[RTTY] 160 RTTY Contesting

Sun Jan 2 08:03:07 EST 2005

Tom - it's clear from your comments that you have an agenda and are 
hell-bent on imposing your view of how 160 operations ought to be carried 
out.  You're making a mistake and I hope that other RTTY operators who want 
to use 160 meters won't be drawn into your folly.

K8AC

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomas Giella KN4LF" <kn4lf at tampabay.rr.com>
To: "a TARA RTTY eGroup" <RTTY-TARA at yahoogroups.com>; "a RTTY Reflector" 
<rtty at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] 160 RTTY Contesting

> Floyd et all,
>
> Happy New Year 2005 to all!
>
> Whether we are talking "regions" or countries/entities the end result is 
> the same, differing international band allocations. Yes I propose an 
> international RTTY contest on 160 and/or inclusion of 160 meters in all 
> established RTTY contests. CW and SSB contesters get by with the 
> conflicting band allocation issue and so can we RTTY'ers.
>
> Yes I agree with your observations about the poor behavior of SSB etc. 
> contesters on other bands but RTTY and 160 meter contesters are a 
> different breed than the rest of the cabal.
>
> Yes I also agree that 160 meters is much busier now compared to 30 years 
> ago when the LORAN A stuff was going on. But at the same time it is much 
> less active than just 5-10 years ago. Every DXer in the 1845 kc Florida 
> group has observed the same trend. It's not a propagation issue as I know 
> a little about propagation http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf8.htm , it's more an 
> issue of an exponential increase in silent keys, CCR antenna issues and 
> attraction to the Internet.
>
> There exists a small sociopathic group of CW only on 160 meter dinosaur 
> mentality operators that want the band to stay under utilized and 
> therefore a sort QRM free semi private playground or gated community for 
> their single pursuit of CW operation. I on the other hand support 
> increased use of 160 meters to include all existing modes, while providing 
> protection of narrow bandwidth modes from wide bandwidth modes.
>
> As far as DX windows go, these gentleman's agreements no longer exist on 
> 160 meters, thanks to the recent ARRL declaration stemming from the ARRL 
> 160 meter Ad Hoc Committee recommendations.
>
> In any event let's agree to disagree on the issue as gentlemen and still 
> be friends.
>
> 73,
> Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF
> Retired Space & Atmospheric Weather Forecaster
> Plant City, FL, USA
> Grid Square EL87WX
> Lat & Long 27 58 33.6397 N 82 09 52.4052 W
> kn4lf at arrl.net
>
> KN4LF Amateur & SWL Radio History: http://www.kn4lf.com/index.htm
>
>> Tom - I didn't say anything about allocations differing amongst 
>> countries, I referred to REGIONS.  Here is the latest IARU band plan that 
>> I could find, and it shows the recommended band usage in the three 
>> Regions.  As pointed out on the bottom of that page, these are only 
>> recommendations and are not binding upon any government.
>>
>> http://www.iaru-r2.org/hf_e.htm
>>
>> I assume that any contest you would propose would be international in 
>> nature and not just for USA or Region 2 stations.  Region 1 stations who 
>> are interested in being good radio citizens would be restricted to 
>> 1838-1842 KHz and wouldn't use the 1805-1815 segment.
>>
>> I understand your enthusiasm in thinking that contesters are "one cut 
>> above", but behavior observed in contests at this location simply don't 
>> bear that out.  Take a listen on 40 meter DX SSB frequencies during any 
>> of the DX contests and listen to all the USA stations who are calling the 
>> CQing DX on their frequency, far below the bottom of the US band.  Note 
>> the callsigns and see how many of them are regular contesters.
>>
>> Perhaps propagation in Florida on 160 hasn't been very good the past few 
>> years, but the band here in NC is certainly not empty of QSOs (OK, don't 
>> hear any RTTY QSOs!).  Activity over the past 30 years has increased 
>> substantially, both from a US and a DX standpoint.  The one big 
>> difference I notice is that even the highly skilled contesters don't have 
>> a clue what the DX window is for, and apparently think that is where the 
>> DX stations listen for them to call CQ.
>>
>> K8AC
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Thomas Giella KN4LF" <kn4lf at tampabay.rr.com>
>> To: "a TARA RTTY eGroup" <RTTY-TARA at yahoogroups.com>; "a RTTY Reflector" 
>> <rtty at contesting.com>
>> Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 1:06 PM
>> Subject: [RTTY] 160 RTTY Contesting
>>
>>
>>> Floyd et all,
>>>
>>> Yes I also see wide AFSK RTTY and PSK31 signals on the HF bands. When I 
>>> politely mention same to the offending parties the response is usually 
>>> hostile or indifferent at best. But I don't think it would be an issue 
>>> amongst contesters as we are one cut above the rest in technical 
>>> knowledge and operating skill.
>>>
>>> The defacto digital operating band on 160 meters is 1805-1815 kc. But 
>>> just as 160 meter CW and SSB contesters spread out during a contest and 
>>> ragchewers find something else to do, the same would happen with an RTTY 
>>> contest. Also as far as 160 meter band segment allocations differing 
>>> amongst countries, that happens on all the HF bands. You just make do.
>>>
>>> Compared to just 5-10 years ago the 160 meter band is virtually empty of 
>>> QSO's, so an RTTY contest would be beneficial to the band as far as use 
>>> thereof.
>>>
>>> Just my .02!
>>>
>>> 73,
>>> Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>> Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.7 - Release Date: 12/30/2004
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.7 - Release Date: 12/30/2004
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> 