First, an apology - I failed to notice that CQ-Contest wasn't on the
incoming address list. I'm very conscious of the breach of netiquette
involved in taking a private note public. With the combination of how my
e-mailer works and the way this list is set up, I quite often realize that
I have inadvertently composed a reply only to the writer, and manually
change "you said" to "N6DE said", then adding the list back manually to the
addresses. In this case, I obviously shouldn't have done so.
As for the issue itself, perhaps I could have worded it differently,
because I certainly didn't have intimidation in mind. My only thought was
that suddenly having another 100 KHz available for intercontinental QSOs on
40M could lead to people moving up, if only because they were conscious
that the jam-ups that now occur between CW, RTTY and SSB could be avoided.
At least, can I suggest that some big contest stations in events like CQWW
SSB can now abandon the practice of calling CQ, "listening 7025."
73, Pete
At 09:28 PM 3/20/2009, Dean Wood wrote:
>Hi Pete, my first e-mail to you was private, as I intentionally
>omitted cq-contest. Why did you add the cq-contest list back on your
>reply, which contained my private note to you, without asking me
>first? Now you've put me in the position to defend myself on the
>cq-contest list.
>
>I'm not disagreeing with you about the idea that band plans could
>adjust when worldwide allocations change and/or broadcast stations
>QSY. I was responding to your quote: "I guess we'll have to rely on
>peer pressure to get some relief..." A reasonable interpretation of
>that is the suggestion that folks may want to consider applying peer
>pressure against 40m RTTY and SSB operators in a public forum when
>someone perceives them to be operating in a CW zone. Many people
>would see that as intimidation in an attempt to get those operators to
>transmit outside the CW zone next time, despite their operating in
>accordance with their country's frequency allocation rules and
>existing band plan suggestions. If that's not really what you wanted
>cq-contest readers to take away from your e-mail, perhaps you could
>clarify what you meant by "peer pressure to get some relief". The
>point of my private e-mail to you was that peaceful band cohabitation
>with other modes in the same segment is key, without intentional
>interference, given the existing 40m band plans around the world.
>
>I think your beef ought to be with band plans themselves and not to
>raise the idea of peer pressure as an alternative in order to coerce
>SSB and RTTY operators outside of a 40m zone that some might prefer to
>be CW only.
>
>73...
>-Dean - N6DE
>
>
>On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com> wrote:
> > I think you mistake my intentions, Dean - I was just asking why 40 couldn't
> > be more like 20, with RTTY starting around ~7070, now that there is much
> > more spectrum above it. "Intimidate"? Give me a break!
> >
> > 73, Pete
> >
> > At 11:58 AM 3/20/2009, N6DE wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Pete, for what reason would peer pressure be applied? For RTTY
> >> stations operating within their own band plans?
> >>
> >> The JA band plan for 40m RTTY is 7025-7045.
> >>
> >> The key here is band cohabitation. Trying to publicly intimidate
> >> stations operating RTTY or SSB to not operate within their own band
> >> plans is not going to be a successful tactic. It will, however, be
> >> successful at starting a flame war. We already have too much of that
> >> on cq-contest.
> >>
> >> The only time there's a problem is when a digital station calls CQ on
> >> top of me as a CW station. And when a CW station calls CQ right on
> >> top of me as a RTTY station. I regularly operate CW, RTTY, and SSB,
> >> and my experience has consistently been that CW stations transmit on
> >> top of me operating RTTY much more than RTTY stations transmit on top
> >> of me as a CW operator. (and the radio's filter used was the same
> >> between modes - 250Hz or 500Hz) These offending CW stations tarnish
> >> things for the rest of us CW operators who don't intentionally
> >> interfere with other modes and can coexist peacefully in the same band
> >> segment.
> >>
> >> 73...
> >> -Dean - N6DE
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Which is pretty disappointing, with digital modes starting at 7040, while
> >> on 20, for example, they do not begin until 14070. I'm also not thrilled
> >> to see unattended digital data devices at 7050-53, and SSB down to 7060.
> >> I
> >> guess we'll have to rely on peer pressure to get some relief, at least
> >> until 7200-7300 reverts to amateur use (in ?).
> >>
> >> 73, Pete N4ZR
> >
> >
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|