Tom, "on point" ....... I am, almost exclusively, a CW and Digi op in that
order. I will say, anecdotally, that I have not experienced any interference
caused by one or the other to the other on 160. I admit that I am not THE most
active op on 160, but I am there a fair amount of time.
Since most 160 band plans, like the DX window, seem to have gone by the
wayside, it would be incumbent upon us as those who love the band, to come up
with one that includes the newer modes. The reason? Better utilization by
those who have WAY LESS than optimal stations for 160. Particularly those who
are antenna and power limited. With the advent of modes like JT65, this has
been a godsend for the apartment dweller or those who live in a yard-nazi
environment that makes it virtually impossible to put up anything larger than a
mobile whip. Ask those folks about JT65 and they practically bow to the
software writer as being the savior of their operating.
Having said that, I think there is room for all who want to try to operate 160
(not really that many people out of the whole ham population, truth be told).
Digi modes make it possible for those who have that intense desire but lack the
room for antennas that are anything like what we would call decent. WE just
need to come up with a plan and get some of the 160 heavy hitters to endorse
it, right? We cannot hold back digital progress, but we certainly can come up
with plans that work...... My opinion, but there it is. We should try to
include everyone we can.
If it were only up to me, I would ban SSB from any band that has less than 300
khz total space available. It takes up way too much room for the intelligence
it conveys. BUT.... I am not the gawd of ham radio and must tolerate its
presence on bands like 160 and 40, both of which have band limitations (size
and/or broadcasters interference which makes the bands effectively smaller).
Not wanting to start a flame war about SSB, just mentioning my own personal
usage prejudices....... And that really IS one of mine. Like I said early
on..... CW and Digi for me. Phone belongs on VHF/UHF...... LOL.
So whaddaya guys think? It really IS up to "us"........ The users and lovers
of 160 ( or any other band for that matter). I find CW and DIGI ops to be VERY
cognizant of each others presence and have rarely seen intentional interference
between those two...... Except when digi ops stray below the "digi borders"
into the 20 meter CW portions..... At which point the CW ops lay a carrier on
them to get them to move. I do 't believe I have seen it go the other way.....
But I am sure it has on occasion. Since both modes are definitely "space
saving" and very efficient, I think there is room for all....... As I seem to
have stated in this lengthy tome.
Mike A (AB7ZU)
Kuhi no ka lima, hele no ka maka
On Sep 16, 2012, at 11:53, "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com> wrote:
>> An additional issue for weak sig CW folks is the nature of digi operations.
>> Digi operators don't always check for pre-existing activity. The result is
>> the digi setup begins its 1 minute of howling, irrespective of some CW
>> activity already in progress. No problem to the digi operator whose setup
>> will mindlessly repeat until acknowledged. A deal breaker to the CW activity.
>
> I think some of the problem you notice, if not most of it, is the digi op
> (like most operators) tends to think in terms of his system's processed
> bandwidth and not the receiver bandwidth other surrounding operators use.
>
> Another part is they just may not recognize CW, or what the CW station is
> doing.
>
> This is why the FCC, wisely, did not mix modes.
>
>> Like Tom I neither endorse nor object to digi activity, except as it jams
>> existing CW. I share his opinion that the frequency choice for digi activity
>> could not have been more poorly chosen.
>
> It would be great to have a real discussion about this (and other things),
> because it might help the overall band long term. I'm starting to think
> rational non-personal on-point discussions of fact are not possible in
> America any longer. It's actually called the Brooklyn syndrome, but it seems
> to be spreading.
>
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,852006,00.html
>
> 73 Tom
> _______________________________________________
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
_______________________________________________
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
|