Jeff, Well put. In EI the band for CW HP extends from 1810 to 1850 only.
>From our point of view it would make more sense if digimodes were in the
phone band limited to lower power. The phone band has much more spectrum
and is mostly vacant in Europe except of course for an SSB contest. So
with a CW band limited to only 40 kHz in a CQWW 160M contest which is really
active flex operating is important and a fact of life. It use to be that
1835 to 1840 was a DX window for CW!
One of our good friends even suggested that FT8 stations might go to
1500 watts well this is illegal in EI unless participating in certain
contests and I know of none so far for FT8. Also such an operator is going
to be unpopular with his fellows just as he would be if using PSK.
I too get annoyed with contesters when not contesting but there are
the WARC bands sensibly kept clear of all contesting. FT8 users migrate
during a big contest just as CW operators must make room during a big SSB
contest on TB.
The USA is not the entire world. Regulations and conditions are
different. Contesting is not going to be unnecessarily confined and it
appears that flexibility is expected for a major contest. We do have the
WARC bands and thankfully not many contests occur during the weekdays.
My good friend EI2KM aka F8FUA whose EI license is based at my QTH was
on FT8 here pre and post the CQWW 160M test. He was helped in getting some
issues sorted by EI6FR a FOC who is known by his friends as the "Choo Choo"
for his ability to go all night and if needs be the next day using the
paddle. Declan carries out a conversation whilst operating. A good CW
man might well also enjoy FT8. We have a technological hobby and any mode
which can delve into the noise floor is of interest. This is not a CW vs
FT8 issue.
Take care my good friends and keep pounding the brass.
73 Doug EI2CN ex KN4WQZ
-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
topband-request@contesting.com
Sent: 29 November 2017 20:44
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband Digest, Vol 179, Issue 32
Send Topband mailing list submissions to
topband@contesting.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
topband-request@contesting.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
topband-owner@contesting.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: FT8 qrm (Brian D G3VGZ)
2. Re: FT8 qrm (Mark K3MSB)
3. Re: FT8 qrm (Greg)
4. FT8 discussion (Tree)
5. Re: FT8 qrm (Dave AA6YQ)
6. Re: FT8 qrm (Peter Sundberg)
7. Re: FT8 qrm (Gary Smith)
8. Re: FT8 qrm (Ed Sawyer)
9. Re: FT8 qrm (Greg)
10. Re: FT8 qrm (Bill Cromwell)
11. Re: FT8 discussion (Mike Waters)
12. Re: FT8 qrm (cqtestk4xs@aol.com)
13. FT8 and digital QRM (Ralph Parker)
14. Re: FT8 qrm - 3khz wideband digital (HP)
15. Re: FT8 qrm & Bandplanning History on 160m (k1zm@aol.com)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 17:04:03 +0000
From: Brian D G3VGZ <topband@planet3.freeuk.co.uk>
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm
Message-ID: <mpro.p06ver00c6j3b03e8@planet3.freeuk.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I shall be operating this weekend full legal limit *below* 1837.5 CW, and
also FT*/JT65/JT9 at up to the legal limit above 1838. There's no reason
both can't co-exist. It should be a rule in contests that all stations
deliberately operatimg out of the established band usage to be disqualified.
I refuse to work those stations which flaunt the band plans.
"Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 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
>
>
--
Brian D
G3VGZ G3T
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 12:17:52 -0500
From: Mark K3MSB <mark.k3msb@gmail.com>
To: topBand List <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm
Message-ID:
<CABdVoaD_=_NdrQ7n-tUL2iC2dd7erzn6Xt9LgkV7UXt_0v=dcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>>established band usage
Out of curiosity, exactly who "established" 1840 + 2.5 KHz as the FT8
"window"?
Mark K3MSB
On Nov 29, 2017 12:04 PM, "Brian D G3VGZ" <topband@planet3.freeuk.co.uk>
wrote:
I shall be operating this weekend full legal limit *below* 1837.5 CW, and
also FT*/JT65/JT9 at up to the legal limit above 1838. There's no reason
both can't co-exist. It should be a rule in contests that all stations
deliberately operatimg out of the established band usage to be disqualified.
I refuse to work those stations which flaunt the band plans.
"Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 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
>
>
--
Brian D
G3VGZ G3T
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 10:44:05 -0700
From: "Greg" <n4cc@windstream.net>
To: "'topband'" <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm
Message-ID: <000101d36939$a9822f50$fc868df0$@net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Just because you have the right to be on a frequency, if you know another
interest group wants to use it and it has become that group's normal
operating segment -- whether by gentleman's agreement or band plan, then why
do you feel the need to use that space? Just selfish I guess. No one
questions the "right" to use a frequency; they question the intelligence of
someone who deliberately tries to enforce their "right" when they have other
options that don't create a conflict.
FT8 is no more flawed than CW. If there is a pileup on the cw DX frequency,
you won't be able to copy either. Does that make CW a flawed mode? I'm not
advocating for FT8; I'm advocating for decency and common sense.
It takes so little effort to be considerate of others...but then the world
seems to be getting less hospitable all the time. Unfortunate. 73,
Greg-N4CC
-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ed Sawyer
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 9:48 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
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
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 09:51:46 -0800
From: Tree <tree@kkn.net>
To: 160 <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Topband: FT8 discussion
Message-ID:
<CAKF9HhYwBksgMYwO7M3jHPnvRBTAuNu=Lf_KKk-1u5rhch1-xg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
All -
I think most of the issues around the FT8 spectrum use - and CW QRM have
been aired.
I think most of use have gotten used to seeing carriers on our spectrum
displays up around 1838-1840 - and generally that doesn't present a problem
for most other uses of the band.
A little understanding of the new mode is useful - so people can understand
how to avoid causing QRM.
Thanks.
The Management
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 12:59:30 -0500
From: "Dave AA6YQ" <aa6yq@ambersoft.com>
To: <topband@contesting.com>
Cc: "Bill Somerville" <g4wjs@classdesign.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm
Message-ID: <0a0601d3693b$cee44650$6cacd2f0$@ambersoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
1. I operate both CW and FT8 on 160m, and am far from unique in that regard.
2. WSJT-X, the application many FT8 ops utilize, includes a waterfall
display that shows CW signals
3. WSJT-X gives its users control over where they transmit, so a
"pre-existing" CW signal can be avoided
4. WSJT-X could be extended to be able immediately stop decoding FT8 (or
JT65) signals and send QRL in CW at a frequency designated by clicking in
its waterfall; many FT8 users employ relatively low power with modest
antennas, however, so this may not always be effective.
5. It's not unreasonable to expect competent ops to be aware of what modes
are typically used in what segments of a band, and to listen for an
appropriate length of time before first transmitting to ensure they don't
QRM an ongoing QSO.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Shoppa
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 7:53 AM
To: Wes Stewart
Cc: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm
You don?t understand how the FT8 guys work. They have a 2kHz slice they all
work in whether they were there first or not by usual CW practice. They only
transmit every 30 seconds and no CW operator is gonna wait a whole 30
seconds for a response to QRL?. Not that a FT8 guy can respond to a QRL
anyway. The vast majority of FT8 guys do not operate CW anyways.
So that 2kc slice it?s not a matter of who was there ?first? by CW
standards. The FT8 guys have been there since June of this year and to them,
June is when they were there first.
And if a CW guy fires up 1-2kc away from a weak warbly FT8 carrier, he
thinks nothing of it. And if the CW guy is anywhere in the wide 2kc FT8
slice then all FT8 operators will regard it as QRM that renders the entire
slice worthless.
It is odd that we have two fundamentally narrow bandwidth modes yet they do
not coexist well. It?s ridiculous to think they could coexist in a contest
weekend anyway. Those FT8 guys that were rudely surprised by CW this past
weekend, that?s nothing compared to what?s gonna happen this coming weekend.
Tim N3QE
> On Nov 29, 2017, at 7:29 AM, Wes Stewart <wes_n7ws@triconet.org> wrote:
>
> My scenario had the CW man on the frequency FIRST.
>
>> On 11/29/2017 4:54 AM, Tim Shoppa wrote:
>> A typical CW guy will hear FT8 or JT65 as a kinda whiny wobbly
intermittent carrier. And will probably think it?s just some neighborhood
switching power supply noise. He won?t CQ right on top of it (because he
wants to hear a DX respondent) but he will have no problem firing up 500 Hz
away.
>>
>> But the digital guys e.g. FT8 have 2khz wide filters. So there is a
fundamental assymetry here.
>>
>> Tim N3QE
>>
>>
>> Sent from my VAX-11/780
>>
>>> On Nov 28, 2017, at 10:50 PM, Wes Stewart <wes_n7ws@triconet.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> So what's the protocol when a CW man checks a frequency, hears nothing,
sends a couple of QRL? and hears nothing and begins to run stations. Then
sometime later a guy running an imaginary mode...oops...sorry, FT8 shows up
and wants to park on the CW man's frequency? Who is to blame? I'll answer
my own question: the FT8 guy who is QRMing an occupied frequency.
>>>
>>> Besides the FT8 guys can always resort to JTAlert to QSO via text
messaging as one west African station apparently tried to do with me.
>>>
>>> Wes N7WS
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 11/28/2017 10:45 AM, Bryon Paul Veal N?AH wrote:
>>>> There were ops all over the FT8 segments, refused to even try and work
them and some were some pretty rare mults for CQWWCW...gentleman agreements
are of the past.....sucks
>>>>
>>>> PAUL. N0aH
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 18:10:49 +0000
From: Peter Sundberg <sm2cew@telia.com>
To: Mark K3MSB <mark.k3msb@gmail.com>,topBand List
<topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm
Message-ID: <20171129181359.202F6AC9B25@mx.contesting.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
This is Joe Taylor K1JTs description of how WSJT-X default
frequencies (windows) are established:
"The authors of WSJT, MAP65, WSPR, and WSJT-X have never attempted to
impose standards for operating frequencies of our various modes.
Sometimes we have made initial suggestions, usually with IARU Region
2 in mind. But the frequencies in use today are effectively
established by users, not by us. When conventional usage seems well
enough established by the community, we have added mode-specific
default frequencies to a list in WSJT-X "
To me it seems pretty clear that if the software is pre-programmed
with a set of default frequencies for different bands, the users are
NOT spinning the VFO to find a clear space. Last summer this concept
created quite a bit of commotion in Region 1 among users of a higher
band as the WSJT-X default frequency was not in correspondence with
the R1 bandplan.
So, to answer your question Mark - Mr Taylor and his colleague
authors of a software bundle.
73
Peter SM2CEW
At 17:17 2017-11-29, Mark K3MSB wrote:
> >>established band usage
>
>Out of curiosity, exactly who "established" 1840 + 2.5 KHz as the FT8
>"window"?
>
>Mark K3MSB
>
>On Nov 29, 2017 12:04 PM, "Brian D G3VGZ" <topband@planet3.freeuk.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>I shall be operating this weekend full legal limit *below* 1837.5 CW, and
>also FT*/JT65/JT9 at up to the legal limit above 1838. There's no reason
>both can't co-exist. It should be a rule in contests that all stations
>deliberately operatimg out of the established band usage to be
disqualified.
>I refuse to work those stations which flaunt the band plans.
>
>
>"Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>Brian D
>G3VGZ G3T
>_________________
>Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>_________________
>Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:17:01 -0500
From: "Gary Smith" <Gary@ka1j.com>
To: Topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm
Message-ID: <5A1EF99D.26792.2D8F5B17@Gary.ka1j.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
To me, the reality is FT8 is no matter how
someone spins it, using a tiny part of the
spectrum. A reality is few there are using
power with FT8, my Cook Island contact
with FT8 was with something like 40 or so
watts and to many using FT8, that is high
power.
As I see it, here's what'll happen when
people start landing in the middle of the
FT8 spectrum and jumping all over those
there using it; you'll see the FT8 power
increase as is necessary to maintain
communications & you'll have 1500 watt FT8
signals that will be in multiple
simultaneous transmissions that you can't
notch out with the manual or auto notch.
It will ruin your contest to stay there.
Bottom line is the guy parked there on CW
(my favorite mode) will either stay there
to make some kind of point and forfeit the
contest (a'la cutting his nose to spite
his face), or they'll do the smart thing
and move a couple KHz away to a clear
frequency and enjoy the contest without
irritation.
73,
Gary
KA1J
> I think you are missing the larger issue here. It is not *just* 2.5
> Khz out of 1800-2000.
>
> Consider that many folks have directional antennas that are cut for
> the lower part of the band - typically covering 1800-1860 at best. So
> - that 2.5 Khz starts to represent at least 4 percent of the available
> usable band - possibly more. Some DX cannot operate below 1805 or
> higher, which makes the band that much smaller, and that 2.5 Khz
> starts to represent an even bigger chuck of prime spectrum. For FT-8
> users expecting a QRM experience this weekend, I wish them well...
>
> Tom - VE3CX
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Greg <n4cc@windstream.net> wrote:
>
> > Jeez -- enough already...how difficult is it to avoid 2.5 khz of
> > bandwidth that is not even in the DX portion of the band! Leave FT8
> > alone and fight the QRM below 1835. 73, Greg-N4CC
> >
> > _________________
> > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> >
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:22:48 -0500
From: "Ed Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>
To: "'Greg'" <n4cc@windstream.net>, <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm
Message-ID: <02a301d3693f$0f7ddfc0$2e799f40$@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
You should ask that question on the FT8 users group actually. There is an
interest group that is wanting to use the frequency for a short time. When
you get there (or can you tell your computer) and there is already activity
- can you QSY to 30M? Why is it that the FT8 interest group takes
precedence over the contesting group actually?
If you think that 1838 - 1941 will remain QRM from for the 160M contest....
So if not me, it will be one of the other 1000 participants globally that
are happy to use the found clear frequency.
Sounds like you have an agenda Greg.
73
Ed N1UR
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg [mailto:n4cc@windstream.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 12:44 PM
To: sawyered@earthlink.net
Subject: RE: Topband: FT8 qrm
Just because you have the right to be on a frequency, if you know another
interest group wants to use it and it has become that group's normal
operating segment -- whether by gentleman's agreement or band plan, then why
do you feel the need to use that space? Just selfish I guess. No one
questions the "right" to use a frequency; they question the intelligence of
someone who deliberately tries to enforce their "right" when they have other
options that don't create a conflict.
FT8 is no more flawed than CW. If there is a pileup on the cw DX frequency,
you won't be able to copy either. Does that make CW a flawed mode? I'm not
advocating for FT8; I'm advocating for decency and common sense.
It takes so little effort to be considerate of others...but then the world
seems to be getting less hospitable all the time. Unfortunate. 73,
Greg-N4CC
-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ed Sawyer
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 9:48 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
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
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 12:03:26 -0700
From: "Greg" <n4cc@windstream.net>
To: "'topband'" <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm
Message-ID: <001001d36944$be583220$3b089660$@net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
When you say if not me, then one of the other 1000 of participants... it
sounds a little like if other people are going to have poor operating
technique, so should I. I never said that FT8 takes precedence over any
other group. What I am saying is that there is no need to deliberately jump
on a frequency that you know has other use when there is a whole band -- not
just 1800 - 1860...but 1800 to 2000 khz (yes, you can use an antenna tuner
in the top part of the band).
I know 1840 will be overrun during the contest...because some people just
don't know, don't care, or won't have an awareness of where they are
operating. FT8 folks won't go away because of a few weekends of contesting
either.
I do have an agenda, Ed. My agenda is that it isn't any harder to be
courteous than not.
73, Greg-N4CC
-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ed Sawyer
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 11:23 AM
To: 'Greg'; topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm
You should ask that question on the FT8 users group actually. There is an
interest group that is wanting to use the frequency for a short time. When
you get there (or can you tell your computer) and there is already activity
- can you QSY to 30M? Why is it that the FT8 interest group takes
precedence over the contesting group actually?
If you think that 1838 - 1941 will remain QRM from for the 160M contest....
So if not me, it will be one of the other 1000 participants globally that
are happy to use the found clear frequency.
Sounds like you have an agenda Greg.
73
Ed N1UR
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg [mailto:n4cc@windstream.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 12:44 PM
To: sawyered@earthlink.net
Subject: RE: Topband: FT8 qrm
Just because you have the right to be on a frequency, if you know another
interest group wants to use it and it has become that group's normal
operating segment -- whether by gentleman's agreement or band plan, then why
do you feel the need to use that space? Just selfish I guess. No one
questions the "right" to use a frequency; they question the intelligence of
someone who deliberately tries to enforce their "right" when they have other
options that don't create a conflict.
FT8 is no more flawed than CW. If there is a pileup on the cw DX frequency,
you won't be able to copy either. Does that make CW a flawed mode? I'm not
advocating for FT8; I'm advocating for decency and common sense.
It takes so little effort to be considerate of others...but then the world
seems to be getting less hospitable all the time. Unfortunate. 73,
Greg-N4CC
-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ed Sawyer
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 9:48 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
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
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:21:52 -0500
From: Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell@gmail.com>
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm
Message-ID: <ad34a1ab-a21b-76bf-92c4-d546ba1d3b4b@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Hi Ed,
Being a gentleman isn't not about putting one's own interests ahead of
everybody else, either.
73,
Bill KU8H
On 11/29/2017 11:47 AM, Ed Sawyer wrote:
> 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
> .
>
--
bark less - wag more
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:25:29 -0600
From: Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com>
To: Tree <tree@kkn.net>
Cc: topband <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 discussion
Message-ID:
<CA+FxYXg2wdE9d_d7TmaVw3__BpZaoyBC22c2dRHVxc1_Qz8R8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Well said. Just a few weeks ago, someone made the point that we should be
thankful that there is activity up there. The gist of it was that during
the year, much of the time the only activity on 160m is digital. "Use it or
lose it" was his point.
I do not wish to discuss this.
73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
On Nov 29, 2017 11:54 AM, "Tree" <tree@kkn.net> wrote:
All -
I think most of the issues around the FT8 spectrum use - and CW QRM have
been aired.
I think most of use have gotten used to seeing carriers on our spectrum
displays up around 1838-1840 - and generally that doesn't present a problem
for most other uses of the band.
A little understanding of the new mode is useful - so people can understand
how to avoid causing QRM.
Thanks.
The Management
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:32:11 -0500
From: cqtestk4xs@aol.com
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm
Message-ID: <1600943dc1c-171d-d48@webjas-vae087.srv.aolmail.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Although this might not be a gigantic issue on 160 it is a big issue on 20.
During peak time in CQWW I was copying CW contest signals up to around
14125. Parking spots are hard to come by on 20 and 40. Nobody owns a freq,
except the "pig farmers" on 75.
73 Bill KH7XS/K4XS
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg <n4cc@windstream.net>
To: 'topband' <topband@contesting.com>
Sent: Wed, Nov 29, 2017 7:26 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm
Jeez -- enough already...how difficult is it to avoid 2.5 khz of bandwidth
that is not even in the DX portion of the band! Leave FT8 alone and fight
the QRM below 1835. 73, Greg-N4CC
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 20:07:59 +0000
From: Ralph Parker <ve7xf@shaw.ca>
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: FT8 and digital QRM
Message-ID: <def5dfdd-6828-6594-cd20-19b43f5173e1@shaw.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>I noticed a few freq cops on the cluster announcements where some FT8
users think they deserve clear
>space which we know does not exist is a shared band that we have.
What I have failed to understand over the years is why the digital
stations were 'assigned' a spot in the middle of the 'CW bands'. How
much less opportunity there would be for QRM between modes if the
digital folks were up at the top of the CW area. This pretty much
applies to all the HF bands.
A real head-scratcher, IMHO.
Disclaimer: I am mostly a CW op.
VE7XF
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 15:33:43 -0500 (EST)
From: HP <pfizenmayer@q.com>
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm - 3khz wideband digital
Message-ID:
<2121841645.1499053.1511987623470.JavaMail.root@md04.quartz.synacor.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
My two cents is - at least with FT8 so far 99.99 percent of the folks stay
in the 2 - 3 khz segment .
I am amazed I see virtually nothing about the proliferation of 3 khz
wideband digital two way hash on all HF bands . For instance last night on
the ZA1WW on 3536 , it covered both the ZA and most of the pile calling
And then there is my problem with Century link ADSL carriers every 4 khz
across 160-80-40 at 5 to 10 db out of noise. On 80 happens to be 3535.934 -
the ZA was about 3535.970 pretty rough .
Also amazes me I seem to be the only one in the country with the 4 khz combs
(which sometimes are just limited to the ham bands bottom edge up 70- 100
khz almost as if intentional )
Hank K7HP
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 15:38:10 -0500
From: "k1zm@aol.com" <k1zm@aol.com>
To: sawyered@earthlink.net, topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: FT8 qrm & Bandplanning History on 160m
Message-ID: <16009803ef8-1924-1068@webjas-vad176.srv.aolmail.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
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 <sawyered@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
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Topband mailing list
Topband@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
------------------------------
End of Topband Digest, Vol 179, Issue 32
****************************************
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|