[CQ-Contest] 40M FT4 Frequency

[brennanprice at verizon.net]

A few observations, now that I'm sure I have plain text turned on and having
watched today's discussion with interest:

1) Above 7100 is hard because of how the narrower 40 meter band is used in
ITU Regions 1 and 3.
2) This is a hard issue, and may have no easy solution. 
3) It would be good to see ARRL pay more attention to this than to, for
example, whether Connecticut law permits Vice Directors. (Free advice from a
Connecticut lawyer: it does.)
4) From a spectrum management an defense perspective, this a very good
problem to have.

73 de Brennan N4QX

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com> On Behalf Of Jamie WW3S
Sent: Monday, August 5, 2019 19:56
To: donovanf at starpower.net; cq-contest at contesting.com
Cc: k1jt <k1jt at arrl.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] 40M FT4 Frequency

Not sure what the ARRL directors can do, other than suggest a different freq
(I think above 7.100 would be great). I think the software developers,
users, and contest organizers would be the ones to suggest "the move"

------ Original Message ------
From: donovanf at starpower.net
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Cc: "k1jt" <k1jt at arrl.net>
Sent: 8/5/2019 10:34:49 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] 40M FT4 Frequency

>I fully support K9YC's recommendation that ARRL members contact their 
>directors so that they become aware of the need to quickly act force a 
>change in the unfortunate choice of 7047.5 kHz for routine and rapidly 
>growing FT4 activity.
>
>
>73
>Frank
>W3LPL
>
>----- Original Message -----
>
>From: donovanf at starpower.net
>To: "PVRC Mailman" <pvrc at mailman.qth.net>
>Cc: "k1jt" <k1jt at arrl.net>, "W3TOM" <w3tom at arrl.org>, w2ru at arrl.org
>Sent: Monday, August 5, 2019 2:29:13 PM
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] 40M FT4 Frequency
>
>
>What are PVRC members opinions and recommendations about the unwise 
>choice of 7047.5 kHz for FT4 activity? While the FT4 development team 
>naively expected FT4 to be used only during contests, inevitably FT4 
>use is rapidly growing for routine QSOs.
>
>
>
>In my opinion the obvious 40 meter FT4 frequency range is in the much 
>more lightly used 7100-7125 kHz segment.
>
>
>Something must be done soon.
>
>
>73
>Frank
>W3LPL
>
>----- Original Message -----
>
>From: "Jim Brown" <k9yc at audiosystemsgroup.com>
>To: "cq-contest" <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>Sent: Monday, August 5, 2019 7:57:41 AM
>Subject: [CQ-Contest] 40M FT4 Frequency
>
>7047 has been chosen, and many fans of WSJT modes have observed that 
>it's likely to start a war. That range is widely used by W1AW, state 
>QSO parties, QRP and QRS operation, county hunters, most CW contests, 
>and many others. Sure, the WSJT team think it's only for contests, but 
>if you build it, they will come, and they are coming. I had QRM from 
>FT4 operators during NAQP CW.
>
>I am a huge fan of the work of K1JT and his team (I use FT8 extensively 
>on 160M and 6M), but they ain't perfect, and this is a massive screw-up.
>The default 40M FT4 frequency ought to be somewhere north of 7070 kHz.
>OTOH, I have no issue with the DXpedition mode frequency around 7058. I 
>urge all contest clubs to contact both the WSJT team and their ARRL 
>representatives about this.
>
>73, Jim K9YC
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest