GeorgeF wrote:
Caveat Lector wrote:

RTTY ers don't usually read the QRP pages for frequency useage
They probably read the ARRL pages for this

It is a conflict and the two entities ought to straighten it out

Its to the point where the last few days even operating CW on 40 has
been a waste. Twice tonight 20+ minutes into two different QSO's had

RTTY coming right on top..... Guess they couldn't hear that the freq

was already in use (ya right!)

Some kind of RTTY contest going on.

Remember too that 40 meters is only 7000-7100 outside of IARU Region 2.

That will change in the next few years but right now a lot of DX is
allowed above 7100. And as we head towards sunspot minimum, folks who
were spread all over the bands above 10 MHz are being pushed lower in
frequency due to lack of propagation. Happens every cycle.

The best solution would be for the bottom 50-75 kc\Hz of each band to
be
made CW-only - by law.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
GeorgeF wrote:
Caveat Lector wrote:

RTTY ers don't usually read the QRP pages for frequency useage
They probably read the ARRL pages for this

It is a conflict and the two entities ought to straighten it out

Its to the point where the last few days even operating CW on 40
has
been a waste. Twice tonight 20+ minutes into two different QSO's
had

RTTY coming right on top..... Guess they couldn't hear that the
freq

was already in use (ya right!)

Some kind of RTTY contest going on.

Remember too that 40 meters is only 7000-7100 outside of IARU Region
2.

That will change in the next few years but right now a lot of DX is
allowed above 7100.

Even more is allowed below 7100, from where we sit.

And as we head towards sunspot minimum, folks who
were spread all over the bands above 10 MHz are being pushed lower in
frequency due to lack of propagation. Happens every cycle.

Good point.

The best solution would be for the bottom 50-75 kc\Hz of each band to
be
made CW-only - by law.

Ooops. You just blew it. You were passing out relatively accurate
info up to this point. Your Morsentricity is showing.

bb wrote:
wrote:

The best solution would be for the bottom 50-75 kc\Hz of each band
to
be
made CW-only - by law.

Ooops. You just blew it. You were passing out relatively accurate
info up to this point. Your Morsentricity is showing.

How did he "blow it"...?!?!

He made a suggestion...Not a statement of fact.

The FACT is that despite similarities of various narrow band
modes, many just don't work well in close proximity to each other.
Mode specific subbands would tend to reduce those occurences of
dissimilar mode QRM.

73

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:

The FACT is that despite similarities of various narrow band
modes, many just don't work well in close proximity to each other.
Mode specific subbands would tend to reduce those occurences of
dissimilar mode QRM.

Forgot to add:

This is not a prctical option, though. What is an "adequate"
amount of bandwidth for a mode today will, undoubtedly be way too much
or way to little tomorrow.

Skilled operators observing "Gentleman's Band Plans" remains the
prefered methodology for this.

73

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

The FACT is that despite similarities of various narrow band
modes, many just don't work well in close proximity to each other.
Mode specific subbands would tend to reduce those occurences of
dissimilar mode QRM.

Forgot to add:

This is not a prctical option, though. What is an "adequate"
amount of bandwidth for a mode today will, undoubtedly be way too
much
or way to little tomorrow.

Skilled operators observing "Gentleman's Band Plans" remains the
prefered methodology for this.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Now you've got the idea.

K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
wrote:

The best solution would be for the bottom 50-75 kc\Hz of each
band
to
be
made CW-only - by law.

Ooops. You just blew it. You were passing out relatively accurate
info up to this point. Your Morsentricity is showing.

How did he "blow it"...?!?!

He made a suggestion...Not a statement of fact.

The FACT is that despite similarities of various narrow band
modes, many just don't work well in close proximity to each other.
Mode specific subbands would tend to reduce those occurences of
dissimilar mode QRM.

73

Steve, K4YZ

The fact is that he's got all of the Novice subbands to go play in.

wrote:

GeorgeF wrote:

Caveat Lector wrote:


RTTY ers don't usually read the QRP pages for frequency useage
They probably read the ARRL pages for this

It is a conflict and the two entities ought to straighten it out

Exactly. Maybe the RTTY was operating QRP?



Remember too that 40 meters is only 7000-7100 outside of IARU Region 2.

That will change in the next few years but right now a lot of DX is
allowed above 7100. And as we head towards sunspot minimum, folks who
were spread all over the bands above 10 MHz are being pushed lower in
frequency due to lack of propagation. Happens every cycle.

The best solution would be for the bottom 50-75 kc\Hz of each band to
be
made CW-only - by law.

The FCC doesn't want to end up doing this sort of micro-
management. It's better if hams decide (via ARRL or such
group) what subbands are where. And if something needs to
change it doesn't take years to do it. The FCC acknowledges
such as "good amateur practice".

robert casey wrote:
wrote:

GeorgeF wrote:

Caveat Lector wrote:


RTTY ers don't usually read the QRP pages for frequency useage
They probably read the ARRL pages for this

It is a conflict and the two entities ought to straighten it out

Exactly. Maybe the RTTY was operating QRP?



Remember too that 40 meters is only 7000-7100 outside of IARU
Region 2.

That will change in the next few years but right now a lot of DX is
allowed above 7100. And as we head towards sunspot minimum, folks
who
were spread all over the bands above 10 MHz are being pushed lower
in
frequency due to lack of propagation. Happens every cycle.

The best solution would be for the bottom 50-75 kc\Hz of each band
to
be
made CW-only - by law.

The FCC doesn't want to end up doing this sort of micro-
management. It's better if hams decide (via ARRL or such
group) what subbands are where. And if something needs to
change it doesn't take years to do it. The FCC acknowledges
such as "good amateur practice".

Riley says that "Good Amateur Practice" is enforceable.

No one here believes it, though.

bb wrote:
robert casey wrote:

The FCC doesn't want to end up doing this sort of micro-
management. It's better if hams decide (via ARRL or such
group) what subbands are where. And if something needs to
change it doesn't take years to do it. The FCC acknowledges
such as "good amateur practice".

Riley says that "Good Amateur Practice" is enforceable.

No one here believes it, though.

Who doesn't believe it, Brain?

Quotes? Posts?

I know for a fact that Dave Heil, Jim Miccolis and myself have all
stated that FCC policy has been to minimize enforcement action in lieu
of self-policing, but has and will continue to issue citations to those
who violate established band plans, etc, when required to do so.

Now...WHO doesn't believe that "Good Amateur Practice" isn't
enforceable?

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
robert casey wrote:

The FCC doesn't want to end up doing this sort of micro-
management. It's better if hams decide (via ARRL or such
group) what subbands are where. And if something needs to
change it doesn't take years to do it. The FCC acknowledges
such as "good amateur practice".

Riley says that "Good Amateur Practice" is enforceable.

No one here believes it, though.

Who doesn't believe it, Brain?

Quotes? Posts?

I know for a fact that Dave Heil, Jim Miccolis and myself have
all
stated that FCC policy has been to minimize enforcement action in
lieu
of self-policing, but has and will continue to issue citations to
those
who violate established band plans, etc, when required to do so.

Now...WHO doesn't believe that "Good Amateur Practice" isn't
enforceable?

Steve, K4YZ

Simple. All those who think that communicating with out of band
frenchmen is good amateur practice.