Steve, We will just have to agree to disagree on some important issues. As you have seen there is a wide chasm of views between different interest groups and there likely always will be. Especially when a minority gets as much control as what happened with automatic operation over the majority of operators.
If you are able to comfortably work CW through SSB, then you would not have a problem. I find it difficult. It was not a serious problem until the changes in operating with DX stations that now work down anyplace in the lower portions of the bands that historically were only CW. Even a 50 Hz filter will not remove this kind of interference. The point is that these modes are not compatible and the voice mode takes up many, many, CW frequencies due to the wide bandwidth. The situation may improve if the Band Plans are accepted and followed by hams worldwide. Although I have personally stated on a forum on QRZ.com, that the petition is dead, based upon the overwhelming response by Winlink 2000 proponents, this issue is not going to go away and will likely become ever more contentious with improved sunspot activity because you have more hams who will be operating. Assuming that digital modes continue to stay popular, and I think they will to at least some extent, this increases the number of operators who are subjected to these kinds of intentional interference. 73, Rick, KV9U Steve Hajducek wrote: > Rick, > > RM-11392 is a most excellent example of a bad petition in my opinion. > As Andrew stated, "The proposal has no chance of being adopted". > > Also, I don't see any relevance to your CW vs. SSB comments and > RM-11392. I don't know where the heck you operate CW, even with my > oldest hybrid transceiver and 250hz Fox Tango filter I could easily > work CW stations among the worst SSB and I have when weak stations > have called me for a split mode contact to break through during SSB > pile ups, this is very common in contesting, especially on VHF+ > > I have no more time to waste discussing RM-11392, it is a dead issue in view. > > 73 > > /s/ Steve, N2CKH > > At 05:38 PM 12/27/2007, you wrote: > >> Hi Again, Steve, >> >> I think that you are also supporting "protectionism" as I am, only you >> don't think of it that way. It protects the users of incompatible modes >> > >from reducing the use of the spectrum. There may be no technical way for > >> them to coexist unless you literally drive them off. Some may feel that >> way, but I do not. And it was not until I really tried using CW when the >> SSB operators encroached that I realized how bad it can get. The SSB >> operators may have multiple notch filters that can remove tones, but >> even that is not often satisfactory. CW can not cope well with SSB and >> similar waveforms, even with the narrowest filters. >> > > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at > http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php > > > View the DRCC numbers database at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > >
