eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net



[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW

Larry Bailey (K7LRB) on October 24, 2005
View comments about this article!

Hello fellow hams, band of brothers, palzie walzies,

I have been a ham for many years, mostly on CW. I have noticed recently, as in the past year or so, that there seems to be a RTTY contest virtually every weekend and on the 40-meter band they operate primarily in the CW portion. Years ago I would notice an occasional RTTY contest station "slide" into the CW portion of the band. Now it seems that the frequencies of choice are PRIMARILY in the CW portion, at least on 40-meters. In fact, there seems to be little or no activity in the "normal" RTTY portion of the band. Is there some compelling reason for this of which I am unaware?

I am fully aware of the legalities of mode/band/QRG, etc. That is not the issue here. Call it a "gentleman's agreement" or whatever you want, but "normally" the accepted CW portion of each HF band is the lower 50 or 60 KHz. RTTY is "normally" operated at 7.080 and above on 40-meters.

I have no problem with "paper chasers," another facet of our ham radio service/hobby/vocation/avocation/profession (did I miss anyone?) HOWEVER, RTTY contesters seem to have a courtesy level of ZERO. (CW contesters are no better). I have had several nice CW QSOs "hijacked" by RTTY contest stations.

Please do not turn this into a "contest/no contest" flame war. Again, I simply ask, "Is there some compelling reason why, apparently recently, RTTY contesters primarily operate in what is normally accepted as the CW portion of 40-meters?"

Is there any chance of this staying on topic and CIVIL? (Yes, I believe in the Easter Bunny.)

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by G3YJQ on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Hi Larry.

I to am sorry that this id getting more and more so. But there is a difference between
Europe and the Stats, Our CW stops about 7.03 and this is where RTTY Starts, so it may
be the reason.
73 GL Fred G3YJQ
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by N0IU on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Fred has a valid point, but I think Larry's issue is that this 'lower portion' of the RTTY band is being used by anyone and everyone, not just for making contacts with Europeans.

As far as I am concerned, the problem isn't going to go away so this is when I QSY to 30 meters if the QRM gets too bad. That's the great thing about having options!

NØIU
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by G4AON on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
It gets worse than that here in Europe, in the major SSB contests stations operate right to the bottom end of the band (7.003) on SSB. Some stateside stations even work split frequency to these ops.

It would be helpful if contest organisers specified frequency limits and disqualified stations who either operated in the CW part of the band, or work stations on split frequency where the "other" station is in the CW part of the band.

In my book it's just plain bad operating.

Dave
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by WA8VBX on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
It is not just RTTY, look at any major contest weekend, and with any mode, most of the bands are taken over by contester. Myself either I go to the WARC bands or find something else around the shack during the time I would normally operate.
73
Kurt
WA8VBX
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W8JI on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Unfortunately there isn't a way to keep this from being a poor operator issue because that is what it is.

Our regulations really should have a rule or rules that very clearly require following bandplans. 40M RTTY and DX SSB contests are "stick out" examples, and the ARRL and CQWW 160 SSB contests are clear examples, but even normal operation is an increasing problem.

By the way the ARRL, largely through influence of Dave Sumner K1ZZ, thinks that amateurs can self-regulate. This is a flawed concept.

First, there is always a very small percentage of operators who think bandplans are meaningless and they can do what they like. Examples?

On 160, the CW band is entirely by gentleman's agreement. While the ARRL has a bandplan, many operators don't follow it.

In the late 60's and early 70's when 160 was opened for general use, a fellow in Eaton Ohio and his buddies parked on 1828 (in what was the DX Window) and started a "Window Shade Net". While it was only a half dozen people, it ruined the concept of a weak signal receiving area for thousands of users.

A group of W5's started the same thing on 1824 kHz in recent years, but Riley set them on their ears and they left. I have several recordings of these W5's plotting on other frequencies when to move to 1824 to have the most impact on other users!! So indeed it was intentional QRM.

Last year in the 75M DX Window, a group of ESSB Lids decided to move their wide signals into the DX Window.

The 40M RTTY and SSB thing is a very clear problem.

Contests make it worse because the goal of contestors is often to make contacts regardless of who it impacts. The ARRL, even though they have a clear bandplan for 160, actually had W1AW on the air violating the ARRL bandplan!!!! They make no effort at all, or if they do make an effort it is only minimum effort, to encourage following bandplans in contests.

IMO we are heading for a disaster. When we unleash hundreds or thousands of class upgrades (we won't get new people, by large part we will just get upgrades)with no code the problem will get much worse. Without very clear segments CW will gradually get pushed right out, and the other bandplans (like digimodes) will violate any gentleman's rules we have.

I liken this to having roads and asking people to drive in specific lanes. An example would be here in Georgia we have a fine for trucks using anything but the right two lanes on freeways. If we made that rule a suggestion or "roadplan", it would be useless.

The ARRL (largely through one person it seems) and others somehow think human nature is such that totally volunteer plans work. They don't work, mostly because a few people are selfish and some even enjoy causingh problems. The lack of rules is why we have these stupid needless problems. Until that is corrected, especially as we add more people who care less about other modes, the problem will get worse.

73 Tom
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by WY3X on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
You think it's bad now- wait until they pass "regulation by bandwidth" with *NO* band plans! CW and RTTY amidst SSB and AM.... chaos on the bands will be the rule rather than the exception. Unless I misunderstand the whole theory.... -KR4WM
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by AC0H on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Ditto W8JI.

The ARRL's bandplan by bandwidth proposal would make it even worse. Any mode which is deemed "narrow" can used anywhere in the "narrow" sections of the bands whether the modes employed are diametrically incompatible or not. Gentlemen's agreements be hanged.

How exactly does a CW op tell an RTTY op he's QRMing an ongoing QSO, or visa versa?

It'll be even worse in the current SSB portions of the bands when the "wide" digi modes start mixing with traditional SSB QSO's.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K5FZ on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
There is NO doubt in my mind that we need an enforced band plan. I enjoy DXing on phone and CW, as well as meeting local nets and even a little contesting. That being said, I see that during most contests, many contesters make life miserable for everyone else. They have no regard for anything but making contacts. I see them almost every contest weekend moving on top of or within 1/2 kcs of nets and on-going QSOs.

This past Saturday night a group of lids sat down in the middle of the 80 meter DX window and proceeded to mock all the DXers that asked them to move. This quickly digressed into a QRM/LIDfest on both sides,so I just rurned off the radio...

"Gentleman's Agreements" do not work when there are no gentlemen. The only thing that will work is an ENFORCED band plan.

73,
Rich
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K0BG on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
This very subject came up in our recent Saturday Morning Breakfast Group. One of our guys said something to the effect that there are a lot of gentlemanly contesters, however he'd never met one. You can scratch out the word contesters and put in what ever facet of amateur radio you like. As Tom pointed out, it isn't just contesters. It is all of US!

There isn't a person here who hasn't at one time or another, bent the rules to obtain one more DX card, or one more Field Day contact, or what have you, me included. The crux of this argument is, this occasional bending has become common place, due more or less to one individual at HQ. And I'd bet money Riley knows this as well as any of us.

"We have seen the enemy, and it is us."

Alan, KØBG
www.k0bg.com
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by N4ZOU on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
I don't know how to tell you this but here goes. There will be only wide band Pactor to Internet gates operating in what used to be the SSB parts of the phone bands if the ARRL gets its way. You can try and operate phone but the Pactor stations are robots and don't care if your there or not and will just keep at it until you give up. Don't forget the narrow Pactor MBO's that already take up a considerable amount of spectrum in the lower parts of the bands. This use will increase greatly with the new band plan. You think you have contester problems now? Just wait until amateur radio to Internet gates rain supreme on considerable portions of the HF amateur radio bands.
 
What Hijacking of 40-Meter CW???  
by K7VO on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Hi. Larry, and everyone else,

Before I go into what is bothering you I'm going to mention what is bothering me about your post. "Band of brothers"? Are female hams either unimportant or imaginary in your view? You wrote about one of your pet peeves. This often unintentional but very real sexism is one of mine.

Oh, and yes, I'll get flamed for pointing this out. I always do. I'll stop pointing it out when the ham community stops assuming that ham==male. Fair enough?

On to CW and RTTY and 40m:

In much of the world the entire 40m band in 7.000-7.100. That's it. There is no more. RTTY, in most of the rest of the world, starts at 7.030. You spoke of the bottom 50-60kHz of the band as the CW portion. According to the ARRL band plan, yes. According to the rest of the world, absolutely not. I realize you are a General class operator and you can't go below 7.025. If you want to have a significant, usable CW segment of 40m I suggest you upgrade. Otherwise you will simply have to live with reality as much as you don't like it.

If you are complaining about signals below 7.030 then you do have a legitimate complaint, but as others have pointed out there are no CW-exclusive band segments anywhere on HF. (There are on VHF bands, interestingly enough.) Agreements are followed only by those who agree. It's the nature of the beast. Unless most of the world's governments decided to create regulations for protected CW band segments this isn't going to get any better. Blaming David Sumner or the ARRL is ridiculous since 40m is a worldwide band.

Regulation by bandwidth would make things far better, not worse, as most digital modes simply won't fit in the sections of the band set aside for the narrowest of modes. There will be less interference with CW, not more, as most digital modes will be excluded by regulation, not by some nebulous agreement or some bandplan by an amateur radio organization (i.e.: the ARRL) with no enforcement authority whatsoever.

I realize there are legitimate issues with regulation by bandwidth but protection for CW isn't one of them. It's a red herring. The SSB portions of the band are what is really endangered if that proposal goes into effect, by wideband digital modes (i.e.: WinLink).

Much of the world has already abolished Morse examinations and I think the FCC has stated very clearly that they intend to do the same. I agree with those who say that will result in very few new licensees but a whole lot of upgrades. However, experience in the rest of the world with no-code HF privileges (i.e.: U.K. and Japan) shows that a surprising number of these people later choose to learn code. Interference doesn't seem to go up. Most of the new HFers will be decent hams who follow most agreements and are courteous. We have plenty of discourteous people now and yes, we'll have a few more on HF. They will always be a small minority. The upcoming inevitable regulation change won't really impact that much. That's another red herring.

Those who say self-regulation doesn't work and never will are absolutely correct. We have decades of evidence to show that to be true in the ham community. However, the FCC is unwilling to reregulate nor does it have the resources to strictly enforce it's rules in the ham bands. Again, blaming David Sumner or the ARRL is ridiculous. They are simply trying to make the best of reality, not pipe dreams. The only way some sanity will be maintained on the bands is if hams work together and, as many have already pointed out, some hams could care less about that. Unfortunate but true. Some people on eHam take every opportunity to rip and tear at the ARRL. Some criticism is certainly justified but let's face it: a whole lot of this is beyond the ARRL's control.

One suggestion that could be made to the various contest sponsors, including the ARRL: make a *contest* rule that RTTY contacts below 7.030 are invalid for contest credit. That would probably be the best way to approach this. A good place to start would be the ARRL, a major contest sponsor, and CQ magazine, another major contest sponsor. Of course, that requires a non-confrontational approach to the ARRL, doesn't it?

Finally, this isn't just a RTTY problem. On major contest weekends most of us who don't contest on HF are limited to the WARC bands and 60 meters. The only good news is that most of the major contest sponsors keep it that way by making a *contest* rule making the WARC bands and 60m invalid for contest credit.

So, once again, the best approach is to contact the contest sponsors. Even still, don't expect clear CW frequencies above 7.030 or so, which means if you want to operate CW on 40m I do suggest upgrading to Extra.

73,
Caity
K7VO
(who is expecting major flamage but has never been shy about expressing her opinions)
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by N8UZE on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Keep in mind that US regulations and band plans do NOT apply outside the area subject to the FCC. The global differences are particularly evident on the 40m band. Outside the US, most areas are limited to operating from 7.000 to 7.100 (However, this is in the process of changing). So they have to squeeze their band plans into a much smaller area. This both compresses and moves modes lower in the band for those areas (I believe other areas used 7.040 for RTTY but am not 100% certain on that). Check the Euorpean band plans and you will see this. This information used to be printed in the ARRL Operating Manual. I do not know if recent additions contain this information though. If they wish to work US stations on SSB, they have to work split since there is NO common voice portion on 40m.

Unless they are small, contests will almost always fill the portion of the band where it is legal to operate that mode. Contesters will stay within the regulations of their respective countries but the band plan ends up being disregarded. There are simply more users at contest time than what the "gentleman's agreement" was designed for.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by N5NA on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
N4ZOU wrote: "You can try and operate phone but the Pactor stations are robots and don't care if your there or not and will just keep at it until you give up."

The ARRL proposal states: ""Automatic control" segments would be limited to 3.620-3.635, 7.100-7.105, 10.140-10.150, 14.100-14.112, 21.150-21.160 and 28.120-28.189 MHz."
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by N5UV on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
I agree 100% w/K7VO! Caity, you won't get any flamage from me...

Now, back to the radio...
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by KC2OOS on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Perhaps all of this should be viewed as an opportunity to put even more pressure on the regulating authorities to get the broadcasters out of the 40 m band. Personally, I think the problem is worse than the OP makes it sound. I find most of the 40 m band to be unusable due to the high level of interference from SW broadcasters.

As for KV7O'S "suggestion" to upgrade, I think that a more constructive idea would be to try and remove the interference problems, rather than creating an environment in which license elitism is encouraged over participation by all classes. I myself plan to upgrade (not for this reason), but I've been too busy playing around with my new radio gear to study--maybe next month!

Yes, there will always be those (hopefully in the minority) that will ignore agreements, whether formal or informal; however, it takes the agreement of nearly everyone to create a workable plan, but only the disagreement of *one* ham to cause QRM impacting a large portion of the entire planet. It is true that, at least in the US, the FCC has been gutted by budgetary constraints and commercial interests, but that does not mean that Amateur Radio operators should not argue for better regulation. Note that "better" regulation does not necessarily mean "more" regulation.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W9OY on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
It will get even worse when the ARRL band plan by modulation bandwidth is implamented. They have opted for a very precise definition of bandwidth and guess what if your running outside of the bandwidth spec even by 1hz you are liable according to law. Once the definition is codified it will be enforced. You think that operating CW with your clicky old FT-1000xxx will be allowed? Think again. It will be well outside the spec. Your beautiful multi-killobuck radio, a candidate for the dump.

It will be interesting to see all the newbies and a lot of us oldbies getting cited right and left for bandwidth violations. Riley is nothing if not persistent in his application of the rules.

For the record I think "president-for-life" K1ZZ is a menace, if not a fool. In "saving" us he will condemn us.

73 W9OY

 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W4MEC on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Reference has been made to ARRL bandplans in various comments. Well, since less than 10% belong to the ARRL, how will you get your copy of the bandplan? Also, the "Considerate Operators Frequency Guide", highlights many bits of info you may forget or perhaps never been aware of, and again, unless you are an ARRL member, you will never see this. But again, this is only for the US. VE land SSB'ers populate much of the band from 7050 up, driving US data mode folks down lower. 7040 as a QRP calling freq is basically trashed at night, and I think it is also the Canadian RTTY DX freq. Perhaps the only answer is QRO for everyone.

Charlie in NC
 
40 meter DX window  
by WB4M on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
I've been operating RTTY since 1980, and as long as I can remember, 7.035 to 7.040 plus/minus was the "DX RTTY window". Back in the 1980's, normal QSOs were in the 7.080-7.100 area, but during contests, the Europeans would be down around 7.040, so US stations would go there to work them.
But don't think CW ops don't "hijack" frequencies, as demonstrated this weekend. I was hearing CW up in the RTTY ares on 20 meters.
And like others have mentioned, just wait until the ARRL and it's darling WINLINK get their way..
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by WB4M on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
For the record I think "president-for-life" K1ZZ is a menace, if not a fool. In "saving" us he will condemn us.

73 W9OY

You're not the only one who feels this way. Mr. Ivory Tower himself and his few cronies think we are too stupid to know what is right so they do it for us. And wait until he and his pals unleash WinLink upon the bands..
 
to K7vO  
by WB4M on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"The SSB portions of the band are what is really endangered if that proposal goes into effect, by wideband digital modes (i.e.: WinLink)."

The most important part of you post!
 
to K7vO  
by WB4M on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"The SSB portions of the band are what is really endangered if that proposal goes into effect, by wideband digital modes (i.e.: WinLink)."

The most important part of your post!
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K0RFD on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
I can't be responsible for the behavior of others, only for my own behavior.

The two or three times a year I get into a RTTY contest, I stay at least 5 KHz above the PSK calling frequencies, I don't operate within the PSK subbands and NEVER below them in the CW area. If somebody wants to work me for a point or mult, they won't work me if they park down below.

That's pretty much all I can do. Operate responsibly myself, and not reward others who refuse to operate responsibly.

If only the Pactor robots would do the same thing. Trouble is, they do it DAILY, not just on the occasional contest weekend.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K7VO on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
KC2OOS wrote:

"Perhaps all of this should be viewed as an opportunity to put even more pressure on the regulating authorities to get the broadcasters out of the 40 m band. Personally, I think the problem is worse than the OP makes it sound. I find most of the 40 m band to be unusable due to the high level of interference from SW broadcasters. "

There are no shortwave broadcasters below 7.100. Narry a one. If you are hearing shortwave below that you have a problem with your receiver. The shortwave issue is also a non-issue during the day on 40m. At night it does make 40m SSB (not CW) almost unusable. That's true in the Extra class portion of the band as well as the General class. So, the claim of "license elitism" doesn't fit.

7.100-7.300 was, until recently, reserved for shortwave broadcasting in most of the world. We in region 2 were the oddball, the exception. We had no choice but to live with it. Now the world is moving to clear 7.100-7.200 from shortwave broadcasters. This is a major victory for the world amateur radio community, including the ARRL. It won't happen overnight but it will happen in a few years.

On 7.200-7.300 we are still the oddballs.

Even when I spoke of upgrading to get access to 7.000-7.025, that isn't "elitism". It's reality. As others keep poining out, repeatedly, the rest of the world is dealing with a 100kHz wide band and they have to squeeze everything in there. 30kHz reserved for CW is nearly 1/3 of their band. That seems pretty reasonable to me. However, the FCC, for whatever reason, chose to reserve 5/6 of those mainly CW frequencies for Extras. That, to me, seems to be the whole point of incentive licensing. You want clear frequencies so you have an incentive to upgrade.

Sorry, maybe it's "elitist" but I am not one of those people who wants to give everything to everyone with no effort.

Also, for those with calls ending in BM and OY and all the others who thing regulation by bandwidth is the end of the world and an open door for WinLink everywhere, I suppose that might fit your anti-ARRL political agenda but it doesn't match the ARRL proposal. On 80 and 40 Pactor robots would have a grand total of 5Khz of bandwidth on each band in which they would be legal. They would NOT be legal anywhere else. How is this a great meance?

I do have concerns about basically incompatable modes being lumped together under the ARRL proposal just as they are now. For that reason I'd like to see further changes to the proposal. (The recently approved changes were a step in the right direction but didn't go far enough. Under the original proposal WinLink would have indeed been a menace.)

If your rig is emitting key clicks on CW so badly that your signal is over 1kHz wide it is in desperate need of repair and doesn't meet spectral purity standards right now. Sorry, W9OY, but your Chicken Little scenario isn't real. My 20-25 year old Kenwood TS-430V or Mizuho SB-8X would have no problems complying with the proposed rules. None at all.

As far as Mr. Sumner being in an "ivory tower", I've managed to have several one-on-one chats with him, mainly when we've been at the same hamfests. How come he'll talk to me? Why does he seem to listen to what I say and respond intelligently? What makes me special? Clue: I'm not at all special. Instead of firing arrows from a distance on eHam how about communicating? Isn't that what ham radio is all about, communicating?

73,
Caity
K7VO
 
to W4BM  
by K7VO on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
I may be splitting hairs, but the threat I spoke of was "wideband digital modes". I used WinLink (a/k/a Pactor III) as a well known example. WinLink robots, by themselves, aren't such a great threat as automatic unattended operation, as N5NA pointed out, would be limited to 7.100-7.105 on 40m. However WinLink is hardly the only wideband digital mode out there, is it?

Robots are unattended and the revised ARRL proposal adequately addresses that issue by the limitation to a very small section of the band. What about attended operation? How does a digital op hear an SSB QSO? Unless they are listening (as in with their ears) instead of looking at a "waterfall" on their computer screen they probably don't hear it. That is what I mean about incompatable modes.

By focusing on WinLink robots you end up way off target and your arguments are easily brushed aside. By talking about general incompatability between digital and analog modes, not just SSB and Pactor, we can bring this issue home to the ARRL Directors and make our voices heard in a meaningful and technically correct way.

For those who haven't read my posts over the last two years: I think standardizing on WinLink for ARES is a horrible idea. I am opposed to the adoption of a proprietary mode using proprietary equipment and a proprietary operating system, all of which means a very high cost of entry which is prohibitive to many hams who could otherwise contribute to emergency communications. The whole WinLink scheme is idiotic and I often wonder where the money is changing hands. (Note: I have no evidence whatsoever that any money changed hands. I just can't come up with another rational explanation.)

My point, though, is that claiming WinLink robots will take over the SSB bands is not correct if you read the ARRL proposal. If you want to successfully challenge that proposal it is important that you understand it and argue it in a way that is accurate.

Off my soapbox now...

73,
Caity
K7VO
 
RE: to W4BM  
by W0FM on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Obviously, some of the excursion of RTTY operations into other sub-bands may be partially attributable to more hams trying RTTY.

Years ago, it took an investment into some specialized equipment (albeit surplus for the most part). Today, RTTY operation is open to the masses due to the fact that all you need in addition to your transciever, is a (probably existing) computer sound card and some free or inexpensive software. RTTY is right there for everyone to try today. Hence, more stations on the air with that mode.

73,

Terry, WØFM
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W7AIT on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
I’ve never “flamed” anyone in over 42 years of ham radio but I’m sorry to say I’ve recently “flamed” several over this “RTTY JAMMING” to make a point, after a SECOND polite requests to give us some room to operate, failed. Specifically my flaming was addressed to DJ3NG, Sigi & AA4RL, Bill, as both gentlemen either list, post, run, maintain a RTTY website or are responsible for RTTY contests in some small way and are targets for sending complaints to. Yes, my flaming used foul & very dirty words in the emails (they were in emails, not on the air), but I think they more than “earned it” because of the blatant discourtesy now shown by the RTTY crowd.

It definitely got their attention.

I apologize for my foul language, Sigi & Bill. Sorry.

But foul language doesn’t solve the problem and neither does the current gentlemen’s agreements on band segments.

There needs to be specific RULES defining band edges for MODES. For heave sake, they have band edge RULES required in my license class (Advanced), why not for modes? We do that now, and in fact there are definite rule separation for SSB/ voice and CW/data right now.

The answers:

1. “Just operate the WARC bands during contests “ is a cop out because not all of us have antenna, equipment to operate there, let alone the WARC bands may be dead due to conditions.
2. “Upgrade your license so you can operate in the Extra portion of the band” is also a cop out because the RTTY folks have been observed operating in the Extra portion of the bands too. Besides, why should I have to upgrade to operate in bands I normally operate in? Stupid logic folks. It takes incentive licensing (back in 1968) to one more level of absurdity. NEVER TAKE AWAY SOMETHING IE PRIVILEGES, FROM SOMEONE. It very poor form and causes severe problems.
3. “Just shut off your radio and go watch TV” is another cop out, as why should I be forced to shut down MY station because of some fool and his RTTY, (FIELD DAY, SWEEPSTAKES, VHF SS, CQWW, DXTEST, 10-10 or whatever) contest? Believe me I’ve had to do that plenty recently because, they take over everything like a bunch of invading armies, especially on Field Day or SS (the ARRL sponsored events seem to be the worst for some reason).


WHY CAN’T WE SET ASIDE SOME “GUARD BAND EDGES” SO WE ALL CAN OPERATE, EVEN DURING A CONTEST?

We used to do that, why not now?

The ARRL proposal to eliminate mode separation rules and go to “bandwidth” is absurd. It is a folly and should not be used. But the ARRL is gonna do what the ARRL wants anyway, because they are the 10 ton gorilla - they always do what they want anyway. My complaining or logic proposals won’t matter. Neither is my recent refusal to renew my ARRL membership. They are gonna do what they want.

We’d best get this problem solved before we have a “range war” or “turf battle” going.

73 Chip W7AIT

(PS: See, no swear words)
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by N6AJR on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
juts for grins my Icom band plan shows cw/fsk for the full lower half of most bands for extra and moist of the lower half of each band for general, advanced.

they do not differentiate between cw and fsk modes..
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W4ZV on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Caity K7VO wrote:

"As far as Mr. Sumner being in an "ivory tower", I've managed to have several one-on-one chats with him, mainly when we've been at the same hamfests. How come he'll talk to me? Why does he seem to listen to what I say and respond intelligently? What makes me special? Clue: I'm not at all special. Instead of firing arrows from a distance on eHam how about communicating? Isn't that what ham radio is all about, communicating?"

Caity, please tell me how the following experience is an example of ARRL "listening":

In the fall of 2001 Jeff Briggs K1ZM and I sponsored a petition (RM-10352) to propose a separate a sub-band on 160 for wideband modes (SSB, AM, SSTV, etc) as we have had for years on every other HF band. Out of approximately 500 unique responses (a record response at the time BTW) to the FCC, over 80% were in favor. Sorting by ARRL members only, nearly 90% were in favor.

The ARRL (the only body the FCC really listens to) sat on their hands and said nothing. Is that listening?

Some at the ARRL do get it, but unfortunately not the leadership. The following 3 part article by Ward Silver N0AX in the ARRL publication "Contester's Rate Sheet" shows me Ward gets it, but the leadership definitely does not. I'm copying the series below which is well worth your time to read. If you don't have time to read all 3 parts, at least read part 3.

73, Bill W4ZV

The Three B's

Part I

The recent draft of a proposal to change amateur band subdivision
from the current mode-based scheme (CW, Data, and Phone) to one based
on signal bandwidth has generated a lot of interest and reaction. On
its surface, the proposal
(http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/) wouldn't seem to
result in huge differences from the current state of affairs; CW is
still at the low end of the bands, CW and narrow-band Data share some
segment higher up, and the wide-band modes are still at the top. But
stir the waters it has.

A couple years ago, I viewed regulation-by-bandwidth as a natural and
sure-fire way to accommodate the burgeoning pantheon of digital
modulation and encoding types. An attractive aspect of using
bandwidth is the relative ease it offers of administration. A
signal's bandwidth is directly observable on the air. No special
decoding is required nor does the content of the signal count. The
methods of its measurement are already defined and understood. The
concept of "mode" has become entirely too fuzzy. For example, if I
use digital signals to conduct a QSO by exchanging files of my
recorded voice and JPGs of my smiling face, is that data, voice, or
image? Where could such a signal be transmitted in the bands?
Clearly, mode as a differentiating element between signals is on its
way out. Bandwidth looked to me like a shoo-in to take its place.
Yet, the proposal's use of bandwidth has generated some stiff
resistance. What happened?

I've come to understand there is a fair amount of confusion about the
Three B's; Bandwidth, Band Plan, and Behavior. All three affect how
amateurs populate and use our spectrum. For any effort at
administration to satisfy the needs of the expected uses, all three
B's must be accounted for. Let's start by making sure we're all
using the same definitions.

Bandwidth is commonly defined in terms of the difference between a
signal's peak power and the power in sidebands some frequency apart.
For example, the FCC defines bandwidth in item 8 of Part 97.3 as "The
width of a frequency band outside of which the mean power of the
transmitted signal is attenuated at least 26 dB below the mean
transmitted power within the band." (-26 dB is 1/400th or � % of the
signal peak power.) There is no requirement for the signal to be
symmetric or efficient. It's easy to imagine a bandwidth-checking
robot tuning a spectrum analyzer up and down the bands, checking each
signal and computing its bandwidth. From a technical standpoint,
bandwidth is well understood and fairly easy to work with.

Band plans don't appear on the air, rather they are usage guidelines.
They cross-reference the customary use of the radio spectrum by
signal type or content with a list of frequencies or frequency
ranges. Band plans range from having the force of law (repeater
coordination), to convention (USB above 10 MHz), to tradition
(calling frequencies and DX windows). Band plans are simply
agreements that the occupants of the spectrum use to organize
compatible methods of operations. They are just plans and can shift
when circumstances demand, such during emergencies or periods of
higher than usual band loading during DXpeditions or contests.

Behavior is the least discussed of the Three B's, but has the most
visible and apparent effect on operation. Behavior comprises all of
the protocols that are used as the operators interact; radio manners,
if you will. Behavior can be the technical description of how
digital stations establish a link and exchange data. Behavior also
applies to the convention of asking, "Is the frequency in use?" or
"QRL?" or pausing for breaking stations during a QSO. Independent of
band plans or signal bandwidth, behavior has to be agreed upon and
followed for harmonious spectrum use.

Part II

Behavior is the reef on which amateur spectrum regulation is
currently grounded. Regulation based solely on signal type is
insufficient to allow a satisfactory band plan to be written such
that the users can all get along, even with all their various intents
and technology. It should be obvious that behavior is nearly
impossible to regulate. Just try to agree on a definition of
"willful interference" with two different spectrum occupants. You'll
find that the definition depends on who is on the receiving end, so
to speak. Nevertheless, behavior is primarily what makes for happy
or upset hams.

If we have gotten along so well for so long without regulating
behavior, why should we need it now? For starters, we didn't always
get along "so well." The tales of early radio are rife with conflict
between the various users, leading to the first allocations by band
in the 1920's. This occurred even though all stations used similar
bandwidth signals - spark followed by CW. Later came AM and then SSB
and the first behavior-driven partition of amateur spectrum into
phone and CW sub-bands. You might say, "Well, phone and CW modes are
incompatible!" From a technical point of view, this is false - SSB
receivers can hear CW just fine and vice versa. Cross-mode QSOs,
while rare, are easily made. What's important is that the nature of
the modes and they way they're used are sufficiently different in
operator behavior to require their segregation. Stated another way,
CW and SSB are behaviorally incompatible.

Lately, another type of behavioral incompatibility has come into
play; digital versus analog signaling. This isn't completely
accurate, because CW is really a digital mode. Perhaps a better way
to group the signals is by whether or not a human translates the
signal to meaning; human-copy and machine-copy (which includes
computers and all sorts of signal-copying gadgetry). The conflict
arises when a transceiver used for a machine-copy signal, hearing
nothing that would encumber it from initiating a contact, makes a
transmission near enough (or right on top of) a human-copy signal.
This has been a persistent point of contention between RTTY and CW
operators since RTTY was introduced to the ham bands.

Machine-copy QRM often has a more debilitating effect on the human
operator who is even denied the satisfaction of calling the digital
station, "You lid!" The digital station, through persistence or
software, blasts away until the data gets through or it is unable to
establish the link. The relatively un-level playing field has
created fears that machine-copy is going to take over and the only
way to keep the peace is to keep the two completely separate through
regulatory barriers.

I understand the emotion, but there is no guarantee that such
regulation will have the desired effect, particularly as machine-copy
grows at the expense of human copy. Further, what human-copy operator
hasn't experienced man-made QRM from another human-copy signal? Is
there no QRM now? Speaking delicately, if one wants to be a
butt-head, it can be done on any kind of mode and with any kind of
signal.

What is getting people upset, proposal or not, is behavior.
Machine-copy systems enable and even encourage on-the-air behavior
that is incompatible with human-copy behavior. Why? The main reason
is that a human is not involved in the demodulation and decoding
process, and so it is not generally necessary for a machine-copy
operator to listen before transmitting, since the computer or TNC or
modem does all of that. And if the computer or TNC or modem does not
recognize that the channel is occupied with another signal, you have
interference - not necessarily willful, but definitely destructive.
The increasing number of machine-copy stations behaving as the
current protocols are designed mixed with human-copy stations will
(and is) causing significant interference problems.

There is merit to recognizing that mixing signals with incompatible
behaviors will generate friction. What can be done that administers
the legitimate needs of both machine- and human-copy users without
ladling an excessive amount of regulation over amateur radio,
stifling development of useful and progressive technology?

Part III

When confronted with a seeming intractable problem, the "trivial
solution" is often suggested. In this case, why have any sub-bands at
all? Let people operate where they want to and see what happens?
Other countries don't have sub-bands and they seem to do just fine.
There is a famous quote by H. L. Mencken that applies squarely in
this case, "There's a simple solution for every complex problem;
that's wrong!" First and foremost, to eliminate all barriers flies
in the face of incorporating behavioral realities into the solution.
It doesn't take many operators that can't tell "should" from "can"
before we would have a real problem. Second, one must realize that
the United States has the most active amateurs on HF of any region in
the world and what hams in other countries do can hardly be
considered independent of the US arrangements. With a few
significant exceptions (such as 40-meters) other countries can avoid
specifying sub-bands because the US does have sub-bands. Conversely,
chaos on the US bands will generate chaos worldwide.

Do machine-copy signals need protection, too? Of course! At this
stage of machine-copy technology's development, the behavioral rules
or protocols simply can not deal well with the normal hurly-burly of
non-channelized radio that human hams have learned how to navigate
over the years. Digital modulation and encoding schemes have become
quite good at dealing with the vagaries of propagation and noise, but
QRM is much more difficult to handle, particularly since many of
these systems are not very frequency agile, i.e. - they don't know
how to tune. This will change. The improved "busy detector"
outlined in the Winlink-sponsored SCAMP protocol
(http://winlink.org/Presentations/SCAMPspec.pdf) is a start towards
better coexistence with other types of signals, both machine- and
human-copy.

You may not be aware that CW automatons have been around for years!
For example, if you ever worked WU1F with a name of "TACO", you
worked a robot station. TACO stands for Totally Automated Control
Operator. N6TR developed a program called Z80 that could make Field
Day CW contacts on its own. They worked, within strict limits and
with close human oversight. It's going to take a long time, though,
before machine- and human-copy signals can mix it up together to the
point of a human not realizing that they are communicating with a
machine. When will an automated operator take the top spot in a major
contest? That would be the Ham Radio Turing Test, I suppose.

My conclusion from all this is that while we don't want a completely
open system, we don't want to completely wall off "robots" from
humans on the bands, either. We can share the bands, but with
refuges for both groups where only one genre of behavior is expected,
machine or human. Shared areas of the bands will be "open ranges"
where "inter-species QRM" might occur, but is the price we pay for
continuing development of technology and the radio art, both
elemental justifications of our reason for existence.

Trying for a formal set of regulations to divide the bands is
probably not fruitful. Regulations can take years to development and
enact such that they are obsolete on introduction. The solution
might be found in band planning by a recognized international
authority such as the IARU, still subordinate to the ITU and all
treaty constraints.. Backed by ITU and FCC recognition of the band
plans as "best practices," they could be developed and implemented in
a timely manner, just as VHF repeater coordination is adjusted today
to meet changing demand and technology. As the populations and
protocols change (and they will), band plans can be adjusted far more
efficiently than formal regulations.

How would this work on the ham bands? Luckily we have a prototype
arrangement already - human-copy is found at each end of the band,
separated by a small region of machine-copy in the middle. For
example, such a band plan might look like this:
14.000 - 14.050 Human-copy, narrow bandwidth (< 1 kHz)
14.075 - 14.100 Mixed-copy, narrow bandwidth
14.100 - 14.150 Machine-copy, any bandwidth (< maximum bandwidth)
14.150 - 14.225 Mixed-copy, wide bandwidth
14.225 - 14.350 Human-copy, wide bandwidth
Do not panic! Do not fixate on the exact frequencies! Focus on the
idea of managing the areas so that operators will have reasonable
expectations of what behavior to expect on the air. As machine-copy
protocols improve, the shared regions can be expanded and the
machine-copy-only regions reduced. I doubt very much that any of the
regions would go away entirely.

Yes, this would have an effect on or have to take into account many
other areas of amateur radio administration; licensing, privileges,
non-aligned allocations, etc. Yet it's a possible response to
mode-based administration, an obsolete and rapidly becoming
unworkable relic.

By opening the door to development of machine-copy technology, hams
will be given a new opportunity to return to developing
state-of-the-art communications technology. The engineering press is
full of articles about "cognitive radio" and spectrum efficiency.
Who knows more about getting the most out of a crowded band than
hams? We have been doing it since before there were bands! All of
the things that we have learned over a century of QRM and
round-tables, lids and key clicks, fades and nulls, "sliding up a
little" and "holding our frequencies" can be incorporated into the
new behaviors we build into our radios and computers. The
accumulated knowledge of what hams know about the Three B's can be
put to great use as radio enters its second century on the air. It
would be a boon for the hobby, for radio as a tool, and most
importantly, for radio as an art.

73, Ward N0AX
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by NT4XT on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Yes indeed. And when there is a, particularly International RTTY contest, QRP freqs especially the
calling frequency on 40m, 7.040 is pretty much
big time gone.
Sure QSY to 30, but sometimes 30 is not as good as 40 when I'm there at night seeking a nominal Rag Chew, too long for where QRP Q's are, too short for where the existing contacts probably are located with QRP.

QSY 80m then? Perhaps, now that Winter is on it's way.
Or else just do something else that night, until 30m gets better the next day.

I still get the drift, and I do feel like there's plenty enough space above 7.050 for RTTY, contest or not.

But then I don't know if DX is allowed to do RTTY there.
If so, then the complaint would be from "DX" who normally operate phone in those areas.

If the AM broadcasters would all go somewhere besides 7.100 through 7.300, I think there'd be adequate space.

I feel your pain.

What I sometimes do in these situations is just nudge and be nudged, crank up the power to 100W if needed, and do what I like to do anyway. You know, jump into the fray, elbows at 45 degrees out, civil, but nevertheless, still in it. Have a QSO even if it's very much less than ideal, give the old filter between the ears a work-out. Feel good about pulling a Q out of the bleeping noise- I'm sure eventually I'll just throw in the towel and join the RTTY jumbalaya, too.

(or else take that opportunity to be doing something else with focus, instead of wondering if I might be having more fun on 40 CW while doing whatever else it is!)

73.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by AA4PB on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Thanks for the rational comments, Caity. It appears these days that many want the "government" to take care of everything for them. Hams want the "government" to tell them where, when and how they can operate their ham rigs. Of course ten years down the road these same people will be complaining that they can't operate their new favorite mode because the "government" rules were written around then outdated technology and reserves spectrum for modes that are hardly used any longer. Where would we be today if back when AM was king, the government had reserved most of the phone segment for AM and only allotted a small sliver for those few people experimenting with SSB?

It also seems odd that most of this desire for government control comes from U.S. hams. Much of the rest of the world already has "regulation by bandwidth".
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K9OSC on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
This has been a continuing and escalating problem on 40 meters. The majority of mix mode interference comes during the numerous RTTY contests that are sponsored world-wide.

I have printed many, many of those who move very low into the CW band (read below 7.040) and most, if not all, are U.S. hams. I even print them below 7.025 during hotly contested events. They come in on top of CW QSO's already in progress, make a contact and then repeatedly call CQ on the last worked frequency.

The "considerate operators" guide has been published for many, many years, but only considerate operators pay attention and give way to others. For the life of me I don't understand how they can be so inconsiderate given the small area that CW operators use on 40 meters.

I speculate that this too will be an issue that won't disappear as the "ugly American ham" takes over when and where they please. We really need to change this approach and find a way to respect others. That might even spill into daily living. What a nice change that would be!

 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W5ESE on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
N5NA: The ARRL proposal states: ""Automatic control" segments would be limited to 3.620-3.635, 7.100-7.105, 10.140-10.150, 14.100-14.112, 21.150-21.160 and 28.120-28.189 MHz."

Yes, but semiautomatic control stations will be
allowed whereever they would be permitted by their
occupied bandwidth. And from a practical view, there
is little practical difference between fully- and
semiautomatic stations, especially on HF, where
it is not unusual to hear only one side of a QSO.

The lack of restrictions on semiautomatic control
stations is my biggest beef with the "regulation
by bandwidth" proposal.

73
Scott
W5ESE
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W4ZV on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
AA4PB wrote:

"It appears these days that many want the "government" to take care of everything for them."

Not everything...just a reasonable set of "rules of the road". Have you ever considered what would happen if we were "free" to drive on either side of the road?

Yes, W8VLN would immediately be driving on the left (inside joke for Topbanders only). :-)
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by N0IT on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Yes there is more interest in rtty contesting now than a few years ago. Most of the contests are international in scope. In Europe and some other parts of the world they are only allowed to operate between 7030 and 7045 or so. In fact, the ARRL bandplan lists 7040 as an international calling frequency. If US stations want to work these stations they have to work them there. Much of the dx would have a hard time copying US rtty stations up in the so called rtty band because that is the Eurpean phone band. You dont find US stations working US stations down around 7040 but you do find US and Dx stations attempting to work each other.<p>

Another factor driving the greater use of rtty low in the band is that many DXers have worked just about everything possible on SSB and CW. So to have any challenge left in their hobby they are trying to work additional DX countries on rtty.

Until WARC agreements are made that enable the rest of the world to have 300 Khz band like we do, there is going to be interference.

73 de Dave, N0IT
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W6TH on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
.
I don't like saying; I told you so and you did not heed my wording. Pay attention to and listen to and consider.

To solve "The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW" go back to 13 words per minute and the class "B" and class "A" ham tickets.

....................Is more better?..................

...Rely less on the money for profit organizations...


73,W6TH, this is not a vanity call letter.

.:
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by N0IT on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
I remember your foul language, W7AIT. Same to you.

By the amount of grm the contesters generate, there are a hell of a lot more of them than there are you idle gossips and net happy folks talking about your latest gall bladder surgery. Why should they stay off the air to make room for you folks that gaggle all week long never saying anything of any substance.

The fact that you have had a schedule with your best pal Barnie for the last fifty years doesnt mean you have any more right to a particular frequency than anyone else. If you occupy the frequency and have a decent signal, no one is going to bother you...but then no one is going to give you plus or more couple hz leaway so your earing aid can deal with the qrm. Ever try the novice band. There's no one up there. Use that.

And by the way, you old farts that complain about cw and rtty contesters coming with a half khz of them, get over it. If you had a decent receiver you wouldnt have a problem. I can operate rtty 500 hz away from another signal and i wont even hear him.

You have no more right to a particular frequency than anyone else. Get used to. If you cant deal with it, find a new hobby.

 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by KC8VWM on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
The "considerate operators" guide has been published for many, many years,

-----

The guide is also apparently filled with an array of contradictions and widely inaccurate information.
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by G0GQK on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Hello Larry,

I don't think the problem is lack of operating skills as some have suggested, its a lack of frequencies !

Every couple of months someone will post a comment where we are expected to believe that the number of ham radio operators is reducing at such a fast rate of knots that in 10 years the bands will be devoid of all life! Not true is it ?

During the last 10 years since Pactor first arrived into amateur radio there has been a lack of operating space for those who like to use digital communications. Digimode users have been aware of this overcrowding but little has been done by the authorities to alleviate the problem. So, people do what they have to do, they pilfer space from other modes of operation.

If you've been working yourself into fits of excitement at a forthcoming contest, and then when the day arrives you find there are operators six deep, and no spaces available, what do you do ?

You do the same as every body does, whether its in an SSB, CW, Digital, or Rtty contest, you use space allocated for other users, as accepted in a "gentlemans agreement"

However in 2005, as most people know, there are no gentlemen,its every man for himself in the radio jungle.!

Years ago 30 metres was made an exclusive band for CW and later for narrow band digimodes, do many use it ?
No, they don't. And why don't they use it, simply because there's nobody on the band, that's why.
I'm sure there will be someone who will contradict this, but just take a listen. And anyway, how often do you read about anyone wanting to know about the specs. to make a 30 metre dipole ?

At some time there will have to be a re-allocation of frequencies on the various bands and one of the things they will have to do is allocate more space for digital communications.

They wanted more people in a given space and they've got it, but there are just TOO many people on the bands, and Hey ! Ham radio is dying !

73, Mel


 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K0RGR on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
The answer to this problem looks pretty simple - this narrow band should not be used for RTTY/digital contesting, at least until 2009 when the 7.0-7.2 segment should be available to hams worldwide.

There's lots of room on 80 meters.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by AA4PB on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
On the other hand, consider the government rules of the road during the NO evacuation. Traffic is bumper to bumper on one side of the road while the other side sits empty. The government can't seem to find anyone with the authority to open the empty side to outbound traffic. That's the problem with having government regulation. Once the rules are made they are very difficult to get changed in any reasonable amount of time. The ARRL's proposal is to set up some sort of international band plan to separate the modes within each bandwidth segment. I really think we need to see what that will be before deciding that we need a lot of detailed regulation.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K2WH on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Give me a break. During a CW contest, the "Gentlemens Agreements" go out the window and the digital segments, well known segments like 14.070 PSK are buried in CW signals all the way up to the SSB portions. Stop whining. The CW ops do the same thing every single year and are the ones who do it every time, DELIBERATELY. 160 and 80 meters become unusable.

K2WH
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by N2WEC on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Fact is contesters don't care where they operate. Further more I was lambasted for complaining about CW in the phone segments of 144 and 50 MHz. I was told by more than one source and read in the rules "CW can be used anywhere". I guess you will have to live with the QRM as I do. Contesters over all don't care about anyhing but themselves.....narcicism at its best.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K7VO on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
To W4ZV:

First, Ward's piece is excellent. Yes, he does get it.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all ARRL employees serve at the pleasure of the Board of Directors. If enough people petitioned the Board to replace Mr. Sumner perhaps it would happen. If not you and others who feel as you do can run for the Board, can you not? I just sent in my ballot for Great Lakes Division Director and Vice Director. I had a vote. If you're a member so do you in your division. If you've been a member for four years you can even run.

I don't always agree with my Director, but Mr. Weaver always responds to my e-mails and seems to at least acknowledge what I have to say. He's polled members repeatedly on various issues. That won my respect.

The outgoing Vice Director never answered an e-mail I sent. I stopped writing. If he had run for reelection I would have found someone else to vote for. I probably would have gone so far as to tell other hams in the area why I was voting the way I was.

My point: the ARRL is a membership organization. If you don't like the current leadership then work to replace it.

If you're not a member and don't want to become one then you have nothing to complain about, do you? Kind of like people who don't vote in elections and then complain about their government. I have no sympathy.

I still think the solution to Larry's original issue is to have contest organizers disallow contacts below 7.030 for contest credit. Why is nobody organizing to have hams write the ARRL, CQ, etc. about that?

Oh, and anyone who has worked me on 40 CW knows where I like to hang out, so yes, I am affected by this issue.

73,
Caity
K7VO
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W9OY on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Caity

I'm glad you have a good time flirting with ol' Dave at hamfests.

More to the point if bandwidth is defined as described in order to remain legal you will have to have the means to actually "know" you are legal. While the "robots" are busy measuring your bandwidth, with a spectrum analyzer, you will need at least as much precision in your measurements in order to remain legal. The law as it stands now will not have a lets say (plus or minus 10%) provision written into it. So what brand of spectrum analyzer do you intend to purchase in order to meet the spec?

Maybe you missed the point while your were busy reading about the latest version of the 2M ground plane antenna in QST and pouring over Davy's latest comments in "It seems to me"

vy 73

one who's call ends in OY

 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by AA4PB on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
You will NOT have to have test equipment in order to measure your bandwidth any more than you have to have a watt meter to measure your power output - unless you are pushing the limits. If you have a normal transceiver that is working correctly, the bandwidth can be assumed to be in accordance with the mfgs specification. If you modify it for HIFI SSB then you may have to measure it - as well you should.
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W4NTI on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
In Europe the 40 meter band is only (or was)100 KHZ wide. CW generally stopped about 7030. Of course after the last WARC this "SHOULD" change.

Sometime back, with the support of the ARRL, the entire low end of 40 meters was opened up for digital use. This so-called band plan is what we see now.

Now the ARRL is trying to get the FCC to formally allocate digital down to 7030, or is it 7035? And the rest for CW.

Bottom line is. Thank to the ARRL for allowing this mess to happen. They seem to be real good at that.

Dan/W4NTI
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by AA4PB on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
One reason you probably notice more RTTY stations moving down now that in past years is that the number of RTTY operators has increased dramatically now that you can get on with a computer and a sound card instead of needing a big mechanical monster TTY machine.

I'm not sure that the flexibility of the voluntary band plan is a bad thing. It depends on how you want to look at it. Why should thousands of RTTY stations be jammed together during their contest weekend while a few CW QSOs take place in relatively wide open spaces? Similarly, why should thousands of CW stations be jammed together during a CW contest while one or two stations use the RTTY portion? A bandplan allows each mode to spread out during a special weekend but hopefully stick to the bandplan during normal operation.

Granted some people like me are not interested in contests but obviously a whole lot of people are. We just don't have enough spectrum in each band to guarantee every mode their own private space.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K5UJ on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
<<<You will NOT have to have test equipment in order to measure your bandwidth any more than you have to have a watt meter to measure your power output - unless you are pushing the limits. If you have a normal transceiver that is working correctly, the bandwidth can be assumed to be in accordance with the mfgs specification. If you modify it for HIFI SSB then you may have to measure it - as well you should. >>>

well, i don't know about you, but i have several watt meters and if you don't have one, i'd consider getting one. they're kind of nice to have. Cheap too. Compared to a HP spectrum analyzer.

Now, about your reassurances regarding bandwidth enforcement. Are you the FCC? Is the ARRL the FCC? Are you speaking officially for the FCC? Basically you and the ARRL, don't know what you are talking about, because none of you know how a bandwidth rule will be enforced at the time of enforcement. That's because only the FCC will know that. They do the enforcing; not you; not the ARRL. How you and/or the ARRL can presume to tell us what the FCC is going to do is astonishing. I don't have a problem with some kind of bandwidth rule per se, but I do have a problem, and get uneasy over these reasurances from people such as yourself, who have no idea how this is going to be handled. I also think that anyone who wants to rely on some manufacturer to keep him legal, should get out of the ARS, and go buy a CB rig, or one of those FRS handy talkies and take up with that. I also have a problem with the direction being taken by the adoption of rigid narrow standards that to me, seem to discourage homebrewing. There are probably less then 10 of them out there, but believe it or not, there are actually hams still designing and building rigs from scratch, which is something to be admired and encouraged. If we are going to have a lot of extremely demanding emission requirements under threat of penalty of law, let's dump the "amateur" part and start calling this "professional" radio.

The idea that a ham can place his faith in some manufactured rig for bandwidth containment is laughable. Oh yes, i'm sure Kenwood or Yaesu will step in, and intervene on my behalf with the FCC. I'm sure you will too now that you have reasured us.

For once, i wish my call were W9VEY.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W8JI on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
1.) One problem is rooted in a few percent of the population who, when there are not etched in stone guidelines, operate where they like when they like. They care less about anyone else, or being nice guys. They cause problems even when there is a great deal of room elsewhere. These are likely the same jerks who get in the passing lanes of a freeway in an attempt to force others to move around them. They enjoy being a PITA and the center of attention because it is their right.

This often happens on 160, because it has no rule setting a CW or narrow mode segment.

The same thing would happen on other bands if legal to do. The reason this is devistating is a wide mode cannot be removed from a narrow mode, but a narrow mode can be removed from a wide mode generally without hurting the intelligibility of the wide mode. This is why wide modes must be kept in restricted areas by law.

2.) Others unintentionally run others over because in the heat of the moment they forget manners and don't take time to listen. Contest rules could easily correct a good bit of this problem.

3.) Some people just don't know how a radio works. There always were people who didn't know about where their signal really is. For example on 40 meters I used to listen to a few guys holding a sked on 7151 LSB. They were very clearly out of band, but since their dials said 7151 they thought they were operating legally.

4.) Some operators don't know what the bandplans are. They read a silly incorrect useless ICOM chart, and think that is the bandplan. These guys are bait for people like Leisure Lounge Larry, who calls CQ outside a bandplan just to suck someone who doesn't know better into a QSO.

We have rules not for the majority of well-behaved, educated, considerate, selfless, or logical-thinking people....but for the problems above. Rules actually reduce problems and get the Government out of our business. The FCC doesn't have to waste time or referee fights nearly as often when rules are in place.

As an example, look at the ESSB problems we may be heading for. The lack of a clear rule about how wide a signal can be allows inconsiderate people to hog up double channel widths on crowded bands. Instead of just confirming a problem and sending a citation, the FCC has to get into a long argument about what is minimum necessary bandwidth for a mode.

We all suffer when the guidelines are poorly defined. It's like what happen to California when energy was deregulated. When the actions of a few can control the resources of many, reasonable guidelines and monitoring is a good idea.

Radio waves don't stop at local borders. A fruitcake K1 can screw things up for 100's of others world wide.

73 Tom
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W9OY on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
<You will NOT have to have test equipment in order to measure your bandwidth any more than you have to have a watt meter to measure your power output - unless you are pushing the limits. If you have a normal transceiver that is working correctly, the bandwidth can be assumed to be in accordance with the mfgs specification. If you modify it for HIFI SSB then you may have to measure it - as well you should.>

Funny I was talking to someone from the FCC a few days ago about this exact issue and he held the exact opposite opinion. I think I'm going to place my faith in his analysis rather than yours. The FT-1000 is a "normal tranceiver" and it can't make the spec on CW due to key clicks.

73 W9OY


 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by AA4PB on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Does the FCC now require you to have a spectrum analyzer to ensure that your transmitter meets spurious emission requirements? Does the FCC now require semi-automatic Pactor stations to measure their occupied bandwidth in order to ensure that it meets the 500Hz bandwidth requirement? Do they require you to monitor your suppressed carrier and opposite sideband rejection when operating SSB or any of the sound card modes? Do any of the other countries who now have regulation by bandwidh require their hams to measure their bandwidth with a spectrum analyzer? No. Then why do you think that this will suddenly change if the U.S. goes with regulation by bandwidth?

How about identifying this "FCC official" who has supposedly declared that they are going to require everyone to monitor their bandwidth with a spectrum analyzer if regulation by bandwidth were approved. Perhaps he should contact the ARRL and advise them that this decision has been made.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K0RFD on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
W9OY wrote:

>I'm glad you have a good time flirting with ol' Dave at
>hamfests.

Did I miss something here, or do you know something that the rest of us don't? I don't recall reading anywhere that there was any flirting going on. Did you post that because you couldn't argue the facts and win, so you decided to be sexist instead? I'm certainly open to discussion here, but that's how it looks. You're wrong, so you need to shift the argument to Caity's gender.

That's a pretty unconvincing argument, if you ask me. Even if you didn't ask me, I'll tell you anyway: that's a chickensh*t way to argue a point. Then again, if you're as much of a dumba$$ as you appear to be, and you're arguing against someone as intelligent as K7VO, maybe that's your only choice.

If you want people to take you seriously, argue the facts. And if you are too stupid to argue the facts, don't argue in front of people who might have daughters.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by AC0H on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
K7OV wrote:
<<"If you're not a member and don't want to become one then you have nothing to complain about, do you? Kind of like people who don't vote in elections and then complain about their government. I have no sympathy.">>

Wowww, wait a minute.

I've been a member of the league since I've been a Ham and I think if the ARRL puts itself in the position of being "our national representative" then ALL Hams in the US have a right to complain about and be heard by the ARRL. When the league goes to Washington to lobby for or against one regulation or another the outcome of that lobbying doesn't just affect ARRL members alone.

All Hams have a right to be heard on any subject that affects all Hams and the ARRL's hairbrained attempt at regulation by bandwidth is one of them.
 
To AC0H  
by K7VO on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
The ARRL represents nobody but its members. If you want to lobby for something different you certainly have that right. You can even form a competing organization as has been tried in the past. However, as a membership organization the ARRL has a responsibility to represent the views of its members, noone else.

73,
Caity
K7VO
 
RE: To AC0H  
by WA8VBX on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
ARRL does not represent the views of it members, it represents the views of the Board and Directors.

Sounds like the old saying Love it or Leave it, and don't complain about it.
 
RE: To AC0H  
by AA4PB on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Your director is supposed to be representing you to the ARRL. If you don't like what he is doing then vote him out of office. Obviously the majority must agree with him or he wouldn't be in office - right?
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by G4VGO on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
In this part of the world (and in most of the countries outiside of North America) we are not as spectrum rich as the W/VE crowd. Our RTTY segment (according to the band plan) is in the CW portion of the US band on 40m. Contesters go where the multipliers are and be it SSB or RTTY, there will be those of us not in North America who will attract contest QSO's in 'your precious CW segment'.

Now, if you want to talk about hijack, the Chinese have recently taken all of 160m and the lower part of 80m (CW portion) and are using it for OTHR and other jamming. It is unuseable by the majority of Asian stations. Now, that is a hijack! Even though the Chinese have signed a treaty not to do it, they have. Even though they have signed the ITU agreements not to make a mess of the amateur portion of the spectrum, they are.

Stop throwing a tantrum about international contests and band alignment not the same all over the world and turn your attention to intruders that have no business at all being in an amateur band.

If anyone wants to work Asia on Top Band or the lower portion of 80m ever again, tell your IARU reps, write your congressman, write the Chinese IARU member society, contact your IARU organisation to complain.

73

Bob
YB5AQB - 9V1GO - G4VGO - KY0C
 
RE: To AC0H  
by AC0H on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
<<" The ARRL represents nobody but its members.">>
Been to their website lately or recieved any of their "mailings" lately? They claim to be THE NATIONAL organization for Ham Radio ops in this country and the IARU recognizes them as such. If the ARRL represents nobody but its members then they should quit speaking for ALL Hams, PERIOD.

As for voting on directorships my ballot for Midwest Division director is sitting right here. Wade Wahlstrom voted for that mess of a bandplan, and it was no easy task finding out how he voted. The other guy gets my vote.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by X-WB1AUW on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
<Is there any chance of this staying on topic and CIVIL?>

There was a chance. But it was a small one.

Bob
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W9AC on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
W8JI:

"As an example, look at the ESSB problems we may be heading for. The lack of a clear rule about how wide a signal can be allows inconsiderate people to hog up double channel widths on crowded bands."

As a further example, how about the inconsiderate top-band ops who need 5 kHz for a DX window? Isn't 2-3 kHz enough? If 2-3 kHz was all they had, could they manage to live with it? If the top-band guys want to communicate efficiently, can’t they just use bands more conducive to reliable long-distance communications like 80M, 40M, or 20M?

Or, what of the inconsiderate AM ops who are consuming more than 2X the necessary bandwidth required for efficient communication and whose interfering carrier wreaks havoc with adjacent SSB activity? Can't the AM ops just use SSB?

And what of the inconsiderate SSB ops who use 2.4 kHz of bandwidth? Can't they just use 1.6 kHz to comply with 97.307(a) in that "No amateur station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth than necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice?" Using strict regulatory construction, according to 97.307(a) any U.S. SSB transmission with more than ~ 1.6 kHz of bandwidth is in violation of the Commission’s rules. Period.

Of course, there is my pet peeve -- those nasty weekend contesters. Is there any amateur activity that could possibly be any more inconsiderate toward his or her fellow ham than weekend contesting which renders the traditional HF bands completely useless? And ironically, such activity is even condoned and endorsed by the ARRL.

New slogan: “Reasonable accommodation – it’s not just for PRB-1.”

Paul, W9AC
 
More facts, less rants  
by N6DE on October 24, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Larry K7LRB kindly asked:
"Is there some compelling reason why, apparently recently, RTTY contesters primarily operate in what is normally accepted as the CW portion of 40-meters?"

Answer:
Yes - because of 40m band plans and frequency allocations outside of the United States, and more people operating RTTY.

1) The Japanese 40m band plan for RTTY is 7.025-7.045MHz.
JA band plan:
http://www.jarl.or.jp/English/6_Band_Plan/A-6-1.htm
Be sure to read the red [Remark] sentence below the 40m diagram. Also note the 80m RTTY JA band plan.

2) Please see the IARU Region 1 band plan. Note RTTY at 7.035-7.045MHz.
http://www.raag.org/files/bandplan_hf.pdf

3) Wherever Europe tends to operate RTTY, you'll find other people listening and transmitting in that segment soliciting European contacts. This is why American RTTY stations will be found in that area of 40m when seeking contacts with Europeans. It has already been mentioned in this discussion that a large portion of the world only has 100kHz of bandwidth on 40m. Expecting RTTY operators in Region 1 (and JA RTTY operators, among others I haven't documented) to abandon their band plans in order to intentionally battle it out with SSB stations between 7080 and 7100 strikes me as rather unrealistic and uninformed. The world does not revolve around the United States and 7080.

4) The main reason why more people have "apparently recently" noticed RTTY activity below 7080 is that there are a lot more people active in DX RTTY contests, thanks to sound cards and software TNCs. More activity is a good thing.

I enjoy operating CW, RTTY, and SSB. It seems to me that we all ought to be more tolerant of each others' differing interests in ham radio, and not expect a clear channel at all times on xxxx.yy frequency for your desired mode or net or DXpedition or contest. Blaming the ARRL or K1ZZ or contesters or the morality of society or <insert other target of rants here>, is misplaced energy.

73...
-Dean - N6DE
 
RE: Who runs the ARRL?  
by W8JI on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Actually people have probably never watched closely to see how the system really works.

The member-elected directors don't really don't set policy. Neither does the member-elected president. They only go to meetings and provide an illusion of having a system that is conrolled by dues-paying members.

A non-elected person with what seems to be a lifetime job appears to have the greatest influence on ARRL policy. IMO only elected people should set policy. If not exclusively, then they should dominate the process and not serve or be cow-towed by a non-elected official.

73 Tom







 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W8JI on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Paul,

You are out of touch. There is no DX Window on 160. There hasn't been for a few years now.

People who like to play Mr. Announcer and hog up twice the channel width of a normal SSB signal need to step back and take an honest look at what they are doing instead of making excuses to justify their selfish behavior.

The fact is no one really should care if a fellow wants to use twice the normal channel width on a clear band just so a few other people can hear his booming bass and spitting teeth hisses. That's really just fine when a band has extra room.

The place needless BW doesn't belong is on crowded bands or near weak signal areas. Play and have fun, but let's not be bandwidth hogs on crowded bands.

Even the AM guys you picked on have enough common sense to keep their wide signals in areas of the band where they do no harm, and they basically disappear at night when things get crowded. You don't see them moving around and mixing it up with people trying to communicate with normal signals.

I'm not picking at ESSB, just the people who use it on crowded bands that already are short on room. Playing announcer voice is perfectly fine as long as it doesn't rob others of the chance to enjoy their radios.

I'm all for having ESSB, but it belongs in its own area of the band and like any wide mode should be used with common sense on crowded bands.

73 Tom
 
To W4ZV:  
by K7VO on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
I gave your comments further thought. I am not disputing that the ARRL did not listen to the membership regarding the 160m petition you cite.

In the regulation by bandwidth case, which so many people are up in arms about, the original proposal was truly awful and the membership did rise up and complain. The result is that the proposal has been changed at least twice and each time it's a bit better. I think it needs at least one more revision (OK, major overhaul) to deal with the issue of incompatable modes. That might happen the way the changes so far have happened: if the membership is sufficiently outraged and continues to communicate. My point is that, in this case, the ARRL realized it would have a huge problem if it didn't listen to it's membership, so they actually listened.

The ARRL isn't all black and all white. It isn't one person, either, however powerful one person within the organziation may be. Your own post pointed out a case where someone in the ARRL most certainly "gets it". The ARRL has done some very good things recently. It's also done things I don't agree with or like.

I refuse to throw out the baby with the bathwater. For me the good work still outweighs the bad. I am also willing to work within the system for change rather than to throw out the system.

It's kind of like the government. I don't like the current administration or its policies. I happen to think that the current President is the worst we've had in my lifetime (and I was born during the Eisenhower administration). I think the party currently in power, one I used to be a registered member of way back when, has gone completely astray. Am I ready to start a revolution? Advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government? Of course not. I am willing to vote and to work in campaigns of candidates that share my views. I write my elected officials and make my opinions known.

No, the ARRL is not a government, but like a government change comes slowly unless enough people get really good and angry and then work within the system for change.

73,
Caity
K7VO
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W6TH on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
.
W8JI mentioned:
You are out of touch. There is no DX Window on 160. There hasn't been for a few years now.
----------------------------------------------------

There is a dx window and it is and has been for many years. The dx window on 160 is and remains as 1.825 Mhz.

73, W6TH the non vanity call letters.

.:
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W9AC on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
In a sense, W6TH is correct. I am in no way going to match my 160M skills and knowledge with yours. That's a no-brainer. You win. But unlike the ARRL's published DX window for 75M, I do know there has been a de-factor CW DX window on 160M for a long, long time. When you're pursuing CW DX, how much of it spent between 1800-1805 kHz? Let's get real here, Tom. Most (granted, not all) of the 160M CW DX is in the area of 1820-1830 kHz.

My reply was posted as a "tongue-in-cheek" reality check. Everyone else "got it," but you.

There's ample opportunity for your interests, my interests and everyone else's with adequate band planning. Regulation by BW is not the answer to fulfilling the needs of all our special interests. Can we at least agree on that?
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by N0XMZ on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
K7VO & AA4PB hit the nail right on the head. Good job!
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K0YQ on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
K7VO & AA4PB hit the nail right on the head. Good job!

Agreed 100%.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W9WHE-II on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
The answer is simple.
To some contesters, "might makes right" and so they do whatever they want. That is, until you refuse to move and their "Q" rate declines!
 
RE: ARRL'S LOSS IN CREDIBILLITY  
by W9WHE-II on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"They [ARRL] claim[s] to be THE NATIONAL organization for Ham Radio ops in this country"

ARRL credibillity has taken a real beating over BPL:

#1 ARRL claimed that BPL was a "flawed technology" that "won't work". Try telling that to the 60,000 + homes in Cincinatti surfing the net with BPL!

#2 ARRL claimed that BPL and ham radio are incompatable, BPL would produce S9+ noise levels and there was no fixing it. However, according to a recent W1RFI post, well organized hams in Cincinatti have not complained!

ARRL can claim to be the tooth fairy. Ed Hare can even claim to know more about RF & BPL then engineers at Motorola & IBM. But who cares? More and more people are seeing ARRL for what it REALLY is.

W9WHE



 
RE: ARRL'S LOSS IN CREDIBILLITY  
by AA4PB on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
More misinformation. I see you haven't been keeping abreast of what is happening with BPL. Motorola is now working with ARRL testing BPL that doesn't cause HF interferrence. There is a test site at W1AW as I recall.
 
RE: ARRL'S LOSS IN CREDIBILLITY  
by AA4PB on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
the 60,000 + homes in Cincinatti surfing the net with BPL!
-----------------------------------------------------
The Cincinatti media reports that the BPL signal "runs past" 50,000 homes. The power company will not release information on how many customers they actually have signed up for BPL service. I seriously doubt that they have 100% participation.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W9OY on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
K0RFD

If you bothered to read the thread Caity was the one who brought up the issue of her gender with her little lecture. Thank you for your epithets.

73 W9OY
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W9OY on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
AA4PB writes:

<Does the FCC now require you to have a spectrum analyzer to ensure that your transmitter meets spurious emission requirements? Does the FCC now require semi-automatic Pactor stations to measure their occupied bandwidth in order to ensure that it meets the 500Hz bandwidth requirement?.....>

At present the FCC does not require that for amateur service. It is in fact required for every other service. I used to make a pretty good living providing proof of performance documentation for broadcast stations, but the traveling and the hours were murder.

As the proposal is presently written you will need to both know what your bandwith is, and what is the least needed bandwidth necessary to communicate with that particular mode, something which is not measurable and really unknowable. Your assumption that "my rig is a normal rig and therfore is good enuf" will not comply as the rule is written. You are about to be screwed once again by your beloved ARRL. Once it is a LAW you will be expected to comply regardless of whether you can or not, and this is the whole point. Or friends at the ARRL didn't quite think this through.

Wouldn't it be a much more prudent approach to either leaves things the way they are, or at least go do a definition which excludes what is not measurable?

Once again I say your FT-1000xxx will never make CW spec according to this definition and it probably won't make sideband spec either, so throw in on the dump heap, or change the rule to something rational.

73 W9OY
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by WA1RNE on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
You can certainly tell when band conditions are in the dumper......just check into one of these Rant and Rave sessions.


The author asked a simple question - followed by another simple question:


>> "Is there some compelling reason why, apparently recently, RTTY contesters primarily operate in what is normally accepted as the CW portion of 40-meters?"

>> Is there any chance of this staying on topic and CIVIL?


This one's got everything from long diatribes on band plans to ESSB operation to 160 meter operation, equal opportunity and last but not least, a few insults.


What gives? Are we having fun yet??
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K8MHZ on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Caity,

I sure don't think Larry was intentionally being sexist with his 'band of brothers' phrase. It seemed to be, to me anyway, more of the use of poetic license. My union, the IBEW, is a brotherhood, the B in IBEW standing for brotherhood. We have many fine siters in our union as well, but we still consider ourselves a 'brotherhood' with no malice intended. The English language is such that many terms are not genderless but we use them anyway. I would hope that you already knew that.

For the topic,

I listen to 40 quite a bit. I do hear data stations down low but never to the point that the CW band is full. There seems to always be a place to work CW even when there is much activity on the CW sliver. From my point of view, I don't see RTTY as a problem. I also hear many contesters on the weekends, some of them trampling on other QSO's, but there is always room to QSY. When we get to the point where there is no room to QSY we will have a valid arguement to gain more bandwidth. Not a bad deal IMHO.

73 all,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W9OY on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
K7VO writes

<If your rig is emitting key clicks on CW so badly that your signal is over 1kHz wide it is in desperate need of repair and doesn't meet spectral purity standards right now. Sorry, W9OY, but your Chicken Little scenario isn't real. My 20-25 year old Kenwood TS-430V or Mizuho SB-8X would have no problems complying with the proposed rules. None at all. >

Here is an except from the ARRL website regarding the CW segments:

"FCC rules now permit RTTY and data emissions throughout the HF CW subbands. "It is only through compliance with 'gentlemen's agreements' that RTTY and data signals are not heard in the parts of the band that are generally used for CW," Sumner notes. The ARRL would propose limiting bandwidth in the "CW subbands" to 200 Hz, which also will accommodate data modes such as PSK31"

Your notion of 1khz is nice but not part of the proposal. Further they write:

"In addition, the League's proposal would set bandwidth limits of either 500 Hz or 3 kHz in the rest of the bands below 29 MHz."

So that means your 1khz assumption is twice what even the common digital modes are allowed. How do you know what your RTTY bandwidth is?

see: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/04/13/1/

Now how do you know your CW signal is less than 200hz? How do you know your good old kenmore TS-430V makes the 200hz spec? 25 years ago there was no 200hz spec so the good old TS430V was never speced to that critera. Again I wonder what brand of spectrum analyzer do you intend to buy to make sure your good old 25 year old TS430V is in compliance with the proposed 200hz rule?

Lets say you build a nice little home brew qrp CW rig. How do you know that little rig meets the 200hz spec before you start using it on the bands? If this becomes the rule you have to meet it not just assume you are meeting it.

How do you know that the device you are using to measure the bandwidth is apropriately calibrated to actually measure a 200hz bandwidth? What is a 200hz bandwidth?

Gee I hate to be a PITA but this is serious. Maybe the ARRL is going to open up a mobile lab service and they will go around and certify your rig for you, for a fee of course.

73 W9OY
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K8MHZ on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Ooops!

I spelled sister wrong....sorry.

'siters' should obviously be 'sisters' in my last post.

While I am at it, when I use the term 'fellow hams' as the author did I mean all, male and female alike, not just the fellows.

I wonder why the male terms brother and fellow represent camaraderie and there is no female term for the same. Perhaps that may change sometime in the future.

73 once again,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by AA4PB on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
W9OY: How do you know that your rig meets the FCC technical requirements right now? Most hams don't. They make the assumption that if the rig operates correctly and they don't get any reports from other stations then it meets the original mfg specifications. When is the last time you put your transmitter on a spectrum analyzer and checked it for spectral purity? There is no reason to believe that dividing sub-bands by bandwidth is going to make any difference at all in this regard. Knowing what bandwidth segment to operate in is not that difficult. If you are running CW you can assume that it fits into the 200Hz segment. If it doesn't then your signal does not meet other FCC requirements anyway. If you are running SSB you can assume that it fits in the 3.5Khz segment. Most people will simply translate it to mode anyway; CW goes here, SSB goes here, RTTY goes there. From a practical aspect the only people that really have to worry about bandwidth will be those that are experimenting with new (as yet unidentified) modes or perhaps those trying to push the limits with ESSB. That is the benefit of regulation by bandwidth; If you want to develop some new mode you will know where to put it (according to its bandwidth) without having to get some dispensation from the FCC.

The sub-bands will be further divided to certain modes by some type of voluntary band plan. If you want to worry then worry about how the band plan will be implemented and not how you will know which segment to operate in without owning a spectrum analyzer. Hams are smart enough to figure out which band segment to operate in without paying someone to come in with a spectrum analyzer and measure their bandwidth.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K8MHZ on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Let me get this straight...the ARRL only represents it's members. Those members constitute a minority of licensed amateurs. A bandplan is being created by the ARRL. Is that bandplan for members only, or are the majority of hams which are not members of the ARRL supposed to obey the bandplan as well?

The logic that the ARRL only represents it's members is flawed if the ARRL expects non-members to obey it's bandplans.

If the FCC adopts an ARRL sanctioned bandplan it has adopted a plan set forth by a money paying minority.

If this is legal, it certainly should not be.

73,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K5UJ on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Someone wrote that if I don't like what ARRL does, then vote someone out of office, as if I can cast a vote and get rid of someone. Right. Sounds like someone has been drinking the ARRL Kool-aide. By the way, I'm an ARRL life member and I have not seen any kind of ballot on anything from the ARRL in years. Perhaps my memory is faulty.

<<<What gives? Are we having fun yet??>>>

Long month. 5 weekends and payday isn't until Friday or Monday. Everyone's cash strapped. By the way, this isn't a good time to sell anything. Wait until Nov. 1 when everyone's flush. : )
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by KILOWATT on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
>Let me get this straight...the ARRL only represents it's members. Those members constitute a minority of licensed amateurs. A bandplan is being created by the ARRL. Is that bandplan for members only, or are the majority of hams which are not members of the ARRL supposed to obey the bandplan as well?

The logic that the ARRL only represents it's members is flawed if the ARRL expects non-members to obey it's bandplans.

If the FCC adopts an ARRL sanctioned bandplan it has adopted a plan set forth by a money paying minority.

If this is legal, it certainly should not be.

73,

Mark K8MHZ <



Good point. I never thought about it that way. Why should anyone follow the agreements of a group that doesn't speak for them?
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by KILOWATT on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
You can certainly tell when band conditions are in the dumper......just check into one of these Rant and Rave sessions.


>The author asked a simple question - followed by another simple question:


>> "Is there some compelling reason why, apparently recently, RTTY contesters primarily operate in what is normally accepted as the CW portion of 40-meters?"

>> Is there any chance of this staying on topic and CIVIL?


This one's got everything from long diatribes on band plans to ESSB operation to 160 meter operation, equal opportunity and last but not least, a few insults. <



Which, of course, gave you your opportunity to throw in your completely off-topic and sarcastic jab.

Let's not be "holier than thou". You love it as much as the next guy. haha!

 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by KC8VWM on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Yeah, I am an ARRL member too. I agree with Mark's point that suggests that non-members are equally affected by ARRL decisions.

Seems hardly fair, especially to non paying members. Then again, one must also consider that some decisions are also equally unfair to some paying members as well.



So...

Before we all get started on this endless debate, and just so we are all keeping up with Eham traditions, I was wondering if we could just establish and assign blame to someone or some group of individuals before we proceed any further with this discussion.

...So, who are you gonna blame for *this* problem now at hand ???



Please select from one of the following catagories to adequately assign blame for this matter of discussion at hand:

The Liberals,
The Know Code Generals,
The ARRL,
The Republicans,
The Federal Government,
The No Code Techs
The School System,
The FCC,
The People,
The Guy Named "Dave"
The Democrats,
The CB'ers,
The Know Code Extras,
The 160m Selfish Radio Announcer Guy,
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
The State of California,
Your Neighbors,
The NRA,
The NHL,
Richard Nixon,
Your Pet's
FEMA

????

Thank you for your participation.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W9OY on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Presently there are no hard guideline for bandwidth so I don't worry about it. The band is seperated according to mode. So I don't run SSB down on 7.005 mhz since that is what the rules say, and I am in compliance. I can run my FT-1000xxx down on 7.005 and even though my "bandwith" may be 2 khz due to the clicks, I can run there legally since the MODE I am using is CW and CW is allowed at 7.005. It may not be a pleasant experience for my fellow hams who are within 2hkz of me but it is legal.

There is a rule about the band edge. I do observe that rule by measuring it with a frequency meter. If I operate at 4.001 mhz I am liable to citation. If I operate at 3.999 mhz and my bandwidth is 4khz I will also recieve a citation since I am transmitting power outside the ham band. The point however is that I need to be able to accurately measure my frequency. I can't just assume I am within the band.

A frequency meter is cheap. In fact it's built into my rig and I can easily calibrate it since the government provides me with standards aka WWV. So all I have to do to stay within the band is to calibrate my frequency meter and make sure I don't go closer to the band edge than the error of my meter, plus the bandwidth that may leak over the band-edge. If I miscalibrate my freq meter and it reads 3.999 and I am actually transmitting on 4.001 I am liable to citation. If I am a general class and I operate down in the extra portion of the band I am liable to citation. I have no way to know if I am in the extra portion except to measure it.

Spectrum can also be measured. It can be measured from miles away and the FCC has the proper equipment to measure that. If the rule becomes that bandwidth is precisely defined as the determination of what is allowed in a given segment of the band it then becomes incumbant on me be able to measure that the same as I now measure frequency. The cost of a spectrum analyzer is not cheap. Neither are there provided government standards to me so I know my analyzer is properly calibrated. If the allowable bandwidth on 7.005 mhz is 200hz then that is what it is. Its not pretty close to 200hz it is not what ever the manufacturer sends me. It is 200hz. I just looked up the august 2005 QST review of the FT-9000. No where in that review is the specification of Max CW bandwidth 199hz. There is no measurement of the CW bandwidth either by the manufacturer or the ARRL. I note the ARRL proposed this bandwidth method of determining the band over 4 years ago and they do not do the measurement in their own review. What is bandwidth? Presently it is defined in part 97 as: The width of a frequency band outside of which the mean power of the transmitted signal is attenuated at least 26 dB below the mean power of the transmitted signal within the band." I don't see any in there about what ever the manufacturer says it is, or what France divines it to be.

You can quack all you want about manufacterers and foreign countries and any other thing you want. but once the specification becomes at 7.005 no greater bandwidth than 200hz that will be the law. And it can be measured by the FCC off the air the same as frequency. In fact it can be measured by a robot and if out of spec it can direct a monitoring station to bring a reciever onto your frequency so the monitor can write you your citation, just the same as a cop with a radar gun sits back and waits for some joker going over the speed limit. He won't care a lick what they do in France. He won't care a lick if you are running the latest $10000 radio. You don't meet the spec you get a ticket. You persist in getting tickets and one day you won't have a license.

Now you may rationalize that how can anybody comply to this rule? If so many are out of compliance who cares? Well that was what happened to CB everybody did what ever the hell they wanted. So why install rules that are not easily followed with the supposition "it doesn't apply to me?" why not just stick with a rule that doesn't put everybody out of compliance?

You see the bandwidth CAN be measured, just not measured cheaply like freq. Every 2 way radio man and every AM and FM and TV broadcaster out there owns a device, or contracts to a company who owns a device that can accurately measure bandwidth, and it is obviously easily measureable. These devices have a pedigree so the measurement can be traced to some acceptable standard. Owning this kind of device is not cheap, but it is certainly do-able, and the FCC is not interested in the cost of such a measurement for the average ham, they are just interested in compliance with the rules.

I expect if I am to be in compliance once this turkey law goes into effect (if it ever does) I will have to find a spectrum analyzer that has a tracable calibration, and hopefully I own a rig that is in compliance. If not I will be in the market for a new rig or I will be modifying the one I presently own. I happen to own an Orion which is very plastic as far as things like bandwidth and CW waveform oare concerned, so I don't expect it to be too hard to come into compliance. I did own a FT-1000D and sold it. That radio even with modification may not be able to be brought into compliance. I happen to live next door to NASA so it shouldn't be too much of a problem to access some equipment to do the meaurement. So what are YOU going to do?


73 W9OY

 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by AA4PB on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
You forgot one, Charles :-)

[ ] All of the above
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by AC0H on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
You forgot PETA, "People Eating Tasty Animals".
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K5UJ on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Well, the new QST has a product review for a software defined rx with spectrum analyzer software that seems to kinda sorta work (probably better than a Pro III at least) ...for a thousand bucks.

AA4PB:
<<<How do you know that your rig meets the FCC technical requirements right now? Most hams don't. They make the assumption that if the rig operates correctly and they don't get any reports from other stations then it meets the original mfg specifications. When is the last time you put your transmitter on a spectrum analyzer and checked it for spectral purity?>>>

Right, and up until now, that was okay because this wasn't that big of an issue. It meant among other things that a ham could fire up an old collins rig, or pick up and run a heathkit singlebander, TR4 or (yikes!) a Knight Kit T-60 (okay maybe not one of those) from a flea market without having to worry too much unless there were obvious problems. But in the post-proposed bandplan era? Maybe I should buy stock in that SDR receiver company. And I'm still waiting for some guidance on bandwidth measurement from ARRL.


<<< There is no reason to believe that dividing sub-bands by bandwidth is going to make any difference at all in this regard. Knowing what bandwidth segment to operate in is not that difficult. If you are running CW you can assume that it fits into the 200Hz segment. If it doesn't then your signal does not meet other FCC requirements anyway. If you are running SSB you can assume that it fits in the 3.5Khz segment. Most people will simply translate it to mode anyway; CW goes here, SSB goes here, RTTY goes there. >>>

Then why is this being done? The mapping out of modes sounds pretty much like what we already have, at least on HF. Look, I'm not an anarchist; I think laws are desirable; I believe in the rule of law. I have a copy of the current ARRL frequency guide or whatever they call it and attempt to follow it. But a law has to be: A. enforceable and B. those living under it have to have a way of measuring compliance. You don't have a speed limit and sell cars that lack speedometers. If we have a bandwidth ultimately of x hz or y khz at -26 db, i'll figure out a way to meet that spec or less if I cannot already and move on, perhaps by using a spec. analyzer where I work, but not everyone is going to be able to do that.


<<<From a practical aspect the only people that really have to worry about bandwidth will be those that are experimenting with new (as yet unidentified) modes or perhaps those trying to push the limits with ESSB. That is the benefit of regulation by bandwidth; If you want to develop some new mode you will know where to put it (according to its bandwidth) without having to get some dispensation from the FCC.>>>

I therefore see it as cold water on new modes. Anything that doesn't fit into one of the square holes won't fly. I have a feeling getting an experimental exemption from the FCC won't be all that easy. Why do hams want to wall themselves in like this? It's as if you want a HOA to run ham radio.

<<<The sub-bands will be further divided to certain modes by some type of voluntary band plan. If you want to worry then worry about how the band plan will be implemented and not how you will know which segment to operate in without owning a spectrum analyzer. Hams are smart enough to figure out which band segment to operate in without paying someone to come in with a spectrum analyzer and measure their bandwidth. >>>

Thanks AA4PB, but I think you have some confusion with mode and bandwidth.

73,
rob / k5uj
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K5UJ on October 25, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
<<<If the allowable bandwidth on 7.005 mhz is 200hz then that is what it is. Its not pretty close to 200hz it is not what ever the manufacturer sends me. It is 200hz.>>>

W9OY, I have a feeling that getting an ONV for violating a bandwidth rule, will depend more on things like having a ragchew in the middle of a contest, than anything else.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by KILOWATT on October 26, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
>Please select from one of the following catagories to adequately assign blame for this matter of discussion at hand:

The Liberals,
The Know Code Generals,
The ARRL,
The Republicans,
The Federal Government,
The No Code Techs
The School System,
The FCC,
The People,
The Guy Named "Dave"
The Democrats,
The CB'ers,
The Know Code Extras,
The 160m Selfish Radio Announcer Guy,
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
The State of California,
Your Neighbors,
The NRA,
The NHL,
Richard Nixon,
Your Pet's
FEMA

????

Thank you for your participation.<



No. You missed one. The groups you posted don't bother me in the least. The groups you listed all have their own true doctines that they follow.

The one group you missed is the group I hate the most. And they are in the majority.

That group would be the;

"Whatever the anchormen on NBC/ABC/CBS tell me I should think" group.

I DETEST these people. You know the one's I'm speaking of. The people that "care so much" about the energy crisis and the future of their children and yet drive 12mpg SUV's.

The one's that have no tolerance for cigarette smokers and yet will stop and hold a thirty minute conversation with their fellow "pussified cronies" in a parking garage and breath car exhaust.

Good god. This planet has gone to crap. I'm so glad I was born with a modicum of intelligence and a whole boat load of COMMON SENSE. haha!

I loathe people that follow the crowd.




 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by LA4RT on October 26, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
> So I don't run SSB down on 7.005 mhz since that is what
> the rules say

Actually, I don't run SSB down on 7.005 MHz, although the rules say I may. I haven't heard anybody else doing that either. Yet, it is legal in most (all?) of Europe. The IARU Region I bandplan is voluntary, but it works.
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by PE1NPG on October 26, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
That's why I'm using the WARC bands more and more.
Contesting seems to become a disease...
To bad, 40 meters is a great band. Hope we will get the 100 Kc expansion in The Netherlands soon...
73 de Jean-Pierre, PE1NPG
 
RE: W9OY  
by W8JI on October 26, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
You obviously haven't read the bandwidth rules.

You might try reading part 97.307 and see how your claims fit with the letter of the law.

http://www.w8ji.com/fcc_97_307.htm

The overall guideline is you have to use the minimum bandwidth of the type of modulation and rate of information, and you are not allowed to have junk spilling over on an adjacent channel. There is no -dB amount permissible, if it's your rig's fault you need to fix it.

The problem with the rules as written is people can stretch the intent, waste time, and argue...despite the fact the intent of the FCC is pretty clear. The FCC basically says when we cause a headache because of our transmitter bandwidth and not the other guy's receiver, we are at fault.

The bandwidth rules make sense when we read them, but unfortunately today we need updates to discourage intentionally wide modes from being used on crowded bands, and to encourage manufacturers to build better radios.

73 Tom
 
RE: W9OY  
by W9OY on October 26, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
what constitutes minium bandwidth? It is undefined except conceptually. 200hx is clearly defined and clearly measurable

73
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W8JII on October 26, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
W9OY-------------"I can run my FT-1000xxx down on 7.005 and even though my "bandwith" may be 2 khz due to the clicks, I can run there legally since the MODE I am using is CW and CW is allowed at 7.005. It may not be a pleasant experience for my fellow hams who are within 2hkz of me but it is legal". ------------------Interesting attitude. of course maybe it would be a better idea to do the easy mod and eliminate the key clicks and not irritate unnecessarily your fellow hams. what happened to common sense???????????? 73, ron
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by AA4PB on October 26, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Thanks AA4PB, but I think you have some confusion with mode and bandwidth.
------------------------------------------------------
No, I think you are making much more of the bandwidth issue than it needs to be. It really isn't that difficult. The proposal won't affect the daily operation of most hams.

By the way, under the current rules someone can run a 6KHz wide data mode in the "CW" band. As long as 6KHz is reasonable for the mode and the amount of data being sent it is legal by the current rules. The only thing that keeps it from happening now is voluntary agreement. So you don't see any problem with the current rules?
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by AD5X on October 26, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"By the way, I'm an ARRL life member and I have not seen any kind of ballot on anything from the ARRL in years."

The ARRL sends out ballots when elections are coming up. I receive these regularly. If you're not getting them, email the ARRL and find out why you're slipping through the crack.

Phil - AD5X
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by AA4PB on October 26, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Sometimes there is no ballot because the encumbent is the only person running. I guess either everyone belives he/she is doing a great job or else nobody is concerned enough to actually get involved.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by AD5X on October 26, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"I can run my FT-1000xxx down on 7.005 and even though my "bandwith" may be 2 khz due to the clicks, I can run there legally... It may not be a pleasant experience for my fellow hams who are within 2hkz of me but it is legal."

It isn't a pleasant experience! I listened to the key clicks on my MKV with a second receiver and was shocked as to how bad they were. I implemented the key-click mod (www.w8ji.com), and the difference was amazing. The mod is not difficult, it just takes a little time (took me about two hours). And you can also do the NB mod at the same time. Well worth the effort - both for you and your fellow hams.

Phil - AD5X
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by KC8VWM on October 26, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
The problem with the rules as written is people can stretch the intent, waste time, and argue...

----

...True.

I like to think of these intentions in terms of having a set of "volunteer" rules for driving your vehicle on the road.

What we eventually run into is what one person considers as acceptable driving practice and conduct on the road, another person does not. So, who's set of volunteer rules are right? Who's wrong?

What you eventually end up with are people who "think" they are operating according to the "considerate operators guide" when in fact it's just a wild west approach to following a set of majority guidelines.

Bandplans are also for the most part just injecting additional confusion and chaos into the bands because you can operate your station based on several versions of them. No one seems to know which bandplan is the correct one to follow exactly. What we have is too many hands in the cookie jar drawing up a set of volunteer bandplans and "gentlemanly" guidelines that just end up conflicting with one another.


If I was to decide to place a "volunteer" stop sign at the end of my driveway, does it mean everyone is going to stop? ...No, It just means there is a sign located there to some people. In their minds they observe it's there, but they don't necessarily follow the intent or purpose of the sign.

A volunteer set of rules without any actual enforcement mechanism in place simply won't always work.

Gentleman's agreements? Well, that's a nice theory however which gentleman's agreement is right? Is it possible that two or more of these Gentleman's agreements conflict with one another? Who exactly are these group of gentlemanly individuals and how do we contact them in the event we need to make amendments to some unforeseen conflict or circumstance?

Perhaps these gentleman need to get together and throw down the white gloves so they can duel it out with one another in order to fix these problems? ..Wait a minute, perhaps these gentlemanly duels are already occuring on the bands on a daily basis, No?

Simply put, these set of guidelines were fine in the days we only had a one lane horse and buggy trail on the bands, but today we have an array of various communication modes and a two way - 24 lane communication superhighway.

Thanks for listening.

73 Charles - KC8VWM
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by KC8VWM on October 26, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
what happened to common sense???????????? 73, ron

-----

Who says my "common sense" is the exact same as your "common sense?"

...You see the problem?

 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K5LXP on October 26, 2005 Mail this to a friend!

K7VO wrote;

> My point: the ARRL is a membership organization.
> If you don't like the current leadership then work
> to replace it.

There is a key piece of information you're missing, and it's apparently not widely known. The BoD and Executive officers get to choose who runs for the elections, via the discretion of the Ethics Committee. If you think you can just 'get elected' to 'make changes from within', you've got another thing coming. They weed out the 'dissenters' long before they ever get on a ballot.


> the ARRL has a responsibility to represent the
> views of its members

The ARRL has no such responsibility. Read the Articles. They neither represent the general ham population, nor their own membership. Can't deny the good the ARRL does, and I will continue to be a member to retain my right to complain, but to think it's an open organization that the general membership can reach or influence is not correct.

My Director is useless. I have spoken to him on the phone, in person and via email. When I can get a response out of him it is the same pablum you get out of Newington. I'm not looking for him to agree with me, but to show some huevos and back up his decisions with sound logic and conviction. You come to find out that twice a year the BoD gets briefed on the meeting agenda, told how to vote and the Director's meeting becomes just a formality. Read the minutes- dissenting votes and motions are quickly dismissed. The power isn't in the hands of the Directors, it's in the Executive and other Committees appointed by the Executive Committee. If you don't believe me, read the BoD and Committee minutes and reports for the past 5 years and see if you don't draw the same conclusion I did. W8JI, K5ESE and a few others see it too, I'm not just ARRL bashing here.

To keep this on topic, if you think RTTY in the CW band is bad now, just wait until WinLink starts moving in. Everyone seems to think WinLink falls under 'automatic' station control, which has only a limited spectrum allocation. But in reality, most WinLink stations are operating semi-automatic, with a manual operator initiating the link. Semiautomatic stations do not have a defined sub band under the plan and can go anywhere their bandwidth limit allows them. *Read* the Regulation by Bandwidth petition as passed by the ARRL BoD, don't just believe what Sumner writes about in "It Seems to Us..." every month.

Mark K5LXP
Albuquerque, NM

 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by AA4PB on October 26, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Charles, you are correct. The ARRL has said they recognize that in order for their proposal to work there will have to be a means in place to generate an internationally agreed upon band plan. I'm waiting to see exactly how that will play out. Obviously the band plan will need to be put together by some international organization. The FCC could put some teeth in it for U.S. hams perhaps in the same way that they do with repeater coordination. It would not be illegal to operate outside of the bandplan but if there is an interferrence complaint then the complaint is resoved in favor of the person who is operating in accordance with the approved band plan. I firmly believe that *most* hams will generally abide by the band plan just as they do now. It's not at all the same thing as traffic regulations. If you drive on the wrong side of the road somebody gets killed. If you operate outside the band plan all that happens is somebody gets upset.

Band plans, because they are not FCC rules, offer some needed flexibility. For example, during an RTTY contest operation can legally spill over outside the normal RTTY spectrum as long as it doesn't get into a narrower bandwidth segment. When the contest is over then it moves back to the assigned spectrum. The same is true for all the modes. If you write it into FCC rules then you are stuck for a very long time. It can't flex to take care of special temporary situations and it can't easily change to account for changing technology or operational conditions.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by AA4PB on October 26, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
That's true. I think WinLink has moved from HF to Internet for all of their backbone forwarding. The original ARRL proposal actually eliminated fully automatic operation. Then the screams came from the HF packet people because they use fully automatic stations for HF forwarding and fully automatic operation was put back in.

Semi-automatic WinLink stations can legally operate throughout the CW bands right now on Pactor I and Pactor II. Only the Pactor III stations are restricted to the automatic control sub-bands by virtue of the fact that they are wider than 500Hz.

With the ARRL proposal Pactor III stations will "legally" be able to operate throughout the 3.5Khz segment. I expect the band plan will limit them to a small portion of that segment. The ARRL has stated that they recognize that you can't mix digital and analog stations like SSB together. The concept is to control that with a band plan rather than "cast in stone" regulations.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by N2MG on October 26, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
> Is there any chance of this staying on topic and CIVIL?

Not too bad so far!!

> I have noticed recently, as in the past year or so, that there seems to be a RTTY contest virtually every weekend

I find that difficult to believe. This kind of statement is often made by non-contesters (usually about CW or phone), but it's just not the case. The number of contests in a given mode (CW, phone or RTTY) that occur in a year that are so popular that they make a large impact on a band can probably be counted on one hand. Except for a few very popular "world wide" events, most of the scheduled contests have little (note I didn't say zero) impact.

> and on the 40-meter band they operate primarily in the CW portion.

Considering how crappy the phone portion of the band is, this is understandable. (Not trying to defend or offend, just speak the truth)

Are you sure they are "contesters"?

> "normally" the accepted CW portion of each HF band is the lower 50 or 60 KHz. RTTY is "normally" operated at 7.080 and above on 40-meters.

The problem arises when contesters (RTTY or otherwise)make up 98% of the active stations on a band. Are you saying they must be relegated to 10% of the available spectrum? How is that fair?

> HOWEVER, RTTY contesters seem to have a courtesy level of ZERO. (CW contesters are no better). I have had several nice CW QSOs "hijacked" by RTTY contest stations.

Funny, usually phone contesters are the recipients of this kind of statement. ;-)

My experience with RTTY operators is mostly limited to the few times I dared to use an empty (unused, as in no signals) frequency that they apparently "owned". After a few QSOs I got a thrashing by a strong RTTY signal. Oof!

Mike N2MG
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by AB3CX on October 26, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
I don't operate RTTY, but the RTTY operators seem to stay between 7.040 and 7.050, rarely do I hear RTTY below 7.040 mHz. There were several recent RTTY contests, but this fall the SSB and CW contesters will have a bigger impact on band use than the RTTY guys. There is DX SSB between 7.050 and 7.100 mHz, so the RTTY guys need some place to work..
My impression is that the 40 meter band should be re evaluated for better use. The old "novice" CW portion between 7100 and 7150 is not used for much anything now. Also, it seems that the USA SSB part of 40 meters is not so seful for the DX oriented operators, as many DX stations do not listen in the US portion of the 40 phone band. I'd like to see the novice CW changed to 7.050-7.100, and see the 7.1-7.15 portion become a combined USA-DX SSB area so that we can stop doing splits.
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by WA6BFH on October 26, 2005 Mail this to a friend!

What I would like to know is “what is the greater good in all of this”?

I have various thoughts along pro/con line on different modes and wavelength bands etc, and I have specific views on contesting. The greater point is what good is derived or benefited by some of these practices, and what is the real tangible harm?

I would really like to hear the strong clarion endorsement of WinLink and how its use will benefit Amateur radio!

73! de John
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by KC8VWM on October 26, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
I'd like to see the novice CW changed to 7.050-7.100, and see the 7.1-7.15 portion become a combined USA-DX SSB area...

-----

Mike, see here's the problem.

You have a "proposal" of sorts in mind that you feel makes sense. (So do I) But, now add up all the other similar proposals from other people together and what is the end result?

Yup, you guessed it, we are all back in the same place where we started.

We just add another bandplan to the already mixed up and confusing array of bandplans out there. It just ends up that our problems continue to be further compounded as we fight with one another over yet another bandplan. The idea that my bandplan is better than your bandplan will only continue until the year 2050.

This entire bandplan insanity issue has to end or these problems will only continue to fester.

Thanks for listening.

73 Charles - KC8VWM
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W8JII on October 26, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
charles i realize that my "common sense" may not be yours(nor should it be); however i see no problem in maintaining that common sense would dictate that if your radio has annoying key clicks it would be in your best interest to rectify that problem. 73, ron
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by KC8VWM on October 26, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
I agree with that 110% Ron, It's just that the individual causing the key clicks may have another view of what is uncommonly known as "common sense" in that particular instance.

My Best,

Charles - KC8VWM
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W8JI on October 27, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
We know the ARRL is run from within, and the elected officials are basically powerless.

How do we change it?


 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by AA4PB on October 27, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
I believe the bandwidth is actually "occupied bandwidth" meaning that 99% of the transmitted power must be contained within the specified bandwidth. If the power in the key clicks outside of the 200Hz bandwidth is less than 1% of the total power then it is still legal in terms of bandwidth, but probably not in terms of other existing regulations.
 
"It seems to me"  
by W9OY on October 27, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Ron

I think you have a wonderful idea. I modified my FT-1000 within a week of finding Tom's modification. I later sold the FT-1000, but I left it modified so the next owner would not be a nuisance.

This pretty well points out the problem. If there are already FCC rules that spell out bandwidth then why has Yaesu been allowed to manufacture radios for the past 15 years that don't obey the rules? And why are Yaesu owners not regularly cited for this issue? The reason is the present rules are basically meaningless except in the gross-est case.

No present radios have been designed with the 200hz spec in mind. Some may pass muster and some may not, but nowhere have I seen this as a published specification for a radio. The new FT-9000 or the Icom radio hasn't even been spec'ed to the 200hz standard as far as I can determine.

How would you feel if you just dropped 10K on a new FT-9000 and found out it was illegal to operate? How would you feel if you spent 4k (the last retail price published for this radio before it was discontinued) on a FT-1000D and then over night it became illegal to operate it on CW due to its spectral impurity. None of these radios appear to have been designed with this specification in mind. And apparently there isn't a radio on the market that is designed to meet this spec.

A spectrally pure 10 wpm CW signal occupies about 40hz. 25 wpm spectrally pure CW signal occupies about 100hz bandwidth. The faster you go the greater the bandwidth. The proposed limit is 200hz. So if your CW signal is not exactly pure due to phase lock loops locking up and poor timing on relays or a carrier that is closer to a square wave than a sine wave, or an overly aggressive ALC feedback loop, you will be outside the spec in a hurry, and the only way to know this is to measure it. The rule will apply to all carrier emitted from your rig, so if your "fix" does not fix every dit transmitted from your rig it will still be illegal to operate it (referring here to the first dit problem). If the rule becomes that you HAVE to be less than 200hz bandwidth. Then you HAVE to be less than 200hz. Every other service HAS to follow this rule and certify that it is being followed. Ham radio to this point in time has escaped this degree of regulation. It is about to be implemented. If you decide that you are just going to ignore the rules then what's the point of having rules? Alternatively you could just move up to the RTTY part of the band and work the other CW guys who don't meet the CW spec but do meet the RTTY spec, or you could move up to the phone band and work the CW guys who don't meet even the 500hz RTTY spec, but then I thought the point was to seperate the modes. This rule appears as if it will just force dirtier signals farther up the band.

Using bandwidth as the control variable to determine where in the band you operate has some good points. It does separate CW and CW like modes, from RTTY and RTTY like modes, from SSB and SSB like modes, but it clearly has a downside that I don't see being acknowledged, much less addressed and that is once it is the law you WILL be expected to comply and if your shiny new $10000 radio doesn't meet the spec--- tough sh... err toenails. My point is that I think this notion of using bandwidth as the control variable as to where in the band you can operate has only been addressed from a incompletely thought out theoretical perspective, of what it will accomplish and really has not been practically analyzed to see how this rule once implaneted is actually going to hose things up.

Three cheers for Davy ZZ, president-for-life

W9OY
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by AI4BJ on October 27, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
I have to chuckle. For every article complaining about how crowded the bands are, one can usually find a corresponding article predicting the demise of our hobby due to lack of interest!

Mark
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by WA3KYY on October 27, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
You can almost set your calendar by when this complaint resurfaces here or in other forums. The JARTS RTTY contest is the first of the major world-wide contests that will be occuring on various weekends between now and Mar or so.

To address the specifics of the original question and perhaps a few other comments in this thread: nothing was hijacked. The contestors were for the most part operatating in accordance with the established bandplans for their Regions or countries. The Region 2 operators who moved down from the usual Region 2 7.080-7.090 MHz segment did so legally because their countries' rules made it legal. They did so because that was where the bulk of the rest of the world is either required to operate of the bandplans recommend them to operate. You certainly wouldn't want all of that activity smack in the middle of the Region 1 & 3 phone segments would you?

To those who have suggested moving the (US) phone band down to 7.100 MHz and moving the Novices and Techs with code to 7.05-7.10 MHz, there aready are petitions to do just that before the FCC. However, they won't make any difference as long as the majority of the world only has 7.0-7.1 MHz available for 40M. With the agreement for SWBC operations to vacate 7.1-7.2 by 2009, IIRC, we are stating to see some countries get access on a secondary, non-interfering basis but it is too early to expect a new, world-wide uniform bandplan for 40M to be in effect until the majority of countries permit their amateurs to operate in the 7.1-7.2 MHz segment.

Finally, if you think the RTTY contest was bad, wait until the first CW DX contest, you likely won't find a single DX phone QSO anywhere on 40M unless it is above 7.1 MHz.

Mike WA3KYY
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by G4AON on October 27, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
It's the CQ WW phone contest this weekend, so lets see how many SSB stations are heard in Europe below 7.030?

Dave
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K7VO on October 27, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
K9OY:

> If you bothered to read the thread Caity was the one
> who brought up the issue of her gender with her little
> lecture.

Wrong. I brought up the subject of often unintentional sexism in my much needed "little lecture". However, you are overtly sexist and deliberately insulting. Quite a difference.

Blame the victim for your bad behavior, is that it?

-K7VO
 
for K8MHZ  
by K7VO on October 27, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Hi,

> I sure don't think Larry was intentionally being sexist
> with his 'band of brothers' phrase.

Hence my use of the wording "often unintentional sexism". At no point did I *EVER* accuse Larry of having sexist attitudes. I was very careful with my language not to do that.

> It seemed to be, to me anyway, more of the use of
> poetic license.

Poetic license or not it is exclusionary langauge and you are not part of the group being excluded, are you?

> My union, the IBEW, is a brotherhood, the B in
> IBEW standing for brotherhood.

Tell me this? In what year was your union founded? I suspect attitudes towards women were different at that time. I also suspect that there were *no* female electrical workers at that time. Am I correct?

Heck, just about 45-50 years ago women couldn't have credit in their own name. 93 years ago women couldn't vote either. Times have changed for the better. Your union's name is an anachronism.

> We have many fine siters in our union as well,
> but we still consider ourselves a 'brotherhood'
> with no malice intended.

No, I don't believe there is malice. I do believe an inherently sexist anachronism is being maintained. Has anyone ever bothered to ask the sisters in question how they like being part of a "brotherhood"? Again, I suspect not.

> The English language is such that many terms are
> not genderless but we use them anyway. I would
> hope that you already knew that.

I certainly did. Would you like me to point you to some scholarly papers on the sexism inherent in the English language? On how our language is derivative of a patriarchical society? I would hope you knew that already.

One of the reasons I am free to speak my mind, to hold a professional position, to vote, etc... is because women have stood up and protested. In some areas we have even achieved equality but in far too many areas we have not.

Oh, and before someone throws out the usual straw man argument that ends up in these threads, no, I do not believe men and women are identical. I do not want to make men and women the same in every respect. Vive le difference! That has nothing to do with treating people with respect regardless of their gender.

The issue at point is the use of exclusionary language that may make some people (in this case women) feel unwelcome.

73,
Caity
K7VO
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W8MLL on October 27, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Noticed this as well. I work mostly QRP CW and for years the area around 7.040 has been where we QRP types hang out, but lately the RTTY crowd seems to have selected this as a good area to operate. Kinda hard to compete with them when running only a couple of watts and like others have commented... when I tune up the band to the traditional RTTY freqs it is usually quiet.
 
For All  
by KC8VWM on October 27, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
The issue at point is the use of exclusionary language that may make some people (in this case women) feel unwelcome.

----------

...Agreed 110%

Some people just have to stop living in the stone age by using some excuse that "brotherhood" somehow translates to mean everyone.

Let's be clear.. "Brotherhood" means "Men Only" It does not include everyone! ...Period!

Today, in 2005, we are called the ham radio COMMUNITY, not the ham radio "brotherhood."

...and yes, ham radio welcomes everyone, no hazing rituals required!
 
RE: for K8MHZ  
by WA6BFH on October 27, 2005 Mail this to a friend!

Caity, you also have the right and position (perspective) to simply be wrong. You often are.


 
RE: "It seems to me"  
by K5UJ on October 28, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
W9OY's excellent technical exposition demonstrating how unrealistic a numerical bandwidth rule would be, by showcasing past enforcement of other spec type rules vis the current population of rigs in service, gives fairly potent ammunition to my suspicion that a bandwidth rule is going to, in some cases, be used for anything but bandwidth. Rather it will be used to railroad some people out of this hobby for annoying the wrong people and not conforming to someone's worldview of How Things Ought To Be in ham radio. I'm sure we all know to whom I'm referring on both sides of this. Be a "good ham," and stay QRT during a contest, avoid talking about politics, religion, Seinfeld, the Iraq war, etc., and have qsos about as interesting as watching paint dry, and you'll be fine. Probably even be allowed to fudge on the bandwidth. But behave in any way to indicate it is 2005 and not 1955, and you'll be Too Wide! and get taken out.
To be sure, there are a number of essb guys I'd love to see take up stamp collecting. But I see them as a small problem compared to the real potential to missuse a rule to go on a "bad ham" weeding witch hunt.

If we are going to have a bandwidth rule, i want it enforced uniformly and fairly across the board, meaning if K1ZZ, W1AW, and any other "name" hams and contesters are too wide, they get an ONV just like anyone else. Think that will happen? Or do you think this is going to be used to go after a few nutjobs? You want to live a ham radio life in which you can only do and say the approved things? Might sound pretty good until you slip up one day and become one of the nuts.

W8JI asked about changing the league or something to that effect. The League is similar enough to other associations, even though it isn't a trade association, to draw parallels. It has some characteristics of a union. since it isn't a publicly traded company, and is supported privately, it operates (as long as it isn't breaking a law) pretty much out of the reach of influence. These organizations are very difficult to affect. basically there are 3 methods: financial, direct action, and usurping power.

Financial: Remove their financial base by either pursuading hams to not renew their memberships and/or by starting up a competing organization. Very costly and difficult to do these.

Direct action: Pickets, parking lot demonstrations etc. May or may not work depending on the issue and other factors.

Usurping power: Simply having more influence with those the League is seeking to influence.

Obviously, these are heavy duty activist, expensive big league protest type techniques of the type I am not wild about (along with most hams I bet).
The League has been around a long time and is pretty well established and large considering it is an association for a hobby. In other words, at the end of the day, let's have a nice narrow qso, turn off our hobby radios and get worked up about high property taxes. Remember, there are no hearses pulling trailers containing ham rigs to the cemetery, and there ain't no bandwidth limit in heaven.
 
RE: "It seems to me"  
by K4ZMV on October 28, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
K5UJ nailed it. The League is the League. If Wayne Green couldn't change 'em, no one can. Relax and enjoy the HOBBY. Let's quit the PC crap, too. There's too much of that at work. I've never been around anything that smelled of exclusion of anyone in ham radio and I've been around since 1958. If some bonehead makes an insensitive remark, let it be. If you braced 'em on it, they'ed back down and disavow any bad intentions. Like UJ said, 'there ain't no bandwidth regs in heaven'.
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by KC9EOT on October 28, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
It would be fairly easy to control the contests, just add a rule to the contest, anyone verified by three or more amateur stations will not be disqualified as a contestant.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by KC9EOT on October 28, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Sorry for anyone verified below 7.080 or some set freq will not be considered
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W8MW on October 28, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
>it will be used to railroad some people out of this hobby for annoying the wrong people and not conforming to someone's worldview of How Things Ought To Be in ham radio.

Bingo! ARRL's petition contains multiple agendas and one of them is to regulate ESSB and hi-fi AM out of the hobby. Bandwidth limits on phone emissions was already attempted in a previous petition and rejected by FCC last November. ARRL is going back in and asking for essentially the same thing. Perhaps they think they can sell it by bundling it into the wholesale changes they propose on every HF band.

It's not just audio enthusiasts who would get shafted by Newington. I don't think CW operators were specifically targed for punishment, it's just a consequence of a petition authored by 5 digital operators out to take over the world and squash traditional modes. The CW shaft is in the form of a 200 Hz limit which has never been a codifed regulation and has never been needed since continuous wave replaced spark.

W9OY nicely articulated the compliance issues this would present with existing transmitters. I would add that bandwidth of CW signals is not at a fixed rate like PSK31, RTTY, etc. The necessary bandwidth for CW telegraphy is variable, partly as a function of sending speed. A 200 Hz limit is immediately punative to high speed CW operators. I find it ironic the same ARRL that has long encouraged amateurs to become proficient CW operators is so quick to trash the ones who already are.

Bottom line IMHO, amateurs need to insist on something more moderate and fair than the wholesale changes, inflexibility and added regulations in the ARRL scheme.

73 Mike
 
EVERYBODY loves 40  
by N4QA on October 28, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
The great thing about the 40-meter band is that it is an extremely popular and cozy band.

The trouble with the 40-meter band is that it is an extremely popular and cozy band.

In my case, I cut my ham teeth on 40-meter CW in 1965 and, so, there is a great deal of sentiment attached to the band for me...others too, I suspect.

I will enjoy *all* modes... which are legal... on 40.
Don't know what the answer(s) might be.
But, the question might well be:
"Can't we all just get along?"

Too bad 40 isn't 1 MHz wide...

72.
Bill, N4QA
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K8MHZ on October 28, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
In the time it takes to post your reason for not liking the ARRL’s new band plan you could have written the same complaint to fccham@fcc.gov and have your voice heard by those that matter.

You may also want to point out that the ARRL does not represent the majority of amateur (read un-paid) radio operators but instead represents a minority of the same group that pays money to a commercial entity to have their voice heard. (read un-democratic).

If you feel that the FCC is turning a deaf ear to you, you can amplify your signal a little bit by writing to your Congressperson and expressing your concern that the FCC is being influenced by an organization that requires monetary compensation from U.S. citizens for it’s representation.

I also urge you to take the time to proof read your work along with using spell check. One can argue the merits of the contents of a letter being of utmost importance all they want, but when it comes to a subject of conjecture the value of the message is often determined by the integrity of the author. Spelling and grammar errors are easily correctable de-valuations.

I have, over the years, written to both my Congressfolk and the FCC and have gotten informative responses on every occasion. Many times the responses were obviously not some type of form letter and I have kept them like I keep 'wallpaper'. The letterheads alone are works of art in themselves and are somewhat collectable. (I get hard copy responses to e-mailed questions from our Congresspeople here in Michigan) I never once have regretted writing to the U.S. government. Now that we have the Internet it is easier and quicker than ever to put our concerns in writing and get them where they will be heard.

73,

Mark K8MHZ

 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K8MHZ on October 28, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Caity,

“Poetic license or not it is exclusionary langauge and you are not part of the group being excluded, are you?”

According to Webster you are correct. But when I use the term I intend to exclude no one. Whenever possible I use gender-less terms, but in the event that I do not it is only because of lack of available terms with no intention of exclusivity. I think that more menfolk share my feelings than you may suspect.

In the mid 1970’s I brought up the subject of gender in English terms to my high school English teacher. She told me that we should consider the male inflections that are obviously incorrect to be gender-less. Her reasoning was that the English language changed much slower than society did and we had to work with what we had. It is 2005 and there are still no gender-less replacements for the words in question at that time.

If it were asked that our union changed it’s name to something like the International Union of Electrical Workers I would be all for it. I don’t think that a change for the reason of assuring our sisters that they are included would be objected to. Especially if one was to ask the question of how our brothers would feel if the union they paid dues to was called the International Sisterhood of Electrical Workers.

“Tell me this? In what year was your union founded? I suspect attitudes towards women were different at that time. I also suspect that there were *no* female electrical workers at that time. Am I correct?”

Our union was founded November 28, 1891. Since the death rate was well over 50 percent the trade was not particularly attractive to women. Our first president died while working from a fall from a ladder after he got shocked by an outside distribution line. Even so, the women of the late 19th century were pretty hardy and I strongly suspect that one or two of them may have made their way into the trade in our early years.

“Has anyone ever bothered to ask the sisters in question how they like being part of a "brotherhood"? Again, I suspect not.”

Actually that very subject comes up from time to time in the break trailer. The usual response is that the name of the union is not as important as the advances in pay and benefits we hope to achieve ( and get on a fairly regular basis) but they do think a change would be for the better. I agree.

“Would you like me to point you to some scholarly papers on the sexism inherent in the English language? On how our language is derivative of a patriarchical society? I would hope you knew that already.”

You could but I probably wouldn’t read them. Instead I will take your word for it. I strongly suspect, after speaking the language for the better of 50 years, you are correct.

Which only illustrates that us menfolk have inherited a language that is now incorrect but are forced, as you are, to live with it as it assimilates. Really Caity, we mean no harm whatsoever by using the language we were taught to use.

“The issue at point is the use of exclusionary language that may make some people (in this case women) feel unwelcome.”

Caity, your posts are one of the most welcome of this site. How could you possibly put the weight of one inadvertently offensive phrase (or several hundred inadvertantly offensive phrases for that matter) in the same class as the responses you get from your ‘fellow’ (can you give me a drop-in alternative?) hams? The most aggressive attack you have had so far is BFH’s observation that you have the right to be wrong. Just look at the support your are getting on this subject. Could it be, perhaps, that you are taking this a bit too personally? Trust me, if anyone here wanted to exclude women from this site they would be told so in no uncertain terms.

So there is my defense. Now what about mitigation? Any suggestions on how to change the English language to remove the terms in question?

73,

Mark K8MHZ



 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K4JF on October 28, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"You may also want to point out that the ARRL does not represent the majority of amateur (read un-paid) radio operators but instead represents a minority of the same group that pays money to a commercial entity to have their voice heard. (read un-democratic)."

There is NO "commercial entity" to which amateurs pay to have their voice heard. None that I have heard of in 31 years of hamming, at least. And absolutely none connected with ARRL which is a non-profit membership organization, which fact is confirmed annually by the "Federal" government.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K8MHZ on October 28, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"which fact is confirmed annually by the "Federal" government."

For tax purposes concerning an entity that exists on paper. The leaders (real people) indeed do make a profit and are charged taxes on same.

There is indeed commerce being transacted.

I do understand your position, especially if you have sent money to the ARRL. You paid and I didn't. My voice means nothing. I have nothing to say about that which may become law.

73,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by G4AON on October 28, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"It's the CQ WW phone contest this weekend, so lets see how many SSB stations are heard in Europe below 7.030?"

True to form, while still dark this morning the band was full of SSB from 7.03 down to 7.003. There was a K4 station on 7.195 calling "listening 7.003". Nothing changes!

Dave
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K4JF on October 29, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"For tax purposes concerning an entity that exists on paper. The leaders (real people) indeed do make a profit and are charged taxes on same. "

Absolutely not. They are paid a salary, just like you and me and any full time employee of any organization, including other "non-profits" like Red Cross, Salvation Army, United Way, your church and thousands of others. That is not a "profit". To say otherwise is playing a silly game with semantics.
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by WA6ES on October 29, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
IN RESPONSE TO THE WW CQ CONTEST... TRY TO LISTEN TO THE RTTY SEGMENT AND YOU HERE PHONE OPERATORS! I FORGOT THIS IS ONLY AGAINST RTTY OPS. :-)

RICK - WA6ES
<><
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K8MHZ on October 29, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"They are paid a salary, just like you and me and any full time employee of any organization, including other "non-profits" like Red Cross, Salvation Army, United Way, your church and thousands of others. That is not a "profit"

A salary is not a profit?

The ARRL is still a commercial venture. It sells things for more than it costs to produce them. It passes on that....profit...on to it's employees via their salaries. It purchases buildings, radios, antennas and real estate with said profit. This is commerce plain and simple.

The Red Cross, Salvation Army, churches, etc., do not issue services based on pay. They represent all regardless whether or not they paid into the organization. Not true for the ARRL. If you want their books you must pay for them and if you want their representation you must pay for that as well. The other organizations rely on donations, not dues, to fund their operations. They also do not lobby the government in behalf of paying members only. The fact that the organization's paid leaders do not own the ARRL is a major part of their tax free status, not whether or not commerce is transacted.

The fact is that the ARRL is a commercial venture that has gained tax-free status. Commerce still exists in lieu of tax liability. This dictates that the ARRL's decision making process must be strongly supportive of the flow of cash into the organization. If the flow stops so do the salaries and the funds needed for the upkeep of their sizeable holdings of non-taxable profits.

Commerce is defined as doing business on a large scale. Is not the selling of books, CD's and logo bearing merchandise along with collection of membership fees from thousands of like minded people in every state of the U.S. not doing business on a large scale? I would not be surprised if they also do business in other countries.

My position is that the ARRL should not be advisor to the FCC. It seems as they only represent a small portion of American citizens that will influence changes in the law that will affect all of us and that is not the way it is supposed to work. Especially when money is changing hands and is required to facilitate the process.

73,

Mark K8MHZ


 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K4JF on October 29, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"A salary is not a profit? "

Of course it is not. Check your dictionary, or better yet, the tax codes.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K4JF on October 29, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"They also do not lobby the government in behalf of paying members only. "

Of course they do. Ever hear of a Baptist church lobbying on behalf of Catholics? C'mon. Get real!!
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K8MHZ on October 30, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"Of course they do. Ever hear of a Baptist church lobbying on behalf of Catholics? C'mon. Get real!!"

If churches lobbied, I believe they do not, a Baptist church would not only lobby for Baptists of other churches but for Baptists of their church that did not pay as well. Payment is not required by any church for representation or service.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K8MHZ on October 30, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"Of course it is not. Check your dictionary, or better yet, the tax codes."

I did. Profit is defined as the amount left over after expenses, like the amount of money in the ARRL's bank account. Salary is a regular compensation at fixed intervals in exchange for work done.

There is taxable profit and non-taxable profit, depending on the tax codes applied.

All of the above are parts of commercial ventures.

The IRS defines the ARRL as a non-profit organization because it's (the IRS) only interest is in taxes. Non-profit is actually a shortened version of the term non-taxable profit.

If you took all the money away from the churches, they would still carry on. Is the same true for the ARRL?

I think not as they have become not only dependant, but controlled by money, as any commercial venture must be.

73,

Mark K8MHZ

 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K8MHZ on October 30, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
The SSB ops are no different.

Today (Saturday) I tuned to 40 and the entire band was filled with SSB contesters. Even the CW portion. I heard a Trinidad station on 7.090 being answered by US stations. I also heard foriegn stations as low as 7.030 contesting on SSB. I believe that using ham radio for a casual contact, or a fun CQ would have been impossible on 40 today.

Am I miffed? Heck no, it gives me a reason to hunt the ever elusive perfect match on other bands. What does miff me is broadcasters taking out large chunks of the band with impunity.

BTW I did not hear any RTTY. I did hear one CW station calling CQ in between two overlapping apparantly QRO SSB stations.

Not that's faith!!

73,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W9AC on October 30, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
> "Today (Saturday) I tuned to 40 and the entire band was filled with SSB contesters...I believe that using ham radio for a casual contact, or a fun CQ would have been impossible on 40 today."

It's not just the "foreign" stations. In fact, many of the contest offenders operating between 7000-7100 kHz are U.S. licensed, but taking advantage of a foreign reciprocal license to attain temporary refuge from FCC rules. Let's call this what it really is: "coordinated selfishness." Last night, 7000-7100 kHz was wall-to-wall with SSB stations.

CQ Mag had better put some restrictive policies in place for next year's CQWW SSB contest. Any contest station operating below 7100 kHz should be disqualified. Period. If this invokes too much of burden for other IARU regions, then eliminate 40M from the contest altogether.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by N6GK on October 30, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Many interesting comments. Reminds me of the classic scene in the movie "Mars Attacks", where the U. S. President pleads with the Martian Leader, "Can't we all just get along?". The President then offers to shake the hand of the Martian leader in friendship. The Martian Leader reaches out as if to shake the President's hand, but then suddenly proceeds to kill the President. Nope, we just can't get along unless all sides are willing to! And, I don't think they are! It's all about the selfishness (i.e., the attitude "life is all about "me" and what I want").

Maybe the only real solution is to just WAIT TEN TO TWENTY YEARS...most of us won't be here and the HAM bands should be very, very clear, with no QRM, no matter what mode or type of operating you enjoy operating!

Meanwhile, I am afraid we are just going to have to grit our teeth and bear it...so much for human nature, its kindness, and tolerance for others!

73,

Greg, N6GK
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K4JF on October 30, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"Profit is defined as the amount left over after expenses, like the amount of money in the ARRL's bank account. "

Right. And salary is ONE OF THOSE EXPENSES. Point made. Thanks.
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W5NM on October 30, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Well here we go again! Please add me to the list of
whiners, but the weekend is the ONLY time I am able to
enjoy amateur radio and this last weekend was a complete bust. It would appear that I will have to go
ahead and retire so I can find time when a contest has
not completely ruined my chances of having a simple
ragchew. Am I wrong by saying if there is a contest
on every open hf band, on every weekend, on almost
every frequency, I may as well hang it up! I am not
against contesting and in fact I think it plays an
important part in amateur radio BUT, somebody please
gimme a break!. 40 Meters was completely full from
7.000 to 7.299 with high power ssb contesters leaving
no room for anything else. Has common sense left
amateur radio? Can we not have at least a few weekends where no contesting is going on and the poor
saps like me can enjoy a hobby begun many years ago.
It would seem prudent to assign limits to the range of
frequencies for all contests in order to provide
room for other hams who would like to pursue other
uses of amateur radio. I suppose if the sunspot cycle
were at its peak, I might not be complaining due to the higher bands being open and much more room available. I really hate to sound like a complainer,
but amateur radio is a part of my life in which it
appears it is becoming more and more difficult to enjoy. I also suppose I will be lambasted by someone
who proclaims to have all the answers or all the facts concerning the situation. If so please propose
a solution to this problem, and don't just tell me
about it!
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K8MHZ on October 30, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
W5NM,

At first I thought that having increased activity on ham radio would be great. After listening to 40 this weekend I have changed my opinion. All I could think about was the poor ham that could only play radio on the weekends. Many of us are still working and have to hit the rack early during the week. The only time we can work the sweet spots of 40 are on the weekends. The contesters really over did it. I now think that there needs to be some restrictions on where contests can be held as to leave some open territory for those that would like to call CQ, rag chew or do something other than give a 5 / 9 and bail for the night.

Some of us may argue that it is only one night a whatever, but wiping out an entire band for a contest for even one night obviously affects others adversely. Lately, this has been occurring to some extent once a week.

Contests are great on many levels, but when they take out an entire band for any amount of time at all their greatness is severely attenuated.

73,

K8MHZ


 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by OK1FOU on October 31, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
As Fred G3YJQ said, it's a kind of problem between Region 1 and Region 2.

But it is a bigger problem in Region 3. In general, digital modes are allocated between 7025 and 7035 in R3, but in some countries (Japan, for instance), digi allocation is shifted down between 7020 and 7025 (or is it 7015-7020?).

So, if you look at it, you have several different segments. During a RTTY contest, all frequencies from 7015 to 7040 and 7080-7100, sometimes even 7070-7080 are occupied by contesting digi stations at one time or another. At the top of that, some guys bother to work split, some don't (especially on PSK).

The solution is IMHO uniform, worldwide allocation on 40 meters.

Yes, and let's not foget there should be a special segment for DC/PE/ED local chatters, separated from normal ham radio operations. I'd suggest 7400 to 7500 or higher, to keep them away enough from various DX frequencies etc. BTW, I don't understand why so many German folks prefer 7 MHz SSB to FM repeaters. 70 cm band, unlike 40 meter band, is almost empty in Germany. They could talk and talk day and night without any interference.

:)

73 de Jindra OK1FOU
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by WA3KYY on October 31, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
W9AC said:

"CQ Mag had better put some restrictive policies in place for next year's CQWW SSB contest. Any contest station operating below 7100 kHz should be disqualified. Period. If this invokes too much of burden for other IARU regions, then eliminate 40M from the contest altogether."

What a selfish attitude to take against the majority of the world's amateurs who have NO privleges above 7100 KHz. What are you going to do on the CW weekend when 7000-7100 is solid CW?

There are really only six world-wide contests a year that fill the bands to capacity, 3 CW and 3 SSB. If you cannot see fit to allow the huge numbers of amateurs who enjoy the contests the right to operate in the bands authrorized to them by their licensing authtorities you are being selfish.

And you know what is funny? There were plenty of CW QSOs going on in the middle of the Region 1 & 3 phone segment on 40M including some CW nets.

Anytime but during one of these major contests we dont seem to be much bothered by the Region 1 & 3 phone operations in 7.05 - 7.10 or the Region 1 & 3 digital operations in 7.025 - 7.045. When you suddenly find thousands of additional operators present you are not going to be able to operate as usual.


 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by WA3KYY on October 31, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
This weekend is the ARRL CW Sweepstakes. I wonder how many complaints we will hear from Europeans about their phone band being hijacked by all the US/Canadian CW ops operating in the region 7.05-7.10 MHz.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W9AC on November 1, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
WA3KYY:

>"What a selfish attitude to take against the majority of the world's amateurs who have NO privleges above 7100 KHz. What are you going to do on the CW weekend when 7000-7100 is solid CW?"

The *majority* of the world's amateurs are NOT contesters and were as fed up with the situation this weekend as I was. The answer is not to enable coordinated, reckless behavior which results in the obliteration of all other non-contest band activity.

CQWW-SSB isn't so important as to trump all other global communications on the low end of 40M. Again, if other regions are limited above 7100 kHz, then the answer should not include erasing all other communications in favor of contesting interests. Eliminate 40M from the contest (like the WARC bands) and level the playing field for all CQWW contesters.

 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by WA3KYY on November 1, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"CQWW-SSB isn't so important as to trump all other global communications on the low end of 40M. Again, if other regions are limited above 7100 kHz, then the answer should not include erasing all other communications in favor of contesting interests. Eliminate 40M from the contest (like the WARC bands) and level the playing field for all CQWW contesters."


Three weekends out of 52 is too much to let 1000s of amateurs enjoy their aspect of amateur radio? (That is the total number of world-wide SSB contests that tend to fill the low end of 40M.) If contesting were not such a popular activty you wouldn't notice it.

Were are all the non-contestors on these other weekends? By rights the bands should be as crowded or even more crowded on non-contest weekends if the majority of the world's amateurs are not contestors. Given the rather quiet bands on non-contest weekends it would seem non-contestors are in the minority of active amateurs. I don't see any other explanation for the lack of activity.
 
The Hijacking of the 10-Meter band  
by EI5FK on November 1, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
It was always obvious that the hf cw bands were going to be under pressure after the shafting of CW, just look at last weekend where SSB stations were operating right down to 7.000 lsb (Is that not out of band)heard from EI2IV and EI9GQ on 28mhz today.
What is far more serious is the Hijacking of 28mhz by hoards of pirates and fishing net beacons
http://www.eham.net/forums/Elmers/101038
http://www.iarums-r1.org/
Last few weeks have shown me that there are at least 7 pirate stations to every licenced ham on 10m and few of us seem to give a damn
Charles
EI5FK
 
RE: The Hijacking of the 80 thru 70cm bands!  
by NN6EE on November 1, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Our bands were at one time allocated by mutual "Gentlemens' " agreements.

Look at the users of today's Amateur Radio spectrum, a goodly number of them are NOT gentlemen, and it's a reflection of today's society!!!

Jim/ee
 
RE: The Hijacking of the 80 thru 70cm bands!  
by EXWA2SWA on November 1, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
One of my own favorite arguments regarding the NoCode/KnowCode, Paperchaser/Ragchewer, Contester/NoContester dichotomies is that "This is a great hobby, and a great BIG hobby! There's room in it for all of us."

That was until I had the lovely experience of lower 40m becoming a nightmare last weekend in the CQWW SSB contest. It sounded like CB Good-Buddy heaven.

Do the words "Band Plan" not mean anything when there's a contest on? If some desirable contacts aren't available because their country operates a different band plan, that's the breaks. I've heard plenty of very desirable DX stations 2KHz below my operating privileges, and that's my incentive to upgrade. If phone operators want to work in the CW segments, perhaps they should dust off their keys and give it a try - unless they fear embarrassing themselves.

I know full well that if I'd taken my General callsign down into the Extra segment of the band for the weekend to escape the madhouse and still enjoy the hobby, I'd have had OO's all O'ver me, and rightfully sO.

What's the answer? I'm not smart enough to figure that out all by myself, but I'd suggest that contest organizers/sponsors find some way to set reasonable limits on the frequencies to be used, and referee their contest on the air to penalize the lids for whom the words "Is the frequency in use?" or "QRL?" are unknown.



 
RE: The Hijacking of the 80 thru 70cm bands!  
by WA3KYY on November 2, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
EXWA2SWA wrote:

"If phone operators want to work in the CW segments, perhaps they should dust off their keys and give it a try - unless they fear embarrassing themselves."

I don't understand the point you are making here, this was a phone contest. None of the phone ops in the 7.0-7.1 range were operating illegally except the occasional US op who hit the wrong VFO while trying to operate split. The US is about the only country in the world that doesn't have phone privleges in that segment of 40M.

Those who were operating below 7.025 were not following the voluntary bandplan but those bandplans don't hold up well under extreme crowding and are not enforcable as regulations in most countries. If there were some ops who were violating their country's rules it is up to their regulators to enforfce the rules.

Just wait until the last weekend in Nov and see how high the CW ops go on 40M. You likely wont find any but the strongest phone stations trying to operate in the usual phone segment of 7.05-7.10.
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by N0IU on November 2, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
It would appear as if all you non-contesters are getting upset at the wrong people. A big contest like the CQWW comes along and you get all bent out of shape at the contesters because they have ruined your weekend and are preventing you from enjoying your hobby. Its not the contester's that are at fault. Apparently at some point early on in your ham career, someone must have promised you that you would have free and full access to any band your are qualified to use 24/7/365. They must have promised you that you would be able to find a clear spot to call CQ to your heart's content anywhere at any time. If this wasn't the case, then why would you be so upset over a contest?

Here's a news flash -- you do not have unrestricted access to all the bands all of the time; no one does! The contesters have just as much right to the bands as you do. You talk as if they are your frequencies and as the title of this "article" suggests, the contesters have "highjacked" the band! Hijacking implies forcefully taking away something that does not belong to you. Whoever told you that you can expect to be able to sit down in front of your radio and not be subject to interference, man made or otherwise, lied to you. They are the one's at whom you should be angry, not the contesters!

As many others have said, if you chose not to participate in a contest, you have other choices besides wasting bandwidth on a bulletin board complaining about it.

1) Use the WARC bands or 60 meters.
2) Turn the radio off and do something else. (Gee, what a concept!)

This is a recreational pasttime. (Please, let's not start the hobby vs. service thing again!) If you really truly honestly feel that a contest has ruined your weekend, then you have issues that require professional attention. Being a ham radio operator is a privilege, not a God given or Constitutional right. No one has to give up using the radio for your personal enjoyment. The only time you are required to relinquish a frequency is in times of distress.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by W9AC on November 2, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
N0IU:

"2) Turn the radio off and do something else. (Gee, what a concept!)"

Scott,

Here's another concept: I don't think anyone here has the expectation of guaranteed access to any frequency. What we do expect is common courtesy, particularly with respect to QSOs already engaged during contest activities.

This past weekend represented a total lack of respect by CQWW contesters toward non-contest activities. Your solution is no less extreme than mine: eliminate SSB contest activity below a fixed frequency on 40M. Or, due to severe international operating bandwidth constraints of 40M, simply eliminate 40M from SSB contest activities and add it to the "no contest zone" of the WARC bands. Contesters can still use other bands. Gee, it may even contribute more to the challenge. And isn't that what contesting is all about? The challenge?

 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by WA3KYY on November 2, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Paul (W9AC):

Your comment about QRMing ongoing QSOs is well taken and those who do so deliberatly should be sanctioned by the appropriate regulatory body that issued their license.

Eliminating 40M from the contests though is probably not a workable solution. It is the best DX band in the evenings in the winter and such a decision would be very unpopular world-wide. I doubt you would get the support of the IARU which is what it would take to get such a ban in place.

Also, according to the FCC rules, US General and Extra Classes may operate CW, RTTY and Data in the 7.10-7.15 segment. That segment was virtually unused by the contestors during the recent phone contest that filled 7.0-7.1 MHz. Granted there are the SW Broadcasters to contend with but there was still plenty of spots there to operate free of the contestors. In those DX countries that can operate in the 7.1-7.2 MHz range, some stations did use 7.15-7.20 so as to work the US ops without resorting to split frequencies. So there are spots on 40M where Region 2 CW and data operators and those from other countries with 7.1-7.2 can go to get away from the phone contestors on those 3 weekends when they fill the low end of 40M.
 
RE: The Hijacking of the 80 thru 70cm bands!  
by NN6EE on November 2, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
QUESTION GENTLEMEN!!!

Since by international agreement within a few years all international broadcasters are SUPPOSED to vacate all of the 40m. phone-band, will the ITU then ALLOW regions 1 and 3 Amateurs phone privileges from 7.150 up to 7.300mhz. so that it would free up (worldwide) 7.050 to 7.100 for DIGITAL ONLY???

Any thoughts???

Jim/ee
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by N0IU on November 2, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
W9AC wrote, "I don't think anyone here has the expectation of guaranteed access to any frequency. What we do expect is common courtesy, particularly with respect to QSOs already engaged during contest activities."

Yes, good operating practice dictates that we always ask if the frequency is in use prior to using it since no one owns a frequency. Those contesters who did not adhere to that practice should be taken behind the woodshed.

On the other hand, you could say the same thing about the ARRL bulletins. If you happened to be engaged in a QSO on 7.0475 MHz at 4:00 Central time any day during the week, guess what will happen? At the very moment WWV strikes the hour, the CW bulletins will begin. No one came on the air and called QRL. Is this wrong? Is this poor operating practice? Of course some will say that it is, but the ARRL will argue that the W1AW schedule is well published far in advance so all operators should be aware of this and steer clear of those frequencies they use for bulletins and practice sessions.

Using the same reasoning, the there are several sources of contest calendars in print and on the web. Knowing that a major contest is scheduled, attempting to conduct a "normal" QSO during that time is like giving your father a belt and saying, "Here, beat me with this." You are asking for punishment! I have very little sympathy for anyone who sets themselves up for failure.

Yeah, I have a job too and have precious little time to engage in this hobby and I will admit to being slightly disappointed when a contest "hijacks" a portion of a band I enjoy using for non-contest activity. I can either shake my angry fist at the radio and curse the contesters or I can just exercise my options from within ham radio or engage in some other enjoyable activity.

I have to ask, "What did you do with your spare time before you got into ham radio?" If you do not have a social life and depend on ham radio as your sole source of contact with the outside world (and I am sure there are people for whom this is true), then you have other "issues" that I am not qualified to address.

I agree with Mike WA3KYY that it is impractical to restrict contesting to certain parts of a band (other than where license class and band plans allow).

No one is going to win this argument. It has been going on longer than the code/no-code "debate". I guess I am too much of a pragmatist and would rather spend my time in a useful endeavor than sit around pouting about something I personally can not change.

NØIU
 
RE: The Hijacking of the 80 thru 70cm bands!  
by WA3KYY on November 2, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Jim (NN6EE),

Only 7.1-7.2 is to be vacated. The fight for 7.2-7.3 begins at WARC-07 and a fight it is predicted to be. We might even find Region 2 losing 7.2-7.3 in favor of military and broadcast operations in other parts of the world.

The use of 7.1-7.2 for amateurs is up to each country to decide in the interim. Some countries have already authorized it's use on a secondary, non-interfering basis. I worked few of them in the 7.15-7.20 range during the contest.

The US and a few other countries are the only ones that have such rigid mode based rules. Most others allow all modes everywhere and rely on gentlemen's agreements to sort out what mode goes where. I expect that those countries that do not specifically allocate modes to given band segmments will continue to permit all modes everywhere and let the community decide what goes where. There is some advance planning being done by the IARU to harmonize the bandplans for the time when more of 40M is amateur primary or exclusive.

73,
Mike
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by AA4LR on November 3, 2005 Mail this to a friend!

"I am fully aware of the legalities of mode/band/QRG, etc. That is not the issue here. Call it a "gentleman's agreement" or whatever you want, but "normally" the accepted CW portion of each HF band is the lower 50 or 60 KHz. RTTY is "normally" operated at 7.080 and above on 40-meters."

For being "fully aware", I'm afraid your recommendations do not account for the allocations of the band in Regions 1 and 2.

For Region 1, 7080 kHz is in the middle of the recommended phone segment. Would you have RTTY users QRM phone operations in their own contries?

For Region 1, the recommended RTTY frequencies are 7035-7045 kHz. CW is expected below 7035 kHz.

Note that the Region 1 bandplan is not rigid. The actual modes used in each segment are quite flexible, depending on demand.

So, far from "hijacking" the "CW" bands, folks using RTTY in the lower half of their 40m band are operating properly. You'd expect them below 7050 kHz because that's where they are SUPPOSED to operate.

If you look, in the USA, RTTY emissions are authorized from 7000-7150 kHz. CW is authorized 7000-7300 kHz. You have the whole 40m band in which to operate CW. Those using RTTY only have half.

Quit complaining.

 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by AA4LR on November 3, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
You would have probably had little to no trouble having a casual CW or RTTY QSO in any part of the 7100-7150 kHz portion of the band.

Sure, 7000-7100 kHz was full up, as was 7150-up. But the middle 50 kHz was surprisingly barren.

This portion of the band is really underused. If folks aren't interested in DX and just ragchews, it would probably be a good portion to occupy. Plus, people are limited to 200w PEP in this segment (in the USA).

 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by AA4LR on November 3, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"40 Meters was completely full from
7.000 to 7.299 with high power ssb contesters leaving
no room for anything else"

Not true. If you checked 7100-7150, you would have found it virtually devoid of any SSB signals. Check there.

 
RE: The Hijacking of the 80 thru 70cm bands!  
by K8MHZ on November 3, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
"but the ARRL will argue that the W1AW schedule is well published far in advance so all operators should be aware of this and steer clear of those frequencies they use for bulletins and practice sessions."

And that constitutes their exclusive right to use it how?

Also, 'well published' is a subjective term. What may seem well published to one person may not to another.

Would it be too much to ask to check for a clear frequency before beginning and move to a different one if needed?

Oh, nevermind, that would require folks to have to use the tuning wheel to find them. My bad.

What was I thinking?

73,

Mark K8MHZ
 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by WA1RNE on November 3, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
If there was ever a case in point for getting rid of the antiquated band-by-mode plan, 40 meters is it.


Here we are, in the middle of an Internet and technology boom and everyone is gathering around beefing about RTTY encroaching on CW, yada, yada, like it's still 1949???


What is everyone complaining about?? If you want to run CW, go ahead - you have the entire band to do it with.

Hey, you like contests?? If you really want to see who's the best CW operator, have the ARRL change the rules and set up the next CW Sweepstakes to run across the entire band.


Going by all the "Spotlight" photos from this web site and my own QSO's, there's no shortage of FT-1000's, IC-760 Pro's and what not, - in some cases, 2 or more of these rigs sitting on the same table - so you should be able to hear your station with very little effort. If you can't, change frequency and/or read your operators manual or work on your antenna.

I never assumed amateur radio was supposed to be plug'n play, did you? Heck, with lesser receivers and bands that were occupied 10-fold compared to today, I had no problems - and if I did, I sucked it up and moved on.


There was no "Complaint Bureau" (CB? sorry, couldn't help it) and no Chat Board (oops sorry again) to whine on.....


We're should consider ourselves lucky that we still have the spectrum available to us, given what we do with it today compared to say 30 years ago.


Be happy with what you have and stop complaining. The IARU is not a worldwide governing body with the final say; we could lose spectrum with or without their say so.


WA1RNE






 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by KILOWATT on November 4, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Ooops!

>I spelled sister wrong....sorry.

'siters' should obviously be 'sisters' in my last post.

While I am at it, when I use the term 'fellow hams' as the author did I mean all, male and female alike, not just the fellows.

I wonder why the male terms brother and fellow represent camaraderie and there is no female term for the same. Perhaps that may change sometime in the future.

73 once again, <



you're a dufus.

Not only do you go out of your way to let everyone know that you're an electrician and an I.B.E.W. member but you're also "Mr. P.C."

My assesment of you would be thus;

You probably are an I.B.E.W. member but you're probably nothing more than a wire-puller and wire-twister. Not a true electrician. You just know how to match "black wire to black wire and white wire to white wire".

I only say this because you seem to LOVE to tell everyone about your union membership and about being an electrician. It was that kind of crap that made me bail out on the union.

And before you tell me about what a "scab" I am;

I'm the Electrical supervisor of a major city in the U.S. with 11 electrical journeymen working for me.

Basically...........

Give it a rest.

 
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by K4HGX on November 6, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Hi Larry,

When you posed a simple question, you sure stirred up a whirlwind! The simple answer to your question is that the DX stations frequent the lower frequencies on 40 meters, and that is why the U.S. RTTY folks use those frequencies. If the DX stations were higher up on 40, no doubt, that is where the majority of the activity would be. Generally, I avoid the contests since that is not my favorite type of operating; however, there are plenty of hams who love contesting, and in their zeal to rack up scores, they will use those frequencies which help them achieve their objectives. Perhaps it is just my experience; but, I have noticed that even during RTTY contests, there are
always CW qso's below, amid and above the RTTY signals. Hope you'll be able to find a spot among
all the activity for your qso!! 73, Roy
 
Hope you are listening, Larry  
by WB4M on November 6, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
As I type this, I hear multitudes of your considerate CW ops all over the digital area of 20 meters, from 14.000 to 14.100. There is a contest going on, but are the CW op "respecting" the RTTY/PSK frequencies? Give a listen, and answer for yourself. You see, it works both ways.
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by N2MG on November 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
KILOWATT wrote:
"Good point. I never thought about it that way. Why should anyone follow the agreements of a group that doesn't speak for them? "

Hmmm... I'd dare say that most of the governemental regulations fall into that category. EPA, OSHA, and the rest of the "alphabet soup" of organizations are not "elected" and therefore they do not speak for me. Hell, most of the government that proports to represent me does not speak for me.

Mike N2MG
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by N2MG on November 9, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
WB4M wrote: "There is a contest going on, but are the CW op "respecting" the RTTY/PSK frequencies?"

Does the RTTY/FSK/SSTV/net crowd own any frequency? Why is it that during a contest, when hundreds are searching for a clear frequency, that I can find one (as in unused, unoccupied, no one there) and then be "run off" by the frequency's "owners"?
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by KD5QEF on January 7, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I'm glad someone addressed this problem, which I noticed personally on 1/8/2006 when a QSO I was having with a NJ station was obliterated by RTTY op calling CQ on 7.029 or so. He was close enough to the QSO frequency that the front-end of the K2 couldn't handle it, despite filters and DSP (yes, he was that loud). They claim they are calling on "free" frequencies, but most of them either don't appear to listen very well and/or have poor RCVR's. It's my experience that CW ops are used to listening for weak QRP and DX stations. While I respect the right of RTTY operators to engage in contesting, the ARRL RTTY Roundup rules clearly recommend RTTY ops stay above 7.040, which they are not doing. It's very annoying to hear 3 closely-spaced CW QSO's disappear when a RTTY ops calls CQ at S9+10 (amplifier on, no doubt) in the middle of the CW band at 7.030
 
RE: The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW  
by AA4LR on January 23, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Unfortunately, the 40m band isn't 7000-7300 kHz as it is in Region 2 in other parts of the world.

If, during the RTTY Roundup, someone wishes to contact stations in Region 1, he'd have to operate in the range of 7030-7045 kHz, since that's the area of the Region 1 bandplan where RTTY is indicated.

 
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Related News & Articles
Revive Two Meters


Other Recent Articles
York-Area Scouts Use Ham Radios to Talk to Scouts Around the World:
Amateur Radio Enthusiasts Gather for Annual Greeneville Hamfest:
Ham Radio Enthusiasts Gather in Kalamazoo:
Boy Scouts Have Weekend Submarine Adventure:
Ham Radio Operators Link on Global Airwaves: