How to address interference like a real ham

[ne3r]

One of the things that society blames its bad behavior on today are kids who grew up without a mother or a father or both. Is the same thing happening to ham radio? Licensees getting on the air without elmers. I'm sure glad I had an elmer, I still do have a few that I'd call my elmers, and I try to elmer the willing new hams out there.

One thing I was taught was that you never solve a dispute over the air. If I experienced interference, weather I thought it was unintentional or not, that it was best just to ignore it and continue with my QSO as long as it was possible, and if not, just QRT or QSY. Most importantly, if it was important enough to me, get the mailing address for the interfering station and send them a letter, providing all of the details, date, time, frequency, and so on. I never had to be told not to accuse the other station of intentional interference, just provide the facts.

I've actually done this twice, once I receive no response and never herd that station on the air again. The second time I got a reply, thanking me for letting him know and that he'd try to listen more closely and remember to call QRL (I pointed out that he started tuning up on frequency and went right into calling CQ).

Some folks seem to be interfered with more than others. This gets out of what my elmers have taught me, but if I were to be interfered with on more than one occasion by the same station, after the first letter, I'd send a second similar letter, including details of both instances of interference with a copy to the FCC. Subsequent instances would probably just be reports to the FCC.

I suppose that letters to folks that really don't care, or worse, intend to interfere with your QSO won't to much good, but no matter how obvious it is to you that someone is just being a lid, give them the benefit of the doubt and send them a friendly letter. I even let them know that I look forward to completing a QSO for the log in the near feature. If one out of a hundred learn a good lesson in courtesy, amateur radio will be better off.

73 de Joe NE3R

[W4INF]

Quote[/b] (ne3r @ Nov. 05 2007,19:04)]If I experienced interference, weather I thought it was unintentional or not, that it was best just to ignore it and continue with my QSO as long as it was possible, and if not, just QRT or QSY.
Out of everything you said, the above quoted should be everyone's motto!! It is the way I operate and if I have a good quality QSO the other op has ALWAYS been understanding and willing to move. Works FB for me!

Thanks for your common sense post too-
73-Andrew

[K1VSK]

All of the true gentlemen I've ever met who are hams use the VFO far more than a microphone

[KD4IFB]

I think this is a very positive post as well.. And should be the way its conducted to avoid interference..Ive planted myself a little close to QSOs before to have someone come down and tell me what was going on... I couldnt hear anything from where I was, but I was tearing them up.. I told them I was sorry, have a great day and moved on, both of us in a real curtious manner..The way it should be done.. Frequencys are going to get busyer.. And these type things are going to happen..You can "CRY" about it or handle it..alot of the interference thats going on might be brought to an end with just some good old fashion courtesy on all parts.. Great post.. 73 http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[kn4ds]

Good post... I've had folks come down and tell me they could hear me on a frequency they're trying to listen to a net on... so I moved... I've had propagation change and began hearing an ongoing QSO when I was calling CQ in a contest... I just moved...

I saw one thing happen today that I regret, but I'm not sure how I could have helped it...

I decided I'd try SSTV... did make a contact there, too... which was cool...

But one of the times I sent the CQSSTV pic, it showed up on a couple of the SSTV webcams mixed with another... I couldn't hear the other station at all, but the stations with the webcams could hear both of us...

I do NOT want to interfere with anyone, ever. SSTV and the online webcams gave me a chance to see the propagation issue in action...

My question is... how do you avoid something like that? I crashed another guy's CQ... what should I do to avoid that in the future?

[N5FOG]

Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ Nov. 05 2007,22:11)]My question is... how do you avoid something like that? I crashed another guy's CQ... what should I do to avoid that in the future?
Sad to say but there is not much you can do to avoid "crashing" someones CQ on SSTV if you cannot hear them.

FOG

[AG3Y]

Welcome to SSTV, Dave. The problem with SSTV on 14.230 is not getting any better, simply because many people are new to the mode, and the methods of operating have not caught up to the increase in popularity!

In earlier days, a couple of people could gather on 14.230, start sending pictures to one another, and an informal picture sharing net would form. Each station would transmit in turn, and get the next picture ready for transmission while the other stations around the "table" each took their own turn.

There are still a few old timers who try to work the mode that way. But as you have seen, many times a second or even a third station will come on and transmit a "CQ" picture before the first station has even finished his frame.

When I hear a situation like this, I move 3khz away and try to send my CQs at some other frequency than .230 I usually start heading down the band to .227 or even as low as .224 This gets me away from the webcams, but often will result in hooking up with someone who has lots of great pictures to share, and the QRM will be almost non-existant!

If you must call CQ on .230, use a very fast mode like B/W 12, and indicate in your picture that you will be listening on .227 or .224 or any other frequency that it is legal for you to use the mode in, and then QSY to that frequency as soon as someone comes back to you!

I wish some webcams would start listening on .227 or .224. This would encourage the use of some other frequencies, but still keep the SSTV activity close enough to .230 so that we wouldn't be spreading all over the phone bands!..

BTW, .233 and .236 are often used for digital SSTV, and fairly often, a "Kilocycle Kop" will remind you of that fact if you try to start sending an analog SSTV signal there. That is why I generally try to move down the band a bit!

So, in short, use a quick mode (BW-12) to send your CQ - indicate where you will be listening for a response - and join the other station on that frequency after you make a contact !

At least, that's the way I try to do it!

Hope this helps. 73, Hope to see your pictures on the band soon. Jim

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (AG3Y @ Nov. 06 2007,23:32)]Welcome to SSTV, Dave. The problem with SSTV on 14.230 is not getting any better, simply because many people are new to the mode, and the methods of operating have not caught up to the increase in popularity!

In earlier days, a couple of people could gather on 14.230, start sending pictures to one another, and an informal picture sharing net would form. Each station would transmit in turn, and get the next picture ready for transmission while the other stations around the "table" each took their own turn.

There are still a few old timers who try to work the mode that way. But as you have seen, many times a second or even a third station will come on and transmit a "CQ" picture before the first station has even finished his frame.

When I hear a situation like this, I move 3khz away and try to send my CQs at some other frequency than .230 I usually start heading down the band to .227 or even as low as .224 This gets me away from the webcams, but often will result in hooking up with someone who has lots of great pictures to share, and the QRM will be almost non-existant!

If you must call CQ on .230, use a very fast mode like B/W 12, and indicate in your picture that you will be listening on .227 or .224 or any other frequency that it is legal for you to use the mode in, and then QSY to that frequency as soon as someone comes back to you!

I wish some webcams would start listening on .227 or .224. This would encourage the use of some other frequencies, but still keep the SSTV activity close enough to .230 so that we wouldn't be spreading all over the phone bands!..

BTW, .233 and .236 are often used for digital SSTV, and fairly often, a "Kilocycle Kop" will remind you of that fact if you try to start sending an analog SSTV signal there. That is why I generally try to move down the band a bit!

So, in short, use a quick mode (BW-12) to send your CQ - indicate where you will be listening for a response - and join the other station on that frequency after you make a contact !

At least, that's the way I try to do it!

Hope this helps. 73, Hope to see your pictures on the band soon. Jim
Thanks for your thoughts, Jim... I saw your pics on the webcams today, but never did see you direct... possibly too close for 20 meters?

My Yaesu FT-101EE continues to impress me... with 30 watts out, here's what KE5RS in TX saw:

http://www.dbscom.com/images/KE5RS2.jpg

I never mean to interfere with anyone else, but I just don't see how it can be avoided when I can't hear other stations... and that problem's not limited to SSTV.

[AG3Y]

Dave, I had a station report me as very strong "595" and even transmitted a thumbnail of my transmission in his picture to me. The only thing was, I did not see or hear a peep from him. I saw his picture on a webcam, and it did show that I was solid to him. Why I could not see him is a complete mystery!

BTW, when I first came on the air this morning, I sent a CQ picture, which was picked up and replied to by a station in Germany ! I did not show up on the webcams ( not even KE5RS which usually shows me the best ) and apparently was not strong to any domestic stations, but the German station had a good copy on me.

You gotta love 20 meter propagation !

BTW, you might want to compare your reception with KE3Y's webcam. Trav often sees signals that no one else is seeing, and often misses signals that everyone else is seeing ! He and I are good friends, and I just wish that he could copy me as often as KE5RS ! But that is just NOT the way that the aforementioned propagation works!

You are probably close enough to one another that you should be seeing comparable signals. It would be an interesting study, anyway!

73, Jim

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (AG3Y @ Nov. 06 2007,23:45)]Dave, I had a station report me as very strong "595" and even transmitted a thumbnail of my transmission in his picture to me. The only thing was, I did not see or hear a peep from him. I saw his picture on a webcam, and it did show that I was solid to him. Why I could not see him is a complete mystery!

BTW, when I first came on the air this morning, I sent a CQ picture, which was picked up and replied to by a station in Germany ! I did not show up on the webcams ( not even KE5RS which usually shows me the best ) and apparently was not strong to any domestic stations, but the German station had a good copy on me.

You gotta love 20 meter propagation !
73, Jim
That's part of the problem, I think, with the WinLink folks... the evangelists against it insist that they should be able to tell if the frequency is clear...

I agree with them about unattended operation, and busy detection...

But I'm also enough of a realist to understand that a station in, say, Texas, might hear both sides of the QSO, or even one side of it, but neither station can hear him...

I noticed late this afternoon, and into early evening, SSTV activity picked up a LOT.

I guess the only thing I can say is if you see/hear me interfering with another station, I do *not* mean to be doing it, and it only means I can't hear the other stations. If that means I need a better antenna and/or more sensitive receiver, then that's what it means...

For example, today, I did not depend on MMSSTV to tell me if it was hearing anybody... I actually was listening to the radio... and noise was less than S1. I did not hear anybody else. But obviously (I wish I'd saved that image... competing SSTV signals can create some interesting images), someone else keyed up almost at the same time I did.

[KC5CSG]

I never recognize any interference as intentional. Even if I know they're doing it on purpose I don't take it personally and either come in here and vent or just spin the VFO. There is way too much space on the bands to just sit there and get stupid.

Jerry

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (KC5CSG @ Nov. 06 2007,23:59)]I never recognize any interference as intentional. Even if I know they're doing it on purpose I don't take it personally and either come in here and vent or just spin the VFO. There is way too much space on the bands to just sit there and get stupid.

Jerry
That's the best thing, of course, but for some modes, you kinda need to be on a specified frequency in order to have any hope of a contact...

Like SSTV... folks don't scan the band looking for SSTV signals... it's a little bit of a niche mode, I'm gathering, but Jim's right... there's a "calling frequency" and then moving to another frequency is the right way to operate...

The trouble is when two stations clash, but can't hear each other... but a station in the "middle" (and "middle" could be anywhere, I don't mean physically, due to the fun of propagation) can hear both.

SSTV and the webcams available on the 'net give a, pardon the pun, picture of propagation we can't always get on phone or even digital modes... there are places we can go to see our own transmitted signal.

Oh, I don't mean that it'd be nice if we could go someplace to see if a frequency is already in use... that's probably too much to expect, and it wouldn't really tell the whole story, either...

[N5PVL]

KE4UWL says:
Quote[/b] ]
That's part of the problem, I think, with the WinLink folks... the evangelists against it insist that they should be able to tell if the frequency is clear...

I agree with them about unattended operation, and busy detection...

But I'm also enough of a realist to understand that a station in, say, Texas, might hear both sides of the QSO, or even one side of it, but neither station can hear him...

Apparently you have missed out on the part of the discussion where the makeup of a Packet network was covered.

Packet has a unique ability to share a single frequency among a number of stations at the same time, making it one of the most spectrally efficient digital modes available to amateurs today.

Due to this, a typical HF Packet network frequency will have from four to twelve stations actively operating at the same time, all scattered around the continental US from coast to coast.

Just like voice nets on twenty meters, but the transmissions are a lot shorter so you hear more stations, more often.

Your theory holds up well under normal operating conditions where you are only trying to hear one, or maybe two stations that are both distant ( or too close ).

It does not hold up at all with a typical Packet network, as they talk back in forth in short data bursts, taking turns and are scattered all around. If you listen even a short while on a busy Packet net frequency, you WILL hear some of the activity there.

I am confident that once you digest this information, you will be realist enough to know that the chances of listening on an active Packet net frequency and not hearing anything are vanishingly small.

A busy Packet net does not equate well with a normal two-way QSO where only two stations are on frequency.

More clarification might follow if you then ask yourself which group in amateur radio purposefully turns the signal detection off on thier modems, lobbied a year or so ago to take over most of the HF bands, threatened to sue the author of digipan - if he published a dissenting opinion and then went on to run a Yahoo! group the same way, a little fascist echo-chamber.

You might want to ask yourself why P3 interference went on all day, every day for several years on 14.098 LSB despite multiple complaints and yet vanished almost completely within 48 hours of my publishing the 14.098 Lid List (http://www.arwatch.com/watch/w_win_wb0tax.htm) at WinLink-Watch (http://www.arwatch.com/watch/w_winlink.htm) and here at QRZ.

I'm sure a realist can easily connect the dots there, and figure out what's going on.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[AG3Y]

The point I am trying to make, and maybe not so well, is that in the past there were not all that many operators using the mode, and one frequency ( 14.230 ) might have been enough to satisfy all the users, who would cue up in a roundtable and send pictures one at a time. I am not so sure that stations are transmitting because they don't hear the other stations. I suspect that there is a bit of a "top dog - pileup buster" attitude that is becoming evident on 14.230.

Some time ago, a single frequency could hold the few enthusiasts that were using the mode, but now days, it is becoming necessary for SSTVers to spread out , at least a little bit. If the analog guys used .230, .227 , and .224, and the digital guys .233 and .236, instead of all trying to be "king of the mountain" on two select frequencies, there would be a lot less frustration, and a lot more pictures being successfully transmitted and received, all around.

Just my take on it! 73, Jim

[N5PVL]

AG3Y:

More users is a good reason to spread out, if possible.

I wouldn't do it as a way to deal with bad behavior.

[AG3Y]

Getting away from the SSTV situation for a moment, Charles, I have heard GOOD DX operators cue up a pileup like a bunch of obediant puppies , spreading them out over 6 to 9 Khz and picking off the individual stations like a well-oiled machine. I have also heard a pileup that sounded like a buzzsaw with every operator piled layers deep on top of one another, and the poor frustrated DX station not being able to make out a single callsign through the cacaphony ! There ARE good and bad ways to manage the spectrum.

73, Jim

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (AG3Y @ Nov. 07 2007,01:00)]The point I am trying to make, and maybe not so well, is that in the past there were not all that many operators using the mode, and one frequency ( 14.230 ) might have been enough to satisfy all the users, who would cue up in a roundtable and send pictures one at a time. I am not so sure that stations are transmitting because they don't hear the other stations. I suspect that there is a bit of a "top dog - pileup buster" attitude that is becoming evident on 14.230.

Some time ago, a single frequency could hold the few enthusiasts that were using the mode, but now days, it is becoming necessary for SSTVers to spread out , at least a little bit. If the analog guys used .230, .227 , and .224, and the digital guys .233 and .236, instead of all trying to be "king of the mountain" on two select frequencies, there would be a lot less frustration, and a lot more pictures being successfully transmitted and received, all around.

Just my take on it! 73, Jim
Jim,

I understand what you're saying... obviously, as any mode becomes more popular, it's necessary to spread out.

I see 14.230 as a calling frequency... get on, call CQ and I kinda think that it would be a good idea to include in the initial CQ picture, the frequency you will move to immediately after transmission... but I'm very new to the mode, so I will leave that thought to others with more experience.

[AG3Y]

Dave, give it a try. I have not seen many operators trying it, but the ones that do are the wise ones, in my opinion ! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Nov. 07 2007,00:59)]KE4UWL says:
Quote[/b] ]
That's part of the problem, I think, with the WinLink folks... the evangelists against it insist that they should be able to tell if the frequency is clear...

I agree with them about unattended operation, and busy detection...

But I'm also enough of a realist to understand that a station in, say, Texas, might hear both sides of the QSO, or even one side of it, but neither station can hear him...

Apparently you have missed out on the part of the discussion where the makeup of a Packet network was covered.

Packet has a unique ability to share a single frequency among a number of stations at the same time, making it one of the most spectrally efficient digital modes available to amateurs today.

Due to this, a typical HF Packet network frequency will have from four to twelve stations actively operating at the same time, all scattered around the continental US from coast to coast.

Just like voice nets on twenty meters, but the transmissions are a lot shorter so you hear more stations, more often.

Your theory holds up well under normal operating conditions where you are only trying to hear one, or maybe two stations that are both distant ( or too close ).

It does not hold up at all with a typical Packet network, as they talk back in forth in short data bursts, taking turns and are scattered all around. If you listen even a short while on a busy Packet net frequency, you WILL hear some of the activity there.

I am confident that once you digest this information, you will be realist enough to know that the chances of listening on an active Packet net frequency and not hearing anything are vanishingly small.

A busy Packet net does not equate well with a normal two-way QSO where only two stations are on frequency.

More clarification might follow if you then ask yourself which group in amateur radio purposefully turns the signal detection off on thier modems, lobbied a year or so ago to take over most of the HF bands, threatened to sue the author of digipan - if he published a dissenting opinion and then went on to run a Yahoo! group the same way, a little fascist echo-chamber.

You might want to ask yourself why P3 interference went on all day, every day for several years on 14.098 LSB despite multiple complaints and yet vanished almost completely within 48 hours of my publishing the 14.098 Lid List (http://www.arwatch.com/watch/w_win_wb0tax.htm) at WinLink-Watch (http://www.arwatch.com/watch/w_winlink.htm) and here at QRZ.

I'm sure a realist can easily connect the dots there, and figure out what's going on.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
Charles...

I hear what you're saying, and I don't disagree with you.

Patience is required when listening to determine if a frequency is clear... you can't listen for 30 seconds and make that determination in the digital areas... too many stations participate in a packet network to determine it that quickly...

The biggest problem, as you correctly point out, is the deliberate disabling of busy detect... with that enabled, even an unattended station would reasonably be expected to transmit only when it doesn't detect stations on the frequency... which has worked, as I know very well, for many years on packet networks on VHF (I operated a packet BBS for quite some time on 2 meters).

I don't disagree with you... please understand that. My point here is that sometimes, it's not possible to hear all the stations involved, and that's somewhat negated by the regional disparity of those involved in a packet network.

But in relation to PSK QSOs, I think it's necessary to understand that the offending station may, in fact, not hear the participants.

I'm new to HF, of course, so I may be completely wet. Perhaps it is possible to hear both stations. All that means is that I don't know enough.

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (AG3Y @ Nov. 07 2007,01:16)]Dave, give it a try. I have not seen many operators trying it, but the ones that do are the wise ones, in my opinion ! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
That's a good idea... when I'm home and able, I'll set up a template that says just that... and then QSY and see how long it takes to establish a QSO... an interesting experiment, certainly, since I'm limited by a single VFO and if someone wants to make the contact, they *have* to QSY.

It might be too much trouble for most... I did see a LOT today that did their QSO on 14.230.

But I'll take you up on that... I already know, from checking the webcams, that my rig's stable and on-frequency, even if it is 30 years old... with no digital frequency readout... so let's find out. It'll take a few days, but I accept the challenge...

I suspect I will get few takers... let's find out!

I dunno 'bout my wisdom... it's called into question frequently... this'll be fun, at the very least.

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] (AG3Y @ Nov. 07 2007,00:14)]Getting away from the SSTV situation for a moment, Charles, I have heard GOOD DX operators cue up a pileup like a bunch of obediant puppies , spreading them out over 6 to 9 Khz and picking off the individual stations like a well-oiled machine. # I have also heard a pileup that sounded like a buzzsaw with every operator piled layers deep on top of one another, and the poor frustrated DX station not being able to make out a single callsign through the cacaphony ! # There ARE good and bad ways to manage the spectrum. #

73, Jim
Probably the best approach would be to hold a seminar at Dayton or Ham-Com on HF SSTV, and get some of the mover 'n shaker types together and start cobbling together a SSTV gentlemans agreement to reflect changing times.

It'll get published here and there, and can then be referred to, thus providing some authority to whatever is worked out and presented.

