wrote:
On Mar 30, 7:37� pm, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 29, 1:18�pm, Dave Heil wrote:

One question which begs asking is why foreign
phone stations should have
a shelter from U.S. stations when U.S. stations
have no similar shelter
available to them? �

Because there are so many more US stations
than foreign ones in any
particular country (except Japan 4th class).
Working the USA is 1 DXCC
country.
That's an explanation, though perhaps not a valid one. �
We W's manage to
work all the DX there is to work despite the presence
of strong QRM from
W QRM--both those who are ragchewing and those who are
working DX.

Sort of. Remember that often the DX is transmitting outside the US
'phone subband.

Rare stuff, yes. Less rare stuff, not as often.

Things aren't the same as in the old days when
many DX stations were
rock bound or ran lesser quality equipment or had
less than optimal
antenna systems. � In fact much of the world runs
the same Kenwood, Icom,
Yaesu and Ten-Tec equipment as the American stations.

Good point!

� The garden
variety foreign stations sometimes QRM's the rare stuff. Many
of the
garden variety foreigners are also in the chase for that
same rare DX.

Agreed.

The time is long past for divided phone band segments.
� I believe that
the phone bands should be harmonized worldwide.

Be careful what you ask for.

In much if not most of the rest of the world, there are no subbands-by-
mode. The amateur regs simply state which modes are allowed on each
band, and leave the rest up to gentleman's agreements.

Point well taken. It works pretty well for the most part. Contests are
a different matter. Let's take the 40m band as an example of when it
doesn't work well. In a phone contest, foreign SSB stations can often
be heard CQing as low as 7.010 despite the fact that the IARU bandplan
calls for them to no go below 7.030 or .035 as I recall.

Harmonizing the US phone subbands to the rest of the world would mean
either imposing US regs on other countries, or removing subbands-by-
modes from US regs.

It seems to me that countries which do not have subbands-by-mode would
resist following the US example and adding them, if for no other
reason than that they'd no longer have a refuge from US 'phone QRM.

I'd like to get away from that "refuge" concept as some sort of foreign
entitlement. I'd also like to get away from the idea that U.S. phone
operation is "QRM". We're big boys and they're big boys. We don't
piddle in our end of the pool and they don't piddle in theirs.

Proposals to remove subbands-by-mode from the US regs have met with
clear and strong opposition from US hams. The recent proposal from the
"Communications Think Tank", which would have eliminated subbands-by-
mode, was strongly opposed in comments to FCC - so much that CTT
removed the proposal. Any such proposal means "data in the phone
bands", too.

I'm not proposing that we do away with sub-bands by mode. What I'm
proposing is to expand our phone bands down to 14.112 and 21.151 on SSB

Here's a similar question: Why do 'phone stations need
to be protected
from data signals but CW signals don't need that protection?
IOW, why
not allow data modes in the 'phone bands?

I think the answer to that is that CW ops are typically using narrow
receiving filters while phone ops may be listening through 2.4 or
2.7
KHz filters. � A little of that digital signal cacophony can wreak
havoc with a phone QSO.

Can't such interference be dealt with using a notch filter? A PSK31
signal is only a few dozen Hz wide, for example.

....but a Pactor signal is a couple of hundred Hz wide and an RTTY signal
is only a little less. I can vary the width of my notch filter as well
as the center frequency. Can everyone do that? Passband tuning helps too.

Even more basic, isn't it the responsibility of all operators to avoid
transmitting on top of existing QSOs? Why would digital ops behave
differently in this regard when faced with 'phone signals vs. CW
signals?

That's one reason that I think it is a good idea to maintain sub-bands
by mode. Many digital ops aren't listening to audio at all. Many CW
ops are using filters as narrow as 100 Hz. Phone ops may hear them but
they may not hear a phone signal, especially if it is weak.

Dave K8MN

wrote:

Can't such interference be dealt with using a notch filter? A PSK31
signal is only a few dozen Hz wide, for example.

The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that we have all these
wonderful controls on our radios, sometimes we need to use them.

I learned a lot about CW filters, PBT, notching etc, with my PSK31
waterfall setup. As you invoke and adjust the various functions, the
noise floor of the waterfall gives a nice graphic display of what each
filter does.


Even more basic, isn't it the responsibility of all operators to avoid
transmitting on top of existing QSOs? Why would digital ops behave
differently in this regard when faced with 'phone signals vs. CW
signals?

Yes, and they don't as far as I know.

I think that on some bands, such as 20 meters, a person can accidentally
stomp on another due to propagation, So often we only hear (or see) one
side of the QSO. We fire up, and soon the Ham we can hear and can hear
us tells us of our error.

I wonder what frequencies G4JCI is referring to? And note to G4JCI:I
think you might have a typo in your call sign, there isn't any reference
on QRZ to that call.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael Coslo wrote:

I think that on some bands, such as 20 meters, a person can accidentally
stomp on another due to propagation, So often we only hear (or see) one
side of the QSO. We fire up, and soon the Ham we can hear and can hear
us tells us of our error.

I wonder what frequencies G4JCI is referring to? And note to G4JCI:I
think you might have a typo in your call sign, there isn't any reference
on QRZ to that call.

The call is perfectly OK since around 1977, in the UK we have a privacy
option which stops the RSGB and others including us in callbooks etc.
The call was previously ZS6N but that has since been re-issued to
someone else after I left ZS land in 1982.

My point is that here in Europe we have to get by with a concealed
wire antenna in the attic and QRP to avoid TVI complaints etc.
All too often some clown (usually in the USA) can barely hear us and
cranks up with a few kilowatts and an antenna farm. This same clown
usually gets a 30/9 report from someone and chews the rag for half
an hour at the same output instead of reducing power to the minimum
required to maintain communications.

It is this inconsiderate behaviour which gives USA operators a bad
reputation in the rest of the world. Of course there are plenty
of good guys out there, as always it is the bad operators who set
the bad standards.

g4jci

In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote:

I think that on some bands, such as 20 meters, a person can accidentally
stomp on another due to propagation, So often we only hear (or see) one
side of the QSO. We fire up, and soon the Ham we can hear and can hear
us tells us of our error.

That can happen on any HF band, I believe.

This issue was behind a lot of the protest over one aspect of the
ARRL's now-withdrawn "sub-bands by bandwidth" proposal. The proposal
had suggested opening up a much larger portion of the band to
unattended and semi-attended digital stations (typically, email
servers). Such systems are rather notorious for "stepping on" QSOs in
progress, due in part to this "only can hear one half of the existing
QSO" problem.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

On Mar 30, 11:43Â pm, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 30, 7:37� pm, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 29, 1:18�pm, Dave Heil wrote:
Remember that often the DX is transmitting outside the US
'phone subband.

Rare stuff, yes. Â Less rare stuff, not as often.

The time is long past for divided phone band segments.
� I believe that
the phone bands should be harmonized worldwide.

Be careful what you ask for.

In much if not most of the rest of the world, there are no subbands-by-
mode. The amateur regs simply state which modes are allowed on each
band, and leave the rest up to gentleman's agreements.

Point well taken. Â It works pretty well for the most part. Â Cont
ests are
a different matter. Â Let's take the 40m band as an example of when it

doesn't work well. Â In a phone contest, foreign SSB stations can ofte
n
be heard CQing as low as 7.010 despite the fact that the IARU bandplan
calls for them to no go below 7.030 or .035 as I recall.

Right. Now add a couple hundred thousand US hams to that mix....

It seems to me that countries which do not have subbands-by-mode would
resist following the US example and adding them, if for no other
reason than that they'd no longer have a refuge from US 'phone QRM.

I'd like to get away from that "refuge" concept as some sort of foreign
entitlement.

Point is, the foreign 'phone folks may not agree with you. How do we
in the USA
sell the idea that other countries should add limited phone subbands
to their rules?

 I'd also like to get away from the idea that U.S. phone
operation is "QRM". Â We're big boys and they're big boys. Â We do
n't
piddle in our end of the pool and they don't piddle in theirs.

Yet the calling CQ well below where the bandplan says no.

I'm not proposing that we do away with sub-bands by mode. Â What I'm
proposing is to expand our phone bands down to 14.112 and 21.151 on SSB

OK, but what will happen is that the DX phones will simply move even
further down the band. It's happened every time.

Can't such interference be dealt with using a notch filter? A PSK31
signal is only a few dozen Hz wide, for example.

...but a Pactor signal is a couple of hundred Hz wide and an RTTY signal
is only a little less.

So if one plops down on top of a CW QSO the mess is at least as bad as
if one plops down on a 'phone QSO. But 'phone QSOs are protected from
such interference while CW QSOs aren't.

 I can vary the width of my notch filter as well
as the center frequency. Â Can everyone do that? Â Passband tuning
helps too.

Yep. So does a good antenna system and lotsa watts.

Even more basic, isn't it the responsibility of all operators to avoid
transmitting on top of existing QSOs? Why would digital ops behave
differently in this regard when faced with 'phone signals vs. CW
signals?

That's one reason that I think it is a good idea to maintain sub-bands
by mode. Â Many digital ops aren't listening to audio at all. Â Ma
ny CW
ops are using filters as narrow as 100 Hz. Â Phone ops may hear them b
ut
they may not hear a phone signal, especially if it is weak.

The problem is that under current rules, as the US phone subbands get
wider, the CW/data subbands get narrower, and the spectrum-efficient
modes get squeezed more and more. That's just not right.

I think W5DXP's idea has the most merit: Wide modes at the top of the
band, narrow modes at the bottom, shared space in the middle.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Dave Platt wrote:
In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote:

I think that on some bands, such as 20 meters, a person can accidentally
stomp on another due to propagation, So often we only hear (or see) one
side of the QSO. We fire up, and soon the Ham we can hear and can hear
us tells us of our error.

That can happen on any HF band, I believe.

True, I used 20 meters as an example because it is the most common band
with the "worst" problem.


This issue was behind a lot of the protest over one aspect of the
ARRL's now-withdrawn "sub-bands by bandwidth" proposal. The proposal
had suggested opening up a much larger portion of the band to
unattended and semi-attended digital stations (typically, email
servers). Such systems are rather notorious for "stepping on" QSOs in
progress, due in part to this "only can hear one half of the existing
QSO" problem.

Many is the time that those robot stations have obliterated the PSK-31
segment of 20 meters. Two of them close the band. They don't check, they
just start transmitting, and they keep it up, presumably until they get
acknowledgment from another robot station.

It got so bad that Digipan added a decoder for the mode (no transmit) so
that we gould catch the callsigns, record the disruption, and and turn
them in to the FCC. Apparently this worked, because the problem is
diminishing.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -