideration for some >>> DX-peditions where split operating is required. >>> >>> Herb, KV4FZ >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 12:49 PM Peter Bertini >>> wrote: >>> I recall hearing FT8 activity on 1830 kHz last evening ... isn't a bit low in the band for digital modes? I hope FT-8 activity doesn't squeeze all of the CW activity down into the DX portion before the dust settles. Pete k1zjh _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector >>> _ >>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector >> >> _ >> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: FT-8 gentleman's agreement for 160?
Merv and all, We had 1820-1860 kHz in VU but a newly released National Frequency Allocation Plan has changed it to 1800-1825 kHz. Talks are under way to try and get back the old frequency allocation but until then we will have to go low and work split on FT8 or other digital modes. Couple of folks are still using the old allocation based on their interpretation :) Putting up my 160 vertical back up today after my lightning hit in May, hope to work a few in CQ160. 73, Prasad VU2PTT. Sent from my iPhone > On 26-Jan-2019, at 5:21 AM, K9FD wrote: > > I have worked VU2 on FT-8 on 1840 and see them calling cq quite often, > JA work split, there is no reason to work down at 1826 or there abouts > unless your just trying to irritate others. > > Merv K9FD >> Peter, Not all countries allow FT-8 ops on 1840. JA's work split on >> 11908. Last night attempts to work a VU2 he was only able to legally TX >> around 1816 with my FT-8 being on 1844. The agreement came way before FT-8 >> or other digital modes. They also don't take in consideration for some >> DX-peditions where split operating is required. >> >> Herb, KV4FZ >> >> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 12:49 PM Peter Bertini >> wrote: >> >>> I recall hearing FT8 activity on 1830 kHz last evening ... isn't a bit low >>> in the band for digital modes? I hope FT-8 activity doesn't squeeze all of >>> the CW activity down into the DX portion before the dust settles. >>> >>> Pete k1zjh >>> _ >>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband >>> Reflector >>> >> _ >> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector > > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: FT-8 gentleman's agreement for 160?
I have worked VU2 on FT-8 on 1840 and see them calling cq quite often, JA work split, there is no reason to work down at 1826 or there abouts unless your just trying to irritate others. Merv K9FD Peter, Not all countries allow FT-8 ops on 1840. JA's work split on 11908. Last night attempts to work a VU2 he was only able to legally TX around 1816 with my FT-8 being on 1844. The agreement came way before FT-8 or other digital modes. They also don't take in consideration for some DX-peditions where split operating is required. Herb, KV4FZ On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 12:49 PM Peter Bertini wrote: I recall hearing FT8 activity on 1830 kHz last evening ... isn't a bit low in the band for digital modes? I hope FT-8 activity doesn't squeeze all of the CW activity down into the DX portion before the dust settles. Pete k1zjh _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: FT-8 gentleman's agreement for 160?
Peter, Not all countries allow FT-8 ops on 1840. JA's work split on 11908. Last night attempts to work a VU2 he was only able to legally TX around 1816 with my FT-8 being on 1844. The agreement came way before FT-8 or other digital modes. They also don't take in consideration for some DX-peditions where split operating is required. Herb, KV4FZ On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 12:49 PM Peter Bertini wrote: > I recall hearing FT8 activity on 1830 kHz last evening ... isn't a bit low > in the band for digital modes? I hope FT-8 activity doesn't squeeze all of > the CW activity down into the DX portion before the dust settles. > > Pete k1zjh > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband > Reflector > _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL on 1802.5 Tuesday PM
The ARRL took a survey and found that 1.802.5 MHZ would be the least problem to DX, and USA users. Many countries can only use the lower part of the band, that goes all the way up to 2 MHZ. for the USA. Hope we can all give each other a little space to enjoy the gentleman's band. Thanks, 73 Bruce-k1fz On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 13:36:32 -0500, Mark K3MSB wrote: Eh? Details? On Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 1:09 PM Charles Yahrling > And how about the ARRL encouraging AM ops to expand their use of top band > in the latest ARRL promotional email? > _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: ARRL on 1802.5 Tuesday PM
Eh? Details? On Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 1:09 PM Charles Yahrling And how about the ARRL encouraging AM ops to expand their use of top band > in the latest ARRL promotional email? > _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Topband: ARRL on 1802.5 Tuesday PM
I've been chided for having early morning cw rag chews on 1826.5, yet I heard ARRL code practice sessions Tuesday evening from 7PM and later on, while waiting for a top band sprint to start. Seems to me more egregious than having to work around ops trying to make some WAS or DX contacts using FT8. And how about the ARRL encouraging AM ops to expand their use of top band in the latest ARRL promotional email? $0.02 _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: FT-8 gentleman's agreement for 160?
FT8 is at 1840, with the corresponding signals spread between 1840-1842, very contained. No fear of "squeezing CW". Ed W0YK -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Peter Bertini Sent: 25 January, 2019 08:49 To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Topband: FT-8 gentleman's agreement for 160? I recall hearing FT8 activity on 1830 kHz last evening ... isn't a bit low in the band for digital modes? I hope FT-8 activity doesn't squeeze all of the CW activity down into the DX portion before the dust settles. Pete k1zjh _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Topband: FT-8 gentleman's agreement for 160?
I recall hearing FT8 activity on 1830 kHz last evening ... isn't a bit low in the band for digital modes? I hope FT-8 activity doesn't squeeze all of the CW activity down into the DX portion before the dust settles. Pete k1zjh _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
