PSK vs FT8 Talk Show Invite


Steve VA3FLF/KM4FLF
 

You guys might remember a while back that I mentioned I had written to the hosts of Ham Radio Now, Gary Pearce and David Goldenberg. From Davis's emaill to me today, it appears that Joe Taylor has not responded and Gary Hinson, ZL2FB stated that his work schedule didn't allow him any free time.  So having said that, I have been invited to come on the show and discuss the FT8 vs PSK issues.

This would be a monumental task but i would be honored to represent the members of this group, not officially, but as a ham that enjoys PSK and is concerned about the encroachment into the PSK sections of the band. My perspective would not be one as confrontational but as a person seeking common sense cooperation on this issue. 

I guess my questions to the 070 Group are, should I accept the offer?  Secondly, what constructive comments and points should I make to get some attention from ARRL, IARU, and others organizations? I know we have had days of ranting and complaining of which I have taken part. In order to do this the right way we need to approach it calmly and logically.

So I am open for constructive points and comments and do you think this would be something I should do?  Honestly, I know there are people here in the club like Matt, David, or Jim that would be a far better choice to be a Youtube celebrity than me.

Thanks,

Steve
2301
KM4FLF
VA3FLF


Bill Garwood
 

Steve,


I think that would be a great idea.  The clutter in the digital bands is only going to get worse unless there is a concerted effort to get it better organized world-wide.

The Digital Modes Club lists somewhere over 100 modes that they are accepting QSO data from for their awards.  Here's the link: http://www.digital-modes-club.org/index.php/en/top-menu-1/valid-modes .  I mention that only to show that has the potential to be much more than the FT8 vs PSK31 problem.  


A lot of CW today is being sent and/or received by computer soundcard so it is not quite like the CW of old.  A merger of the CW and digital bands or similar could help with freeing up some bandwidth.  Maybe set aside a portion of the CW band solely for traditional CW operation, send by hand and copy by ear.


Finally, I remember the problems decades ago with the large number of two meter FM repeaters that sprung up almost overnight.  It ended up with the designated repeater coordinators who had the authority to clean up the clutter.  A digital mode coordinating group could be created.  PSK would be assigned a certain area, FT8 and other modes as well.  Some modes could be co-located in the same area depending on how well they play together.  Any new digital modes would be welcomed but would be assigned a certain area to operate within the digital world.  This would be different than the current "band plan" that is basically a gentleman's agreement.  DXPeditions and contests need to be considered.


We are not going to fix it overnight but separating PSK and FT8 on 17 meters would be a good start. 


Thanks and have a great weekend!


Bill N4GBK -  creating havoc on the airwaves since 1963     



From: 070Club@groups.io <070Club@groups.io> on behalf of Steve R via Groups.Io <oldjavadrinker@...>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 6:02:47 PM
To: 070Club@groups.io
Subject: [070Club] PSK vs FT8 Talk Show Invite
 

You guys might remember a while back that I mentioned I had written to the hosts of Ham Radio Now, Gary Pearce and David Goldenberg. From Davis's emaill to me today, it appears that Joe Taylor has not responded and Gary Hinson, ZL2FB stated that his work schedule didn't allow him any free time.  So having said that, I have been invited to come on the show and discuss the FT8 vs PSK issues.

This would be a monumental task but i would be honored to represent the members of this group, not officially, but as a ham that enjoys PSK and is concerned about the encroachment into the PSK sections of the band. My perspective would not be one as confrontational but as a person seeking common sense cooperation on this issue. 

I guess my questions to the 070 Group are, should I accept the offer?  Secondly, what constructive comments and points should I make to get some attention from ARRL, IARU, and others organizations? I know we have had days of ranting and complaining of which I have taken part. In order to do this the right way we need to approach it calmly and logically.

So I am open for constructive points and comments and do you think this would be something I should do?  Honestly, I know there are people here in the club like Matt, David, or Jim that would be a far better choice to be a Youtube celebrity than me.

Thanks,

Steve
2301
KM4FLF
VA3FLF


Jerry N9AVY
 

About the repeaters on 2m .....   was there in the 80's up to now.  Living in far Northern suburbs of Chicago just about every repeater was busy almost 24 hours.  All the repeater pairs were assigned and there were some renegade (not coordinated) repeaters.   Flash forward to today and most of those repeaters are more or less silent with some occasional traffic. My home repeater on 145.410 was one of 2 in the country in the 70's with the other being in Harvard MA. 
 
Think it became some sort of status symbol or ego booster to say you owned a repeater .  This was also happening on 440  and 220. 
 
Perhaps that that will happen to some of the digital modes; they will fall into disuse as our ham population decreases...
 
 
just my 2 cents ...
 
 
Jerry   n9avy



From: Bill Garwood <n4gbk@...>
To: "070Club@groups.io" <070Club@groups.io>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 7:52 PM
Subject: Re: [070Club] PSK vs FT8 Talk Show Invite

Steve,

I think that would be a great idea.  The clutter in the digital bands is only going to get worse unless there is a concerted effort to get it better organized world-wide.
The Digital Modes Club lists somewhere over 100 modes that they are accepting QSO data from for their awards.  Here's the link: http://www.digital-modes-club.org/index.php/en/top-menu-1/valid-modes .  I mention that only to show that has the potential to be much more than the FT8 vs PSK31 problem.  

A lot of CW today is being sent and/or received by computer soundcard so it is not quite like the CW of old.  A merger of the CW and digital bands or similar could help with freeing up some bandwidth.  Maybe set aside a portion of the CW band solely for traditional CW operation, send by hand and copy by ear.

Finally, I remember the problems decades ago with the large number of two meter FM repeaters that sprung up almost overnight.  It ended up with the designated repeater coordinators who had the authority to clean up the clutter.  A digital mode coordinating group could be created.  PSK would be assigned a certain area, FT8 and other modes as well.  Some modes could be co-located in the same area depending on how well they play together.  Any new digital modes would be welcomed but would be assigned a certain area to operate within the digital world.  This would be different than the current "band plan" that is basically a gentleman's agreement.  DXPeditions and contests need to be considered.

We are not going to fix it overnight but separating PSK and FT8 on 17 meters would be a good start. 

Thanks and have a great weekend!

Bill N4GBK -  creating havoc on the airwaves since 1963     


From: 070Club@groups.io <070Club@groups.io> on behalf of Steve R via Groups.Io <oldjavadrinker@...>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 6:02:47 PM
To: 070Club@groups.io
Subject: [070Club] PSK vs FT8 Talk Show Invite
 
You guys might remember a while back that I mentioned I had written to the hosts of Ham Radio Now, Gary Pearce and David Goldenberg. From Davis's emaill to me today, it appears that Joe Taylor has not responded and Gary Hinson, ZL2FB stated that his work schedule didn't allow him any free time.  So having said that, I have been invited to come on the show and discuss the FT8 vs PSK issues.

This would be a monumental task but i would be honored to represent the members of this group, not officially, but as a ham that enjoys PSK and is concerned about the encroachment into the PSK sections of the band. My perspective would not be one as confrontational but as a person seeking common sense cooperation on this issue. 

I guess my questions to the 070 Group are, should I accept the offer?  Secondly, what constructive comments and points should I make to get some attention from ARRL, IARU, and others organizations? I know we have had days of ranting and complaining of which I have taken part. In order to do this the right way we need to approach it calmly and logically.

So I am open for constructive points and comments and do you think this would be something I should do?  Honestly, I know there are people here in the club like Matt, David, or Jim that would be a far better choice to be a Youtube celebrity than me.

Thanks,

Steve
2301
KM4FLF
VA3FLF



Virus-free. www.avg.com


Richard Rohrer
 

Hi Steve,

I think you should go on the show and explain the problems encountered by users of other digital modes with the FT8 group selection of default frequencies.

I have expressed my view to my local Section Manager and got a "get the ARRL nor the FCC can regulate the frequencies different modes use" if they are in the FCC frequency allocation table.  As others have stated, the problem seems to be that the ARRL has pushed the mode thru several articles and then the Grid Chase.  Which many operators feel that the ARRL is partially responsible for the problem.  Some have suggested we just move down the band into the traditional CW frequencies, which according to the allocation table we can legally do, and see if that shocks the league into action.   I for one, don't think is the correct solution, since it would make other digital user just as bad as the FT8 group.  It does seem psk31 could move down some what since there is very little CW activity above 14.050.  

My 2 cents for what it is worth.

73
Dick - KC3EF


w3qt_mike
 

Bill, N4GBK,

Bill, I agree with much of what you say, but let me begin by proudly stating that I'm an anachronism.  I can be no other based on my experience in ham radio since 1965.  I employ the "CW of old."  My palms still get sweaty remembering the hours of practice to hit CW at 5 wpm, then 13 wpm and finally 25 wpm.  As an old-timer who still uses his Vibroplex Lightning and enjoys a QSO that claims Ragchewer status, I know, an eternity by the standards of many in today's ham ranks, I am dismayed at the general direction of the hobby.  Perhaps my concern is best illustrated by the questioning of an Extra Class operator in another forum.  He was using a vertical and wanted to know if his rig would be OK to use with a dipole! 

I think your prediction that the clutter in the digital bands is only going to get worse is exactly on target.  I would encourage any kind of action to head off what I see as a looming disaster for the ham community.  While I agree with you that action is necessary, I would take respectful issue with one of your suggestions ... "Maybe set aside a portion of the CW band solely for traditional CW operation, send by hand and copy by ear."  I'd rework that and suggest that maybe we should set aside a portion of the band solely for digital operation, and then enforce it.  I realize, of course, that with the dearth of preparation necessary for a ham license today, and the steady encroachment of information technology in our lives, that the noble communication mode of CW will not be able to withstand the onslaught of the "click it and forget it" modes.  I take solace in knowing that I'm on this end of the hobby's history and have many enjoyable years of "getting to know you, getting to know all about you," but am saddened that so many will miss the sense of community that I've experienced within the ham community over the years.  

My crystal ball sayd the future of ham radio will look something like this.  Get up in the morning.  Flip the switch and leave the house for the daily activities while allowing the computer to take over.  At night, before going to bed, look at the QSO counter and proudly proclaim, "Look, I made 172 contacts today."  Sadly, of those 172 contacts, you will not have learned to know even a little about anyone, but the computer counted flawlessly.  So, file me away.  As I said, I'm an anachronism, and my thoughts will most likely be problelmatic for some.  Now, I have to get out of here because I only have 8 seconds until the next round of calls, and I wouldn't want to miss anything.

73,
Mike, W3QT


Rick - N7WE
 

Steve-
I think you should do it!  I also think there are several points that might be emphasized.
1)  We are not "anti" FT-8, or any other form of amateur radio communications and believe there is room in the spectrum for all of us.  We are not trying to put the Genie back in the bottle.  What we are asking is common ham courtesy and respect of the commonly accepted band plans.
2)  We understand that the rules governing operating frequency and mode allow FT-8 operation at frequencies that had previously been thought of as PSK, or RTTY, or CW, etc. frequencies.  Historically, the "gentlemen's agreement" of band plans has worked well.  Now it seems under attack.  While FT-8 operators are legal, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should!"
3) The 17m default FT-8 frequency has virtually eliminated the PSK on 17m.  It should be noted that 18.100 was not Joe's original setting for the default.  That was changed in later releases, after a lot of back and forth on the WSTJ-X reflector.
4) The pre-release tests of the new "DX Fox and Hound" approach has led to abuse by DX operators using it outside of test periods, contrary to the WSTJ group's specific request.  It has also led to "spreading" the FT-8 activity into much broader frequency ranges disrupting other modes that are on historical frequencies.
5)  Many operators are running FT-8 at power levels beyond "necessary to establish reliable communications."  Doing so on historical "other mode" frequencies, adds to the QRM of low power modes like PSK, compounding the problem.

Just my 2 cents - your's to use, loose, or abuse as you see fit!  Good luck Steve, I think you will be a fine representative of the ham community!
--
Rick - N7WE
070 - #1602


F.R. Ashley
 

Rick,

You make some good points.  I think it is going to get worse.  Like I've said before, if the ARRL gets its way, and probably will, there will be  380,000 Techs getting on HF and FT-8.   The digital areas will be obliterated.  We better figure out a way to get a grip of this somehow.

73 Buddy WB4M


It was probably a foregone conclusion the fox and hound mode would be abused by a certain percentage of hams.


On 4/21/2018 08:37 AM, Rick - N7WE wrote:

Steve-
I think you should do it!  I also think there are several points that might be emphasized.
1)  We are not "anti" FT-8, or any other form of amateur radio communications and believe there is room in the spectrum for all of us.  We are not trying to put the Genie back in the bottle.  What we are asking is common ham courtesy and respect of the commonly accepted band plans.
2)  We understand that the rules governing operating frequency and mode allow FT-8 operation at frequencies that had previously been thought of as PSK, or RTTY, or CW, etc. frequencies.  Historically, the "gentlemen's agreement" of band plans has worked well.  Now it seems under attack.  While FT-8 operators are legal, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should!"
3) The 17m default FT-8 frequency has virtually eliminated the PSK on 17m.  It should be noted that 18.100 was not Joe's original setting for the default.  That was changed in later releases, after a lot of back and forth on the WSTJ-X reflector.
4) The pre-release tests of the new "DX Fox and Hound" approach has led to abuse by DX operators using it outside of test periods, contrary to the WSTJ group's specific request.  It has also led to "spreading" the FT-8 activity into much broader frequency ranges disrupting other modes that are on historical frequencies.
5)  Many operators are running FT-8 at power levels beyond "necessary to establish reliable communications."  Doing so on historical "other mode" frequencies, adds to the QRM of low power modes like PSK, compounding the problem.

Just my 2 cents - your's to use, loose, or abuse as you see fit!  Good luck Steve, I think you will be a fine representative of the ham community!
--
Rick - N7WE
070 - #1602
_._,_._,_


Bill Garwood
 

Mike, 


My comment about the CW band was sort of tongue in cheek.  Since 1963, I've made thousands of CW QSOs.  Almost all with a straight key at 20 WPM or less.  I used to spend a lot of time in the Novice bands and was the first contact for a lot of newbies on CW.  DXCC, WAS, RCC etc. on CW with a wire and barefoot rig.  (Not doing much CW anymore due to medical.) The use of computers (and remote operation via the internet) to send and receive over the ham frequencies has changed things, a lot.  If it is sent and decoded by computer, is it really CW?   I got off subject a bit, back to PSK....


Thanks and 73!


Bill N4GBK   


From: 070Club@groups.io <070Club@groups.io> on behalf of w3qt_mike <w3qt@...>
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2018 11:10:43 AM
To: 070Club@groups.io
Subject: Re: [070Club] PSK vs FT8 Talk Show Invite
 
Bill, N4GBK,

Bill, I agree with much of what you say, but let me begin by proudly stating that I'm an anachronism.  I can be no other based on my experience in ham radio since 1965.  I employ the "CW of old."  My palms still get sweaty remembering the hours of practice to hit CW at 5 wpm, then 13 wpm and finally 25 wpm.  As an old-timer who still uses his Vibroplex Lightning and enjoys a QSO that claims Ragchewer status, I know, an eternity by the standards of many in today's ham ranks, I am dismayed at the general direction of the hobby.  Perhaps my concern is best illustrated by the questioning of an Extra Class operator in another forum.  He was using a vertical and wanted to know if his rig would be OK to use with a dipole! 

I think your prediction that the clutter in the digital bands is only going to get worse is exactly on target.  I would encourage any kind of action to head off what I see as a looming disaster for the ham community.  While I agree with you that action is necessary, I would take respectful issue with one of your suggestions ... "Maybe set aside a portion of the CW band solely for traditional CW operation, send by hand and copy by ear."  I'd rework that and suggest that maybe we should set aside a portion of the band solely for digital operation, and then enforce it.  I realize, of course, that with the dearth of preparation necessary for a ham license today, and the steady encroachment of information technology in our lives, that the noble communication mode of CW will not be able to withstand the onslaught of the "click it and forget it" modes.  I take solace in knowing that I'm on this end of the hobby's history and have many enjoyable years of "getting to know you, getting to know all about you," but am saddened that so many will miss the sense of community that I've experienced within the ham community over the years.  

My crystal ball sayd the future of ham radio will look something like this.  Get up in the morning.  Flip the switch and leave the house for the daily activities while allowing the computer to take over.  At night, before going to bed, look at the QSO counter and proudly proclaim, "Look, I made 172 contacts today."  Sadly, of those 172 contacts, you will not have learned to know even a little about anyone, but the computer counted flawlessly.  So, file me away.  As I said, I'm an anachronism, and my thoughts will most likely be problelmatic for some.  Now, I have to get out of here because I only have 8 seconds until the next round of calls, and I wouldn't want to miss anything.

73,
Mike, W3QT