It'll bleed over to our onair behavior after a while... It won't happen quickly in any case, but it won't happen at all if nobody gives it a little push to get started.

[AG3Y]

How about getting something published in QST about "The Use of SSTV Webcams, and Establishing Contacts On the Bands" or something like that? There may be the "king of the hill" attitude, as I said earlier, but there just might also be the thought especially among newcomers, that there IS no other way to operate the mode ! Hmmmm !

73, Jim

[N5PVL]

KE4UWL says:
Quote[/b] ]
The biggest problem, as you correctly point out, is the deliberate disabling of busy detect... with that enabled, even an unattended station would reasonably be expected to transmit only when it doesn't detect stations on the frequency... which has worked, as I know very well, for many years on packet networks on VHF (I operated a packet BBS for quite some time on 2 meters).

Sorry to be the party-pooper again - but:

The SCS modem's busy detection, when it is turned on, only detects other PACTOR signals.

That's right.

Apparently it also only looks at the 500 Hz width of a P1 or P2 signal, not the entire 2.6 KHz that they occupy when they go to the commercial P3 mode.

See where this is going?

Imagine 500 Hz signals just kind of tossed out there, whether there is other activity on frequency or not.

Imagine 2600 Hz signals just kind of tossed out there, whether there is other activity on frequency or not.

The activity detector would detect other P1 and P2 signals - if it was turned on. There is no other provision for busy detection in the SCS modems.

You really ought to study up on this subject if you are going to go around criticizing and backseat-driving for the folks who object to the harmful interference it generates every day.

You and all other amateurs benefit from any effort to clean up the ham bands. Sticking up for the Lids is not going to do anybody any good, most particularly not the Lids who need to feel a little peer pressure if they are ever going to reform.

Think about your goody-two-shoes, let's make up excuses for bad behavior approach and ask yourself how many Lids it has taken off the air or ever reformed.

What it does do is to actively encourage more bad behavior by giving it cover.

So far, my method has cleared up 80-90% of a long-standing interference issue on 14.098 MHz LSB, and shows promise of accomplishing much more.

What kind of results can you point to, from your enabling regimen?

I'm kind of wondering why you are so energetically trying to excuse what is obviously bad behavior on the air that generates harmful interference every day, not just once in a while.

Why not put some energy into preserving the hobby instead, stick up for your fellow hams?

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (AG3Y @ Nov. 07 2007,02:01)]How about getting something published in QST about "The Use of SSTV Webcams, and Establishing Contacts On the Bands" or something like that? # There may be the "king of the hill" attitude, as I said earlier, but there just might also be the thought especially among newcomers, that there IS no other way to operate the mode ! # #Hmmmm !

73, #Jim
Get to work on it. Send it in to Steve Ford and get it published in QST, if not as an article, then at least as an editorial.

We have a tendency here on QRZ to believe that lots and lots of other amateurs are reading the stuff of these threads, when more likely than not most of the eyes that fall on these topics are "repeets."

It is a good topic, and it is germane to far more than simply SSTV.

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] (AG3Y @ Nov. 07 2007,01:01)]How about getting something published in QST about "The Use of SSTV Webcams, and Establishing Contacts On the Bands" or something like that? # There may be the "king of the hill" attitude, as I said earlier, but there just might also be the thought especially among newcomers, that there IS no other way to operate the mode ! # #Hmmmm !

73, #Jim
That's wonderful idea! - I didn't think of it because my habit is to try the hamfest thingy I mentioned.

A magazine article would be great.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (AG3Y @ Nov. 07 2007,00:14)]Getting away from the SSTV situation for a moment, Charles, I have heard GOOD DX operators cue up a pileup like a bunch of obediant puppies , spreading them out over 6 to 9 Khz and picking off the individual stations like a well-oiled machine. I have also heard a pileup that sounded like a buzzsaw with every operator piled layers deep on top of one another, and the poor frustrated DX station not being able to make out a single callsign through the cacaphony ! There ARE good and bad ways to manage the spectrum.

73, Jim
It depends.

If you are rare DX like P5 or BS7, by all means spread it out.

But if you are calling from say, Italy, what's the sense? There's no sense in spreading it out for a common country that almost everyone has worked.

One big problem is that people don't listen and often disobey the DX station. I've enforced my rules - such as when I call "outside of North America and Europe ONLY..." any station from NA or EU that calls will be told to please QRX. It's funny, last year when i was operating from 9Y I called "outside of NA only please..." and a VE3 station came back. I told him, "Canada is in North America, sorry. Outside of North America ONLY."

My friend Chris, 9Y4D, calls for outside NA but the North Americans still keep piling on. They don't get it, it's as if the USA moved to Asia or the south pacific or something.

[WA6MHZ]

Thank you for a very positive and level-headed post on this subject. It is great to see a sensible way to deal with the problem rather than like another thread, Publically humiliating and thoroughly bad-mouthing someone who inadvertantly stepped on someones toes. Interference isn't always INTENTIONAL, as it is viewed by some who disdane a particular mode of operation. Because of propogation and skip zones, you can't always tell if the frequency is in use, and due to the nature of the non-channelized HF bands, sometimes you can get too close to another QSO and not realize it. I rarely call a CQ, but have heard others do so on top of a rare DX thinking the frequency is blank only to be met with a Firestorm of Channel Cops yelling "THE $#@*& Frequency is in USE!!!!!!!!!" This is the kind of response some digital mode operators get on here; lambasted and drug through the mud because they chose to "try out" a new trendy interest in Amateur Radio. After being told VEHEMENTLY to GET OFF THE FREQUENCY, they often will never be heard from again. So it is NOT the new operator or unwary who are the LIDS, it is those who react so violently to them! THEY, especially as shown so very well here on QRZ, are the problem!

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Nov. 07 2007,02:08)]I'm kind of wondering why you are so energetically trying to excuse what is obviously bad behavior on the air that generates harmful interference every day, not just once in a while.

Why not put some energy into preserving the hobby instead, stick up for your fellow hams?
Yes, we know, Charles. If one is not actively hunting down and killing the Winlink offenders, one is their defender. We got it.

I'm not going to argue with you. You do what you do and if you get the results you want, then you keep on doing it. And crowing about it.

Me, I'm gonna keep on doing what I do and putting my energy into helping hams be better operators (and that includes myself).

Shake your head in disgust if you will, but I refuse to carry on a campaign based on hatred. If that makes me a "Winlid" in your book, then so be it.

[ne3r]

I don't particularly disagree with indentifying publicly stations that have caused interference. I wouldn't personally call it a lid list or assume that each instance was intentional interference, but just note the facts, that station XYZ interfered with ongoing QSO on frequency #### at Time on Date, note that I've notified the station via mail, and leave it at that. Maybe encourage others to do the same if they experience interference from that station.

Two wrongs don't make a right (yeah I know, 3 lefts do). Even if you are sure that the other station is just being a lid, it is best to remain courteous and polite to everyone, stick to the facts, don't accuse, just inform. Most of us are smart enough to form our own opinions from the factual information provided, and those that can't, really won't be part of the solution anyway.

On another note, I was working a weak station in Croatia from my clubs station on 20 meters, well after the band was essentially closed to Europe. I heard the old push the paddle over to dit and turn the keyer speed knob up and down trick. What did I do? I ignored it, and continued to copy as much of the weak signal that I could, and completed a nice QSO with signal reports, names, and home towns. After the QSO, I was quite pleased that the old DSP between the ears was able to filter out the interference and complete the QSO. I thought to myself, if this guy's goal was to wreck my QSO, he sure didn't succeed, and he knows it.

[KB7GL]

Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ Nov. 07 2007,09:54)]Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Nov. 07 2007,02:08)]I'm kind of wondering why you are so energetically trying to excuse what is obviously bad behavior on the air that generates harmful interference every day, not just once in a while.

Why not put some energy into preserving the hobby instead, stick up for your fellow hams?
Yes, we know, Charles. If one is not actively hunting down and killing the Winlink offenders, one is their defender. We got it.

I'm not going to argue with you. You do what you do and if you get the results you want, then you keep on doing it. And crowing about it.

Me, I'm gonna keep on doing what I do and putting my energy into helping hams be better operators (and that includes myself).

Shake your head in disgust if you will, but I refuse to carry on a campaign based on hatred. If that makes me a "Winlid" in your book, then so be it.
UWL:

It was a pleasure to read an "adult" post. With all the finger-pointing, slamming and chest thumping going on, it was refreshing and captures the true spirit of what I believe ham radio was when I was first licensed!

[n0nwo]

My biggest complaint about most nets is that they all seem to think they should be QRM FREE. I have been asked a number of times over the years to QSY by some jackass that thinks they own that little piece of the spectrum and think it is a QRM free zone. Basically, when you ask someone to QSY because of QRM, you are saying that what you are doing on HF is infinitely more important than what the other guy or gal is doing and that you have more right to be there than the other person. Talk about arrogant!!!

I have never asked anyone to QSY because they were QRMing me and never will. If I can not work a DX station because of QRM then I can not work them... no big deal. If I am in QSO with someone and QRM begins to come up, I will work the QSO as long as the QRM is not too bad. If the QRM makes copy too tough, we sign and move on.

I have seen many posts here on the Zed, about the broadcast stations on 40 meters and I laugh out loud. I have worked a lot of 40 meter SSB in the heterodyne of the broadcast stations and have had a ball doing it. I have never understood what all the whining is about.

Now, I am not saying that one should be unconcerned about causing QRM. We should all listen a little to each side of a frequency before calling CQ, but QRM is a fact of life on HF due to ever changing band conditions and people need to understand that.

Minton

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Nov. 07 2007,09:21)]Quote[/b] (AG3Y @ Nov. 07 2007,02:01)]How about getting something published in QST about "The Use of SSTV Webcams, and Establishing Contacts On the Bands" or something like that? There may be the "king of the hill" attitude, as I said earlier, but there just might also be the thought especially among newcomers, that there IS no other way to operate the mode ! Hmmmm !

73, Jim
Get to work on it. Send it in to Steve Ford and get it published in QST, if not as an article, then at least as an editorial.

We have a tendency here on QRZ to believe that lots and lots of other amateurs are reading the stuff of these threads, when more likely than not most of the eyes that fall on these topics are "repeets."

It is a good topic, and it is germane to far more than simply SSTV.
The most immediately, to me, useful aspect of SSTV webcams was my ability to determine a) if I had the transceiver set up properly, particularly as the FT-101EE isn't known for linearity when the ALC kicks in, nor stability, and b) whether there was propagation

To my delight, the rig seemed set up ok, was certainly stable through the transmissions, and there was propagation to at least 2 and sometimes more of the stations with the "webcam" setup.

I find myself wishing that there were "listening posts" set up in similar fashion, because when adjusting/tweaking/experimenting with a station, while the reports of others are important, there's nothing like being able to sample your own transmission.

Sure, you can set up a receiver and monitor that way, but to me, it always seems like I might as well have just connected the audio to the receiver speaker... the local signal's just too strong.

Of course, it's possible to argue that one should always check those webcams before transmitting, to be sure you're not going to interfere with someone else. That's not realistic, because they're not displaying the incoming signal - they only post the picture after it's been fully received. And we don't want to impose a "if someone is transmitting somewhere in the world on this frequency, you can't transmit until they are finished." Propagation makes that idea a super bad one from the get-go.

I was taught that calling frequencies are just that... call your station, call CQ, but once you make contact, move your contact to another frequency, 3 or 6 or 9 up or down... I'll admit being guilty of carrying on a QSO on a calling frequency now and then. That doesn't mean I don't know better and shouldn't do it the right way.

With the very short evenings now, it'll probably be the weekend before I can try Jim's idea of posting a QSO frequency on a picture and seeing what happens... I'd bet I don't get many who follow.

[AG3Y]

I don't bet you will, either, Dave, but keep on trying. Maybe somebody will "catch on" !

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] (wa6mhz @ Nov. 07 2007,10:07)]Thank you for a very positive and level-headed post on this subject. #It is great to see a sensible way to deal with the problem rather than like another thread, Publically humiliating and thoroughly bad-mouthing someone who inadvertantly stepped on someones toes. #Interference isn't always INTENTIONAL, as it is viewed by some who disdane a particular mode of operation. #Because of propogation and skip zones, you can't always tell if the frequency is in use, and due to the nature of the non-channelized HF bands, sometimes you can get too close to another QSO and not realize it. #I rarely call a CQ, but have heard others do so on top of a rare DX thinking the frequency is blank only to be met with a Firestorm of Channel Cops yelling "THE $#@*& Frequency is in USE!!!!!!!!!" #This is the kind of response some digital mode operators get on here; lambasted and drug through the mud because they chose to "try out" a new trendy interest in Amateur Radio. #After being told VEHEMENTLY to GET OFF THE FREQUENCY, they often will never be heard from again. #So it is NOT the new operator or unwary who are the LIDS, it is those who react so violently to them! #THEY, especially as shown so very well here on QRZ, are the problem!
You need to learn to stick with the facts instead of making up nasty, ignorant lies as you go along.

KE6XO was observed interfering with other hams' QSO's three times before I took action against this Lid.

One time might be a mistake... Three times in a single day goes beyond that.

You worry a lot more about the Lid being 'humiliated' than the hams who he rudely bullied off of the air with ARQ. - On three seperate occasions in one day.

I have two questions for you:

Quote[/b] ]
Here's a tough hamradio ethics problem for everybody:

Six stations are engaged in a net, with a lively back 'n forth of signals.

Two amateurs come along to the net frequency, wanting to QSO but not as part of the net.

Who should move off to another frequency, the ongoing net with six participants - or the two who just showed up?

Why?


and...

Quote[/b] ]
Here's another tough hamradio ethics problem for everybody:

Six stations are engaged in a net, with a lively back 'n forth of signals.

Two amateurs come along to the net frequency, wanting to QSO but not as part of the net.

Should the two newcomers listen before transmitting?

Why?


If you can answer either one or both of these questions like a ham, then you should have no trouble understanding what the Lid did wrong.

Unless you are another WinLid of course. - Here to Troll on the behalf of Lids.

This is an amateur radio forum. - If you do not like hams or ham radio, then you should go elsewhere.

[N8ODF]

PVL...you see how you ran these guys off...your freak'n nuts...seems you don't like hams or anyone else for that matter...heed your own advice

[kn4ds]

Last night, I was enjoying a nice PSK31 QSO with a fellow in Wyoming on 40 meters... we'd been chatting for about 25 minutes when all of a sudden, there's another station just a few cycles down the band and that crashed our QSO... I could still see the trace from my contact on the waterfall, but mostly was getting gibberish... so when he turned it back to me, I explained that another station had come on and I had basically lost him, so 73 and thanks for a great QSO...

Now I'm not gonna name any names, because there are those who would say this person should be reported. I submit that he couldn't hear either of us, and was in the midst of his own QSO and propagation changed... 'cause he wasn't there and then he was and very strong. And he was typing his location, not calling CQ or answering a call from another station.

The point is, sometimes propagation changes and crashes a QSO. Not every crashed QSO is the result of a lid.

[ky5u]

On 75 lat night. The whole hour and a half I was on one loser after another tried to QRM. One guy was breaking in with made up call signs. Of course after the first two times we answered him (thinking it was legit), we ignored anybody trying to call us. So now it's gauranteed that if we don't know you you'll now get ignored legit or not. Another loser was moaning. Another was putting his radio in tune and moving the VFO quickly to try to QRM. One guy would scream something unintelligable.

So take the advice of the originator of this thread, and ignore. Crank up your RF gain to only hear your pals and ignore all people trying to break in because it may be the guy with false call signs. Only respond to people you already know.

[WA6MHZ]

Hf isn't supposed to be easy, like FM. #When searching for rare DX, I EXPECT QRM, QRN, carriers, Rcvr birdies, noises and alot of others trouncing on frequency. #It is all part of the sport. #That is why many DXers disdane DX Nets. #It makes it too easy. #Just get on the list and everyone stands by while you give the distant station your report. #Net control supervises the QSO and often helps with critical information like your callsign. #You yell "THREE BY THREE!!!! ONE TWO THREE, #ONE TWO THREE!!!!" And if the DX Station hears anything at all, its a "good contact". #NO, DXing is Meant to be tough, building skill in listenning through the noise and interference to dig out the precious information. #On digital modes, there is no way to do that other than hope for a repeat of the data. #But again, it is not supposed to be "easy". #If you want Easy, use a cellphone! #There are so many factors involved in HF communications, and yes, there will be rotten rat bastards who come on the frequency and JAM and JAM, just another part of the sport to work around. #But a Real ham considers all this and accepts it as just part of the game. #Sometimes he wins, sometimes its alot of work for a gut wrenching loss. #But through perseverance and skill, a True ham will eventually conquer the odds and make the contact. #All this bad mouthing of "winlids" just shows what kind of people are there on the bands. #These same people would be the Channel Cops on a DX's Frequency yelling at the unfortunate who accidently use the wrong VFO to "GET THE HELL OFF THE &&^%&*& Frequency!!!!" #So when I read all this babbling and whining from a few misfits, I consider the source. #Just more QRM to work around. #But I will prevail and make the contact.

[w7lpn]

Elmers are important for sure! Some guys appearently were never taught not to tune up right on top of a net in progress or even to pwer down before tuning. We can assume they just don't care & that they really do know better, but then whydo so many do it right on top of a difficult net check-in with appearent full power? Ignorance is no excuse...? but if these bone-heads were Elmer'd properly they might not be doing this. are they afraid if the go up or down 10, that they will be off too far? Are they too lazy to power down? Probably just ignorant. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif Which can be fixed. Unfortunately, stupid is a little harder to deal with. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (AG3Y @ Nov. 07 2007,17:37)]I don't bet you will, either, Dave, but keep on trying. Maybe somebody will "catch on" !
Jim,

I checked 14.225, and didn't hear anybody, so I sent a few pics with "Listening on 14.225" on them...

Would you believe someone actually followed me there? I wasn't able to hear them well enough to get the picture, but they went to 14.225 and transmitted a pic (I could hear the tones, but the computer didn't like 'em)

Then someone else came up calling another station on that frequency (phone), so I didn't send CQ again with the "Listening" on it (I refuse to knowingly interfere with anybody)... which didn't matter, a couple of guys had started trading pics on 14.230 and both were *very* quick on the key after the other finished transmitting... no way to get in a quick call of any kind in there...

I thought it was interesting that there's hope, though.

[AG3Y]

Very interesting feedback, Dave. I intend to put "watching on XXX" in my CQ pictures too. So far, I haven't had a single person follow me to another frequency, but I firmly believe that that is the only way we are going to educated others on how to use a "calling frequency", which I believe .230 must become if we are going to have anything but pandemonium on SSTV. We must get away from the "my signal is bigger than yours, therefore, I am going to run the show" mentality, not only in SSTV, but in many of the other modes as well.

73, and keep working at it ! Jim

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (AG3Y @ Nov. 11 2007,23:19)]Very interesting feedback, Dave. I intend to put "watching on XXX" in my CQ pictures too. So far, I haven't had a single person follow me to another frequency, but I firmly believe that that is the only way we are going to educated others on how to use a "calling frequency", which I believe .230 must become if we are going to have anything but pandemonium on SSTV. We must get away from the "my signal is bigger than yours, therefore, I am going to run the show" mentality, not only in SSTV, but in many of the other modes as well.

73, and keep working at it ! Jim
While I'm not familiar with SSTV terminology like I should be, I found it interesting that a "QSO" was ongoing on 14.230, particularly with no break whatsoever to listen for another station that might wish to join in a roundtable, or to call CQ.

I *know* my picture was received at one webcam, too, 'cause I saw it (a bit noisy, but clear enough... it did look like have a mustache, which I don't.. heh).

But I was encouraged that someone actually paid attention to the text in the picture and tried to contact me on 14.225.

Even my old FT-101EE can handle a 5khz offset (via the "clarifier"), which is why I chose 14.225... I didn't want to just be 3 down, because a slight mistune on my part (hey, I only have a "dial" with no digital readout) could cause interference on 14.230...

There are those out there who will try to be a good ham... I try... not always successfully... but I think that we need to try to set a good example, and your idea of including a listening frequency in the picture is one of those "leading by example" things we hear all about but so rarely see. I thank you for putting it out there!

I think the idea of an article for QST is a good one, too... get started on it!