Bill...
You don't get the point and are side stepping the issue. Sure, It is true that
legally you can
operate RTTY where the FCC rules say you can , which includes the whole bottom
end of 40 meters.
The point is there have been bandplans, gentleman's agreements (both formal
and informal)
or whatever you want to call them in place for longer than you and I have been
hams. You know as well as I do that there is a DX window of 160 meters -
1825-1830. These agreements are meant to
be a gentlemanly way to "keep the peace" and allow everyone to enjoy whatever
activity they like to do
be it DXing , ragchewing, CW, RTTY or whatever...
Many of the new RTTY operators out there are just ignore these agreements and
operate where they want and use the same arguments you do that it's their
"right" because the FCC says they can operate on a certain frequency. I have
had a RTTY operator start up on a frequency I have been
on many times. At least on CW you can do a QRL? to ask if the frequency is is
use. I doubt that RTTY
operators do this... they just start up where they want too. I'm not saying
there are not bad apples on CW.. there probably are and maybe they are handling
things the wrong way by jamming a RTTY station who might of interupted their
QSO.
The bottom line is this RTTY/CW issue didn't exist before a few years ago until
programs like MMTTY
became available to make it easy to get on this mode without much investment of
$$$...
Jeff KU8E
>
> From: Bill Coleman <aa4lr at arrl.net>
> Date: 2006/09/27 Wed PM 11:22:42 EDT
> To: <ku8e at bellsouth.net> <ku8e at bellsouth.net>
> CC: <secc at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [SECC] Notes on 40 and SAC
>
>
> On Sep 26, 2006, at 9:40 AM, <ku8e at bellsouth.net>
> <ku8e at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > AA4LR wrote :
> >
> > " Perhaps during a RTTY or SSB contest, the CW ops might head to
> > 7100-7150. At least for the next two or three years."
> >
> > Sorry Bill... that ain't going to happen.
>
> Probably not, but it was a good suggestion.
>
> > Besides, why should those operating CW move ?
>
> Because the frequency is busy.
>
> > The guys
> > operating RTTY and SSB are encroaching on frequencies, that for
> > years have be used for CW only.
>
> They are definitely NOT!!! "encroaching". In Region 1, RTTY is
> supposed to be in the area of 7025-7050; SSB is supposed to be
> 7050-7100. Naturally, in a contest, things get crowded and people
> spread out.
>
> > There was no problem until RTTY contesting started becoming more
> > popular.
>
> As a member of the SECC, an organization dedicated to promoting and
> improving radio contesting, I see nothing wrong with increasing
> involvement in contesting, regardless of mode.
>
> > As far as SSB.. I think those DX stations who operated below
> > 7040 should be DQ'ed.
>
> To be fair then, any Region 1 or Region 3 station who makes a CW
> contact above 7040 should be DQ'd as well.
>
> (And I guess that means that all RTTY contacts with Regions 1 and 3
> will have to be exactly on 7040....)
>
> > There are gentleman agreements (i.e bandplans) that have been in
> > place for years. They say
> > 7040 for DX RTTY and 7080-7100 for everyone else. Just because
> > the FCC rules say you could
> > technically operate RTTY in the 160 meter DX window would you do
> > it ??? No
>
> What DX window? There is NO DX window in the 160m bandplan. (See:
> http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html)
>
> > I realize this ain't going to work for a major contest like
> > CQWW RTTY.
>
> Then why suggest it?
>
> > I see no reason why the
> > RTTY activity can't shift up to include 7100-7150.
>
> Because many hams in Regions 1 and 3 aren't allowed to operate there.
>
> > Those frequencies are not used much since the
> > novice class was phased out.
>
> Why don't we use these frequencies for domestic QRP CW operation
> then? Why is that so absurd, but trying to use the same frequencies
> for international DX contests isn't?
>
> Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr at arrl.net
> Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
> -- Wilbur Wright, 1901
>
>
|