I've been reading this discussion chain with every intention not to get
pulled in, but ignoring my better judgment, I have to comment on two
points made in the last two contributions.
First, it's a gross generalization to say that "new RTTY operators just
don't give a rip about CW" and one which can not be supported with
objective evidence. I've been operating CW for 38 years and RTTY for
about 5 years. I still enjoy and respect CW as my preferred mode of
operation. Based on the growing number of familiar call signs that I
routinely work during RTTY contests, it's apparent that large numbers of
other old time CW contesters/operators are also enjoying the mode.
Secondly, are we to accept that once a gentleman's agreement is
established, there will never come a time when it may need to be revised
or at least revisited? Gentleman's agreements are established to
address issues related to a particular set of circumstances. If those
circumstances change, it serves no useful purpose to continue to require
adherence to an otherwise obsolete agreement.
There was a time when I could tune from 7.000 to 7.150 on any evening
and have a very difficult time finding a clear spot to initiate a QSO.
Keeping operating modes separated with a gentleman's agreement when this
level of activity was the norm, obviously makes a lot of sense.
Regrettably, it's not uncommon now to tune across that same segment in
the evening and hear only one or two QSOs; sometimes none. Given the
current levels of activity on our bands, perhaps it's time to re-examine
some of our long-held operating habits.
Kent, AE4Y
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
> Dead center hit.
>
> The "new RTTY operators" just don't give a rip about CW.
>
> Dan/W4NTI
>
>
>
> ku8e at bellsouth.net wrote:
>> Bill...
>>
>> You don't get the point and are side stepping the issue. Sure, It is true
>> that legally you can
>> operate RTTY where the FCC rules say you can , which includes the whole
>> bottom
>> end of 40 meters.
>>
>> The point is there have been bandplans, gentleman's agreements (both formal
>> and informal)
>> or whatever you want to call them in place for longer than you and I have
>> been hams. You know as well as I do that there is a DX window of 160 meters
>> - 1825-1830. These agreements are meant to
>> be a gentlemanly way to "keep the peace" and allow everyone to enjoy
>> whatever activity they like to do
>> be it DXing , ragchewing, CW, RTTY or whatever...
>>
>> Many of the new RTTY operators out there are just ignore these agreements
>> and operate where they want and use the same arguments you do that it's
>> their "right" because the FCC says they can operate on a certain frequency.
>> I have had a RTTY operator start up on a frequency I have been
>> on many times. At least on CW you can do a QRL? to ask if the frequency is
>> is use. I doubt that RTTY
>> operators do this... they just start up where they want too. I'm not saying
>> there are not bad apples on CW.. there probably are and maybe they are
>> handling things the wrong way by jamming a RTTY station who might of
>> interupted their QSO.
>>
>> The bottom line is this RTTY/CW issue didn't exist before a few years ago
>> until programs like MMTTY
>> became available to make it easy to get on this mode without much investment
>> of $$$...
>>
>> Jeff KU8E
|