Firstly, I want to state I do not imply that the RTTY bunch has run away with 40 meters. All in all, they have, along with the other digital modes, pretty much stayed within the "sub band"/band plan "Gentlemen's Agreement" for the appropriate emissions except for contest time when almost everyone goes "bonkers". Someone else took up my "flag" in another post somewhere recently about weekenders who have no place to make casual QSO's on "contest weekends". More on that later.
I am glad someone is recognizing that separation of modes purely by bandwidth, appears to have "merit" or is a "solution" to a potential interference problem, is really not the answer. Some digital modes can compact a very large numbers of QSO's into a very narrow space, while other do not. PSK is an example of the cramming of stations every 100-200Hz is viable. If one PACTOR station comes on in the 3-4 Khz most PSK stations operate it can cause havoc! One strong PACTOR or MFSK station can raise all sorts of hell in "PSK space" or CW space. This is greatly compounded by a few who totally ignore any mode except the one they are using. Thank goodness it isn't the "norm"! It does come across to "newbies" in amateur radio that this practice is "OK" to some I'm sure, but should be discouraged. Separation of digital and CW is essential if we are all going to live together and have any harmony at all, or maintain communications instead of "bedlam". Further, we must also maintain separation of narrow band digital modes (PSK for example) and wider digital modes (PACTOR and wider modes). Any "AUTOMATIC" or "ROBOT" internet access stations should be limited to a very small chunk of spectrum, especially those using proprietary systems. In my humble opinion, HF access to internet via Amateur Radio is opening up a very large "can of worms" that will eventually come back to bite us in our posteriors! There IS a radio service for this via the MARISAT satellite system to do this for you rich yachtsmen out there. It should not be via Amateur Radio. SSB/digital radiotelephony will continue to demand more spectrum space in the future, no doubt, but room must be maintained for "older modes" as well. Especially for last ditch emergency and relief operations as well as simple old fashioned "ragchewing". In keeping with efforts to not "monopolize" spectrum space, a lot of contests now specify a band of frequencies to be used during these contests. This allows some space for casual QSO's for those who do not wish to operate a particular contest, but still would like to QSO friends, etc. On contest weekends. This procedure is practically impossible to maintain during the very large contests like CQ WWDX, ARRL DX, Sweepstakes, etc. It would be nice to have a very small area (5 khz on CW or Digital bands, 10 khz on SSB/voice mode bands) reserved for this purpose? Something to think about when designing a band plan. We all will have to work at it to make smaller amounts of spectrum space to all concerned. Rest assured the FCC these days "doesn't give a damn" about whatever QRM exists as long as it isn't interfering with another "radio service" under their jurisdiction and we stay within our assigned pieces of the spectrum. If we do not plan well, none of us will be able to pursue viable communications, especially in the HF spectrum as more people join our ranks. Just some thoughts for what they are worth, to keep our hobby alive and well in the future. 73, Sandy W5TVW ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Elecraft Reflector" <elecraft@mailman.qth.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 8:42 PM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 80 m CW and Digital Operation | Sandy W5TVW wrote: | | > Some segregation is almost demanded if the CW/digital operations | > are combined in a 100 khz. sub-band, no matter where it happens | > to be. This is created by the fact neither mode "user", in many | > instances, is able to 'decode' the other's emission. | | True, but I'm somewhat more troubled by the lack of discussion, concern, | and formal comments on this issue regarding the ARRL's "Regulation by | Bandwidth" petition now before the FCC (RM-11036). I think the comment | period has closed, unfortunately. You can find it and what comments | that have been filed at the FCC's website. If you want a copy of mine, | email me direct. For the record, I am a long term member of the ARRL, | will remain so, and nearly always find myself in support of its actions | before the FCC. In this case, I am most assuredly *not*. | | Just because two emissions have similar bandwidths does *not* imply that | they can operationally coexist in the same spectrum, for a number of | reasons. Sandy has pointed out one of them. It now appears that, for | totally different reasons and in response to a totally different | petition, the FCC has given us a real live laboratory to watch this happen. | | "Beware what you ask for, you might just get it, although not in the | manner you wanted it." | | 73, | | Fred K6DGW | Auburn CA CM98lw | _______________________________________________ | Elecraft mailing list | Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net | You must be a subscriber to post to the list. | Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): | http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft | | Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm | Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com | | | | -- | No virus found in this incoming message. | Checked by AVG Free Edition. | Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.4/477 - Release Date: 10/16/2006 | | _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
