Re: Topband: FT8 Usage or CW QRM
On 11/30/2017 6:05 AM, Ed Sawyer wrote: There is a simple way to solve the 1840 problem. Just "update the app" to default to 1980 and the whole 2.5khz crowd will move up there. The FT8 operator has every right to operate in an area that will allow him international QSOs - just as CW and SSB operators. The issue here is no different that CW operators' treatment of "phone" and AM operator's treatment of "silly slop bucket." It is time for everyone - including FT8 operators - to back off and remember that *nobody 'owns' any frequency*. If the FT8 operators can't handle adjacent CW signals within their receiver passband, they need to get rid of their "broad as a barn" SDR crap and get receivers that can handle 90+ dB dynamic range at 500 Hz. CW and SSB operators are going to need to recognize legitimate amateur digital signals - either by ear or using a panadapter - and stop transmitting over them as if they were so much "noise". Neither side in this food fight has clean hands. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 11/30/2017 6:05 AM, Ed Sawyer wrote: The more I hear and learn about FT8, the more amazingly bad this mode sounds. There is a simple way to solve the 1840 problem. Just "update the app" to default to 1980 and the whole 2.5khz crowd will move up there. Amazingly, most won't even know they moved, they will just wonder why their 160M antenna "isn't working the way it used to". But then hit the tuner button and call it a day. This is essentially the same dialog the automotive industry is having on autonomous vehicles. When "normal life" interferes with efficient driving algorithm, the answer is to eliminate normal life (ie - special lanes on highways). Sounds like FT8 just needs its own spectrum spice to be sanctioned legally be the Region Bandplans. And because IT is the one needing the special treatment, it can adopt to whatever spot is decided for it. For 160M - clearly 2000 - 1980 would provide the necessary 10 "channels" it requires for future growth. 73 Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: FT8 Usage or CW QRM
I respect your right to enjoy not enjoying FT8, or any other mode for that matter. I'll side with you every time this right is challenged. Bottom line is, nature hates vacuum. If a section of a band is not used most of the time, it may be 'adopted' by another SIG. There is strength in numbers, and the numbers right now seem to be with FT8. Is it another fad? Time will tell. As for where the FT8 segment should be, that has changed a few times on certain bands, but you must make your views known where the FT8 crowd is likely to be discussing this. Leave the bad attitude behind, join the WSJT Yahoogroups list, and be part of the solution. The FT8 'crowd' is not likely to be following the Topband reflector. K1JT did not dictate the frequencies, he may have made suggestions, like many others, that was all. The mode is less than 6 months old. Things can, and will continue to evolve/change. Let's make sure it always evolves/changes for the better. 73 de Vince, VA3VF On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:05 AM, Ed Sawyer wrote: > The more I hear and learn about FT8, the more amazingly bad this mode > sounds. > > There is a simple way to solve the 1840 problem. Just "update the app" to > default to 1980 and the whole 2.5khz crowd will move up there. Amazingly, > most won't even know they moved, they will just wonder why their 160M > antenna "isn't working the way it used to". But then hit the tuner button > and call it a day. > _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: FT8 Usage or CW QRM
The beauty of any mode, not just FT8, is that no makes you use it. If you don't like it, that is fine. Don't. However, this is many a night, even recently, where there are a bunch of guys on FT8 including good DX and only 1 guy on CW if that. For all you complaining about not liking it, that is fine. However, ask yourself how often to you get on on a Tuesday night and just call CQ for a few hours. I know some of you do, but if I did a poll on this list, I bet 80% don't. And, that is ok. The hobby has many many options. Don't knock those that like what they get out of it. Carry on... :) Mike va3mw On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Bill Cromwell wrote: > Hi Ed, > > On 160 meters (as well as other bands) there are the gentlemen's > agreements that do depend on gentlemen. As long as the FT* folks are > behaving in a civilized manner I say they should just get on the air and > take their chances like everybody else. > > Personally I am completely unimpressed by FT*anything*.*! Callsign, QTH, > signal report are *NOT* a QSO at my radio shack. I have also been known to > handle some formal message traffic. The FT type modes won't accommodate me. > My decision to shun those modes is based on known reasons that I cannot > ignore. But those ops don't have to be shunned or denigrated. If they have > a window I can avoid them. But when contests or DX pileups occur then all > bets are off. That's when I usually turn the radio off and pickup musical > instruments or take the dog for a walk or perhaps (not least) visit the XYL > and help her with some of her interests. Contesters and FTers can duke it > out without me. It's just a hobby that once in a great while turns a little > more serious (emergency communications). > > 73, > > Bill KU8H > > > On 11/30/2017 06:05 AM, Ed Sawyer wrote: > >> The more I hear and learn about FT8, the more amazingly bad this mode >> sounds. >> >> >> >> There is a simple way to solve the 1840 problem. Just "update the app" to >> default to 1980 and the whole 2.5khz crowd