Thing is, FT8 is by transmitted signal measurement, a narrow band mode just like CW.
Even narrower than typical CW. Yet we have CW signals interfering with FT8 users self-perceived window, when they are 2kc away from each other. So a regulation by transmitted signal bandwidth does not seem to be the magic arrow some of us thought a few years ago. I include myself in the “some of us”. Tim N3QE > On Nov 29, 2017, at 8:15 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV <li...@subich.com> wrote: > > >> 1) A few of us (myself, W4ZV and K1KI (I think) favored a true CW sub-band >> on 160M as we have always had in place on the upper bands >> like 80/40/20/15/10. > W8JI and I (then AD8I) also filed petitions with the FCC to create > a CW (narrow band as on all of the HF bands) sub band between 1800 > and 1850 KHz. ARRL refused to even give tacit support and the FCC > dismissed those petitions in spite of overwhelming comments in favor > of a narrow band only sub-band. > > 73, > > ... Joe, W4TV > > >> On 11/29/2017 3:38 PM, k1zm--- via Topband wrote: >> Hi All >> This FT8 discussion is fascinating really. It harkens me to remember the >> origins of the current ARRL 160M bandplan that we try to follow today on >> Topband. >> A number of us (myself included) were on the 160M ARRL BANDPLANNING >> COMMITTEE some years ago and there were several schools of thought that took >> place at the time: >> 1) A few of us (myself, W4ZV and K1KI (I think) favored a true CW sub-band >> on 160M as we have always had in place on the upper bands like >> 80/40/20/15/10. >> 2) However, the CHARTER of the ARRL committee was determined NOT to be >> inclusive of a formal petition to the FCC to establish true, formal >> sub-bands on 160M. >> 3) INSTEAD - the current bandplan was what was adopted which placed digital >> where it presently resides - as I recall it was on 1838 and not on 1840 by >> the way. >> 4) When those of us favoring FCC action on the matter inquired about >> CONTESTS - (especially those on SINGLE SIDEBAND) - we were told that 160M >> spectrum would "FLEX" to accommodate what would be SSB activity down to 1803 >> here in the USA and above 1813 over in EU since the lower band edge is 1810 >> over in Region 1 >> In other words, if this is not cyrstal clear - it was EXPECTED that SSB >> would penetrate below 1842 during an SSB contest - and that CW would "FLEX" >> over the band segments that were usually considered for DIGITAL and SSB >> modes.during a competitive operating event. >> In actual practice this has worked reasonably well - until the rise of the >> interest in FT8 - where some folks seem to think now that 1838-1840 is >> somehow INVIOLATE. This is an INCORRECT assumption in my opinion. >> 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. >> It is also an illusory assumption to believe that since the 160m band goes >> all the way to 2000khz that all space on Topband is of equivalent VALUE >> during a contest event. Europe, for example, cannot operate below 1810 and >> most European countries cannot run FULL POWER above 1850Khz. Also some >> countries in EU today still are limited to narrow band slots from 1810 to >> 1830 or from 1810 to only 1850.. So it is quite LIKELY that during a >> contest event there is going to be a lot of operation around 1838-1842 and >> it is not likely to be FT8 either.if the contest is a CW event or an SSB >> event. >> What needs to happen (and usually does)is that after these contests are >> completed, the band FLEXES again back to our more normal, accepted >> conventions - meaning that CW is usually occurring from 1810 - 1835 or so >> (not by a rule - but just by gentleman's bandplanning convention) and that >> SSB usually occurs above 1843 or so. >> On a final note - W4ZV and I authored a FORMAL FCC petition after our 160M >> Bandplan service was completed and over 1000 amateurs worldwide filed >> supportive comments. What we asked the FCC to do was create a TRUE CW >> sub-band on 160M from 1800 to 1835 or so here in the USA as I recall - but >> in the end Bill Cross at the FCC ridiculed the petition and the FCC denied >> it out of hand - which meant that what we have in place today is the >> VOLUNTARY 160M ARRL BANDPLAN that we now follow - and we all need to >> understand that NO BAND SEGMENT on 160M is reserved for anyone or any mode. >> Here in the US, CW is authorized from 1800-2000 inclusive as is SSB - what >> we all usually do is try to respect what we have as a bandplan MOST OF THE >> TIME and not complain when a contest comes along. >> BY THE WAY - here's one for you. I recently witnessed an HL5IVL digital qso >> where the HL5 was on FT8 around 1820 (because his 160M band was limited to >> 1825 and below) and the counterparty on this same qso was on 1840 or so on >> FT8. I do nope we do not see too much of this kind of event - this one >> was understandable given the band restrictions in Korea.- but it would >> concern me to find FT8 all over the band all the time - because that would >> (most likely) create a lot of food fights going forward. >> At the end of the day - we must respect that 160M is a most UNUSUAL band and >> there are no really HARD ans FAST inviolate sub-bands in the traditional >> sense that we find on the higher bands. >> Personally - I am not an FT8 user - but I respect the rights of others to >> use this new mode. We cannot hold back technology here - that never works >> very well - but we do need to understand the need to be FLEXIBLE - >> especially during competitive operating events (eg: contests). >> 73 JEFF K1ZM/VY2ZM >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ed Sawyer <sawye...@earthlink.net> >> To: topband <topband@contesting.com> >> Sent: Wed, Nov 29, 2017 7:44 pm >> Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm >> I'm sorry but I don't buy the argument that the way to be a "gentleman" is >> to accept everyone else's interests above your own. A "gentleman" is >> respectful of others and treats others as he/she wants to be treated. >> No one owns a frequency channel at least in the US - read your license. >> If I come on a frequency, hear nothing, ask QRL using a legal and accepted >> mode for the frequency and hear nothing, I am using the frequency. By the >> way - even the ARRL admits there is no longer a "DX Window" on 160M. >> If FT8 is such a fragile mode to QRM that it needs a 2khz undisturbed >> window, then it is a flawed mode that will not stand the test of time in my >> opinion. I am already starting to hear DX side people saying it's a >> complete waste of time and abandoning it. I hear 3Y is going to try it - >> that should be hilarious. >> I think that most of the FT8 crowd is horribly misinformed with dribble they >> read on the internet and think that some "net authority" has granted >> exclusive access to said frequency band and that they have had such right >> since June. >> Look for me on 1840 in the ARRL 160 this weekend after listening, asking >> QRL, and seeing if I am disturbing anyone in my 400hz receiving window. >> 73 >> Ed N1UR >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> _________________ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband