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 <lists@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 <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
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|