will move up there. Amazingly, >> most won't even know they moved, they will just wonder why their 160M >> antenna "isn't working the way it used to". But then hit the tuner button >> and call it a day. >> >> >> >> This is essentially the same dialog the automotive industry is having on >> autonomous vehicles. When "normal life" interferes with efficient driving >> algorithm, the answer is to eliminate normal life (ie - special lanes on >> highways). Sounds like FT8 just needs its own spectrum spice to be >> sanctioned legally be the Region Bandplans. And because IT is the one >> needing the special treatment, it can adopt to whatever spot is decided >> for >> it. For 160M - clearly 2000 - 1980 would provide the necessary 10 >> "channels" it requires for future growth. >> >> >> >> 73 >> >> >> >> Ed N1UR >> >> _ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> >> > -- > bark less - wag more > > _ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: FT8 Usage or CW QRM
Hi Ed, On 160 meters (as well as other bands) there are the gentlemen's agreements that do depend on gentlemen. As long as the FT* folks are behaving in a civilized manner I say they should just get on the air and take their chances like everybody else. Personally I am completely unimpressed by FT*anything*.*! Callsign, QTH, signal report are *NOT* a QSO at my radio shack. I have also been known to handle some formal message traffic. The FT type modes won't accommodate me. My decision to shun those modes is based on known reasons that I cannot ignore. But those ops don't have to be shunned or denigrated. If they have a window I can avoid them. But when contests or DX pileups occur then all bets are off. That's when I usually turn the radio off and pickup musical instruments or take the dog for a walk or perhaps (not least) visit the XYL and help her with some of her interests. Contesters and FTers can duke it out without me. It's just a hobby that once in a great while turns a little more serious (emergency communications). 73, Bill KU8H On 11/30/2017 06:05 AM, Ed Sawyer wrote: The more I hear and learn about FT8, the more amazingly bad this mode sounds. There is a simple way to solve the 1840 problem. Just "update the app" to default to 1980 and the whole 2.5khz crowd will move up there. Amazingly, most won't even know they moved, they will just wonder why their 160M antenna "isn't working the way it used to". But then hit the tuner button and call it a day. This is essentially the same dialog the automotive industry is having on autonomous vehicles. When "normal life" interferes with efficient driving algorithm, the answer is to eliminate normal life (ie - special lanes on highways). Sounds like FT8 just needs its own spectrum spice to be sanctioned legally be the Region Bandplans. And because IT is the one needing the special treatment, it can adopt to whatever spot is decided for it. For 160M - clearly 2000 - 1980 would provide the necessary 10 "channels" it requires for future growth. 73 Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband -- bark less - wag more _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: FT8 Usage or CW QRM
The more I hear and learn about FT8, the more amazingly bad this mode sounds. There is a simple way to solve the 1840 problem. Just "update the app" to default to 1980 and the whole 2.5khz crowd will move up there. Amazingly, most won't even know they moved, they will just wonder why their 160M antenna "isn't working the way it used to". But then hit the tuner button and call it a day. This is essentially the same dialog the automotive industry is having on autonomous vehicles. When "normal life" interferes with efficient driving algorithm, the answer is to eliminate normal life (ie - special lanes on highways). Sounds like FT8 just needs its own spectrum spice to be sanctioned legally be the Region Bandplans. And because IT is the one needing the special treatment, it can adopt to whatever spot is decided for it. For 160M - clearly 2000 - 1980 would provide the necessary 10 "channels" it requires for future growth. 73 Ed N1UR _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband: FT8 Usage or CW QRM? :^)
>>No one 'owns" a band segment on 160M under what is a VOLUNTARY >>BANDPLAN - and the band segments do "flex" in contests when there is >>so much activity to warrant the overlap that naturally occurs. The concept described above may have worked from time immemorial, up to, and excluding, the creation of FT8/JT65/FT9. FT8, and other yet to be developed modes, require a different approach to band planning. For lack of a better term, FT8 is a contained mode, meaning, the software establishes a 2-2.5 kHz container. All activity occurs within this container. Outside of it there is no activity, no 'D/QRM', to use the malicious lingo adopted so far in this discussion. It's easy for an SSB or CW operator to move a few kHz away, and still make contacts, not so with FT8. If each individual FT8 user was to QSY in the same manner as a CW user, he/she may in reality be moving 2-2.5 kHz at the time. Multiply this by many users, and the CW frequencies that you 'own' will be gone. Gentlemen, are you sure you want this to happen? Instead of a single 2-2.5 kHz FT8 segment, you may end up with multiples segments. The 20M FT8 segment is already over populated. People are already talking about expanding below and above the establised segment. If the popularity of the mode is sustained, or grows further, you may have a much bigger issue in your hands. Better start introducing lots of new CW users to protect 'your' frequencies. 73 de Vince, VA3VF _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
