[RTTY] Lids running RTTY on the JT65 Frequency

[David Cole]

This same discussion is gogin on in Elecraft...  Here is my reply to Joe
regarding that:

On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 11:06 -0500, Joe Subich, W4TV spewed forth with:

> What you find as an "unused frequency" in the JT sub-band is *not*
> necessarily unused - and you know it.  What may appears to you to be
> unused is someone listening to the 48 second transmission from another
> station you can not hear.

So because there MIGHT be someone on a frequency then no one should use
it, ever!  Bzzzzt!  Wrong again Joe!  Your logic is not sound-- and you
know it.  If we all followed that logic then the bands would not have
anyone on them, we would all be respecting the silence and not
transmitting because someone we don't hear might be on.  Your model
fails the scale test.  

To expect the worldwide Amateur Radio community, to clear out space on
every band, for the few hundred JT users, on the off chance someone
might be transmitting, is simply insane and selfish.

A better solution might be for people to try and avoid those areas,
(which for the most part is happening already), or actually set some
areas aside in a meaningful, thoughtful, way, for ALL, low signal level
modes (read that as not just JT modes, but ALL low signal level modes),
to use!  

There is already a JT9 area, AND a JT65 area, they should be mixed, you
know it, and the users know it!  There is ZERO reason for the
separation, other than a way to expand a gentleman’s agreement beyond
what is already there.  The modes take so little space to use, set aside
10 KHZ for ALL low power modes, not just JT modes!  I would be all for
that!  Do it via rules, and give it some teeth, but not just for JT
modes!

> Unfortunately,  the RTTY Contesters have been trained to believe any
> frequency that has not been used in the last 100 ms is "unused" and
> they are free to "press F1".

Untrue Joe, and a very prejudicial statement to be making!  Please DO
NOT judge all RTTYers by a few, and please do not put all contest flaws
on the RTTYers heads.  

> Although very little JT65 is done below .076, what does happen there
> is always done with listen first - the waterfall shows any activity.

What if there is a QRSS mode QSO happening, will the JTer see it, if he
does, will he wait the three days it takes to send a letter of code to
be sure he is not transmitting on top of the QRSS signal, I think not!

Your model fails the scale test again!  Same logic applies!  Stay in
your JT65 sub band, there might be a low level contact happening YOU
can't see...  

You don't get it both ways, no one can encroach on the JT bands, because
they can't tell if a QSO is in progress, but the JTers don't have to
even care because they are special...  Sorry Joe, you are just wrong
here!  BTW, MixW, and FLDigi, the two major pieces of software also show
JT activity, almost as well as the JT software does if one has then set
correctly and one looks, so the JTers don't have "special" eyes that
RTTYers and other contesters don't have.

> However, RTTY contesters do not looking at the frequency over a two
> minute period to make sure there is no JT65 or JT9 activity there ...
> they only care about "their 400 Hz slice for the last two seconds at
> most.  

That applies to ALL contesters, not just RTTYers!  I see CW in the JT
bands during some contests!  Not to justify that behavior, ut you are
talking about contesters, not RTTYers here...  It also applies to the
"out of band" JTers, they better wait three days to be sure there is not
a QRSS contact in place...

> RTTY contest participants need to be taught about the characteristics
> of other data signals.  They need to avoid those narrow centers of
> activity where other digital modes concentrate rather than simply hit
> F1 on any frequency that shows no activity in the last second.
Contest
> sponsors need to educate their entrants - including score reductions,
> if necessary, to get the point across.

Wrong again!  That should apply to ALL Amateur Operators, not just
contesters, ALL of us could use a refresher on this, not just RTTYers,
or SSTVers, or JTers.  

> > Pretty soon you have 3 or 4 pencils taking up the entire drawer with
> > empty boxes.
> 
> The JT65/JT9 frequencies *were not empty* of JT65/JT9 activity this
> past weekend.  If you have any doubt, research the spots activity for
> those modes on HAMSPOTS.  Centers of activity concentrate specific
> modes in specific areas - they do not promote inefficient spectrum
> use unless you consider any frequency that is not used 100% of the
> time to be "inefficient spectrum use."

I run JT all the time Joe, and we both know that 50% of the time, the JT
frequency’s are not even close 50% of full utilization.  You know it,
and I know it, and every JTer knows it.  

Next time you think the JT63 band is full switch to JT9 sub band, it's
ALWAYS empty.  

Better yet, switch to JT9 mode!  My God man, you can put a billion JT9
signals in a KHz...  We both know the JT9 band is 90% empty, 90% of the
time!  

I have a neighbor with a KW, that he fires up on RTTY now and then 10
KHz from me while on JT mode, and it does not bother my JT one bit.  

I bought my K3 for that very reason, hams close in...  You JT guys go
nuts at each other over power levels all the time...  Lets see, JT
people fight with RTTYers, JT people fight with CW ops, JT people fight
with each other...  And always about "their" sub band.  I am sensing a
pattern here Joe!  

Honestly what does it take to get a segment set aside by the FCC for low
level signaling?  Has anyone even looked at this, and if so what steps
were taken...  Try and get a 10 KHz section cut out for Low Level
signals, I'd support that in a moment!  Until then expect incursions
into what the users are trying to make a private band... 

Work with people Joe, stop telling them that as a class they suck.  Not
all contesters are fools and bad people, and for the most part they are
as careful as possible in that environment.  

Maybe all contesting should be banned?  I don't think that will happen--
ever!  And before you get wound up about the "that environment" comment
I just made, get used to it, contesting is not going away, nor are
contesters.  Your ONLY option here is to work with people, not tell them
how rotten they are.


-- 
Thanks and 73's,
For equipment, and software setups and reviews see:
www.nk7z.net
for MixW support see;
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/mixw/info
for Dopplergram information see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dopplergram/info
for MM-SSTV see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MM-SSTV/info


On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 10:09 -0600, Dave Greig wrote:
> Joe,
> The street goes both way. The JT65 (Which I am one of) and other digital
> mode ops need to listen also before they transmit. Intentional inference
> happens both way.
> 
> I had intentional interference from both RTTY and Digital ops in the So
> called RTTY freqs.  It seems with in the RTTY Ranks that 250hz separation
> is enough to go up or down from the station they just worked and start
> calling cq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank You!
> Dave Greig N3BUO
> *801 Tactical*
> Phone: (682) 422-6667
> http://www.801tactical.com
> Google Plus: gplus.to/801Tactical
> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/801Tactical
> Twitter: @801tactical
> 
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV <lists at subich.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > > If a RTTY user is on a frequency you want to use
> > > then QSY or wait until its clear
> >
> > It isn't a matter of JT65/JT9 operators waiting on the RTTY op -
> > just the other way around.  The RTTY operators *DO NOT LISTEN*
> > for the other modes - which have a 48 second transmit/72 second
> > receive cycle.  The RTTY contesters fire up *on top of* existing
> > QSOs - typically during the 72 second time when one station is
> > listening for the other.
> >
> > RTTY contest participants need to be taught about the characteristics
> > of other data signals and avoid those narrow centers of activity rather
> > than simply hit F1 on any frequency that shows no activity in the last
> > 100 milliseconds.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> >    ... Joe, W4TV
> >
> >
> > On 2015-01-05 10:27 AM, Liam liam wrote:
> >
> >> hi  The bands are shared
> >> If a RTTY user is on a frequency you want to use
> >> then QSY or wait until its clear,,,during CW or  PSK  tests
> >> contesters operate well into the
> >> frequencys normal used by RTTY ops   Most RTTY ops  understand
> >> and either give away a few points in the test mode or QSY to a WARC band
> >>
> >> Liam
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV <lists at subich.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>  Like it or not, the bands are shared usually based on bandwidth of the
> >>>> signal (depending on your country).
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> While that is true, IARU recognize the "center of activity" concept.
> >>> The JT65/JT9 "center of activity" is x.076-x.080 *and that does not*
> >>> *change* just because there is a RTTY contest - any more than the
> >>> PACTOR autobots leave 14.095-14.0995/14.1005-14.115 and PSK31/63
> >>> abandons xx.070-xx.074 for the duration of the contest.
> >>>
> >>> RTTY contesters need to learn if the dial reads less than xx.0805 they
> >>> are causing *intentional QRM* to other modes and find another frequency
> >>> or band.  I was frankly disgusted by the number of *big guns* who should
> >>> know better coming up on top of existing TJT9 and JT65 QSOs all weekend.
> >>>
> >>> It is time that RTTY contest sponsors make a strong effort to educate
> >>> their participants about other digital activity below xx.080 (between
> >>> xx.070 and xx.080) particularly on 20 and 15 meters.
> >>>
> >>> 73,
> >>>
> >>>     ... Joe, W4TV
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2015-01-05 9:34 AM, Michael Walker wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  Like it or not, the bands are shared usually based on bandwidth of the
> >>>> signal (depending on your country).  If you want channelized operation
> >>>> you
> >>>> may have to look elsewhere--just not ham radio.
> >>>>
> >>>> Be very  happy we have this flexibility.
> >>>>
> >>>> Mike va3mw
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT <
> >>>> KX3 at coldrockshotbrooms.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>   I'm just guessing, but didn't someone on the list say there was an
> >>>> RTTY
> >>>>
> >>>>> contest?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Isn't it fairly common for contesters to get a bit "enthusiastic" and
> >>>>> overlook things, especially when the op is a contester, and not
> >>>>> necessarily
> >>>>> on RTTY at any other time?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 1/3/2015 5:39 PM, Harry Yingst via Elecraft wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   What up with all the Lids running JT-65 right over the top of
> >>>>> existing
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> JT65 QSO's
> >>>>>> Haven't they ever head of Listen before you transmit?
> >>>>>> Better Yet have they heard of a Band Plan?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  _______________________________________________
> >>> RTTY mailing list
> >>> RTTY at contesting.com
> >>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> >>>
> >>>
> >>  _______________________________________________
> > RTTY mailing list
> > RTTY at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
> >
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty