[CQ-Contest] Relief for 40M in sight?
cqden6de at gmail.com
Fri Mar 20 18:28:52 PDT 2009
Hi Pete, my first e-mail to you was private, as I intentionally
omitted cq-contest. Why did you add the cq-contest list back on your
reply, which contained my private note to you, without asking me
first? Now you've put me in the position to defend myself on the
I'm not disagreeing with you about the idea that band plans could
adjust when worldwide allocations change and/or broadcast stations
QSY. I was responding to your quote: "I guess we'll have to rely on
peer pressure to get some relief..." A reasonable interpretation of
that is the suggestion that folks may want to consider applying peer
pressure against 40m RTTY and SSB operators in a public forum when
someone perceives them to be operating in a CW zone. Many people
would see that as intimidation in an attempt to get those operators to
transmit outside the CW zone next time, despite their operating in
accordance with their country's frequency allocation rules and
existing band plan suggestions. If that's not really what you wanted
cq-contest readers to take away from your e-mail, perhaps you could
clarify what you meant by "peer pressure to get some relief". The
point of my private e-mail to you was that peaceful band cohabitation
with other modes in the same segment is key, without intentional
interference, given the existing 40m band plans around the world.
I think your beef ought to be with band plans themselves and not to
raise the idea of peer pressure as an alternative in order to coerce
SSB and RTTY operators outside of a 40m zone that some might prefer to
be CW only.
-Dean - N6DE
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Pete Smith <n4zr at contesting.com> wrote:
> I think you mistake my intentions, Dean - I was just asking why 40 couldn't
> be more like 20, with RTTY starting around ~7070, now that there is much
> more spectrum above it. "Intimidate"? Give me a break!
> 73, Pete
> At 11:58 AM 3/20/2009, N6DE wrote:
>> Hi Pete, for what reason would peer pressure be applied? For RTTY
>> stations operating within their own band plans?
>> The JA band plan for 40m RTTY is 7025-7045.
>> The key here is band cohabitation. Trying to publicly intimidate
>> stations operating RTTY or SSB to not operate within their own band
>> plans is not going to be a successful tactic. It will, however, be
>> successful at starting a flame war. We already have too much of that
>> on cq-contest.
>> The only time there's a problem is when a digital station calls CQ on
>> top of me as a CW station. And when a CW station calls CQ right on
>> top of me as a RTTY station. I regularly operate CW, RTTY, and SSB,
>> and my experience has consistently been that CW stations transmit on
>> top of me operating RTTY much more than RTTY stations transmit on top
>> of me as a CW operator. (and the radio's filter used was the same
>> between modes - 250Hz or 500Hz) These offending CW stations tarnish
>> things for the rest of us CW operators who don't intentionally
>> interfere with other modes and can coexist peacefully in the same band
>> -Dean - N6DE
>> Which is pretty disappointing, with digital modes starting at 7040, while
>> on 20, for example, they do not begin until 14070. I'm also not thrilled
>> to see unattended digital data devices at 7050-53, and SSB down to 7060.
>> guess we'll have to rely on peer pressure to get some relief, at least
>> until 7200-7300 reverts to amateur use (in ?).
>> 73, Pete N4ZR
More information about the CQ-Contest