[RTTY] The MFSK debate

[Phil Cooper]

Hi again............

My comments about MFSK seem to have stirred up quite a lot of feeling! Some
good and positive, and some destined to cause annoyance!

I have had a lot of response to this, and I must say that I am not against
the use of MFSK at all. What I do object to is the way that some MFSK users
seem to feel they they have precedence around the lower end of what has
traditionally been the RTTY segment.

I've had emails from folk who have tried asking the MFSK stations to move,
only to be greeted by verbal abuse.
I had one from an MFSK user who does not seem to realise that his dial
frequency is NOT where he transmits!

I gave some thought as to where MFSK users could go, and it isn't easy.
Below the 080 point, and they will annoy the TOR users. Then again, above
090 and they will annoy the TOR (and packet) users!
Hhhmmmm! Why do the TOR users get so much space? Surely there can't be that
many mailboxes still in use? And why would anyone still want to use HF
packet?

PLEASE DO NOT answer these questions for me, I know the answers, but that is
not the point. The point is that we all have to share a relatively small
segment of the bands, and one basic proviso is that you ask if the frequency
is in use before calling CQ.

For those of you who used MFSK at the beginning, you will remember that it
was designed to take over from RTTY. It was intended to make RTTY redundant,
and then take over that part of the band. Murray ZL1BPU was quite vehement
about this at the time. He now quotes ".....on 20m, 14.070 to 14.078 would
seen to be appropriate......." .

As for contest time, well that is one time the boundaries become blurred!
And not just for RTTY contests! During CW contests, you can hear CW right
through the RTTY segment, and that is the way of life. You win some, you
lose some.

If MFSK is used to transmit pictures, some have suggested that it use the
traditional SSTV segments, but I am not convinced that is correct either.
They use SSB to set up skeds, sort things out etc, whereas MFSK users do
not.

I doubt if requests to the MFSK reflector will get anywhere, as many MFSK
users seem to share the belief that RTTY is outdated and should be scrapped,
but it may be worth those of you who use both modes politely suggesting that
they at least try and avoid calling over an existing RTTY QSO.

Let's hope we can find harmony!

Very best 73 to all
Phil GU0SUP


**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential 
and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom 
they are addressed. If you have received this email in error 
please notify the author immediately and delete it, together
with all copies, from your system.  You are unauthorised to
directly, or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print or copy
any part of this message if you are not its intended recipient.
 Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the 
author and do not necessarily represent those of 
Cable and Wireless Guernsey.

Information held on any of Cable and Wireless Guernseys' 
computer systems is the property of Cable and Wireless Guernsey. 
Cable and Wireless Guernsey reserves the right to monitor 
and review the content of all information, messages and 
attachments sent to or from this e-mail address.

**********************************************************************