[VHFcontesting] 2m FT-8 Problem Solved

[Steve(K1IIG)]

 I agree .174 is not a great choice being so close to .175. At least do a 
splinter freq of .172.5 keeping the adjacent channel interference to a 
minimum.
If finding a clean frequency on 2m is such a struggle my suggestion is to 
keep 2m FT-8 Free. There is so much special interests band segments on 2m it 
sure
does seem finding an FT-8 home is going to bother someone. I would rather 
see 2 freq on 6m to avoid a lot of collisions and speed up the contact. I 
guess these
digital modes have merit but I find them boring watching my PC make a 
contact. Crowding CW and SSB makes no sense.

2m = FT-8 FREE. PROBLEM SOLVED...

Steve
K1IIG

> Ditto.   I was also at the conference and have used 144.174 for FT8 in 
> VE7Land.   144.174 seems to me to be a reasonable choice for the PNW, 
> South Western BC and neighbouring areas.
>
> If someone wants to put some effort into finding an alternative frequency 
> that might be better for use in all of Canada and the USA I might consider 
> changing, but for now I'm fine with 144.174 for FT8.
>
> 73
>
> Mark S
> VE7AFZ
>
> mark at alignedsolutions.com
> 604 762 4099
>
>> On Jul 12, 2018, at 12:34 PM, James C <jabeco at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> FWIW,
>>
>> In the PNW, 144.174 was chosen as the preferential and common convention
>> frequency for FT8 at last years PNWVHFS Conference.
>>
>> That being said, We may not have the activity levels as seen in other 
>> parts
>> of the country so this may be less of an issue for us.
>>
>> 144.174 has been getting a workout up here since it was chosen and I
>> haven't seen or heard of any complaints, regionally or otherwise until 
>> now.
>>
>> 'If it ain't broke lets not fix it.'
>>
>> .-James K7KQA DN06 -  PNWVHFS Vice-Pres.
>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:33 AM, Zack Widup <w9sz.zack at gmail.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, very true. And in this area at least (and I'm sure others too) the
>>> activity in contests goes down to at least 144.175. If you go very much
>>> below that you start to encroach on the EME'ers. I myself don't use any
>>> digital modes in contests. I generally operate Singe Op (QRP) Portable 
>>> and
>>> don't take a computer with me. I log on paper.
>>>
>>> 73, Zack W9SZ
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:21 PM, Rick R <rick1ds at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The suggested frequencies for 2m "somewhere between 144.105 and 
>>>> 144.145"
>>>> would infringe on the 2m EME JT65 activity.
>>>>
>>>> Rick, K1DS
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: newsvhf-bounces at mailman.qth.net <newsvhf-bounces at mailman.qth.net>
>>>> on behalf of map92map at gmail.com <map92map at gmail.com>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:17 PM
>>>> To: stanka1ze--- via NEWSVHF; wz1v at sbcglobal.net
>>>> Cc: vhfcontesting at contesting.com; vhf at w6yx.stanford.edu
>>>> Subject: Re: [NEWSVHF] 144.174 FT8 activity
>>>>
>>>> How about move it somewhere between 144.105 and 144.145.  Mark k1map
>>>> Sent from my LG G5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
>>>> ------ Original message------From: stanka1ze--- via NEWSVHFDate: Thu, 
>>>> Jul
>>>> 12, 2018 1:11 PMTo: wz1v at sbcglobal.net;newsvhf at mailman.qth.net;Cc:
>>>> vhfcontesting at contesting.com;vhf at w6yx.stanford.edu;Subject:Re: 
>>>> [NEWSVHF]
>>>> 144.174 FT8 activity
>>>> Ron, sounds good to me but what does the rest of the country think? 
>>>> Stan
>>>> KA1ZE/3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ron Klimas WZ1V
>>>> To: newsvhf
>>>> Cc: vhfcontesting ; vhf
>>>> Sent: Thu, Jul 12, 2018 12:43 pm
>>>> Subject: Re: [NEWSVHF] 144.174 FT8 activity
>>>>
>>>> I now have FT8 capability HF through 432.
>>>> It's my least preferred mode.
>>>> IMO it's a "necessary evil" to have or be left out.
>>>> If you operate 6M you know what I mean.
>>>> One thing I'd really like to change is 144.174.
>>>> Who was responsible for choosing that ?
>>>> Way too close to the SSB-CW part of the band.
>>>> Disputes already started with a long-time 144.175 SSB Net.
>>>> I'd like to start a campaign to move it to 144.165.
>>>> That's where it should have been to start with.
>>>> Who else agrees? Thoughts?
>>>> -73 Ron WZ1V
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>>> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>> _______________________________________________
>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting 


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus