Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:10:00 +0000
From: John GM4SLV <gm4slv@sighthound.demon.co.uk>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Message-ID: <20071121101000.2d311686@saluki.ngw.uk.com>
In-Reply-To: <4743FCEF.16968.B1FBD7@dave.davesergeant.com>
References: <20071121085800.35fcfb1d@lurcher.twatt.local>
	<4743FCEF.16968.B1FBD7@dave.davesergeant.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: Cross-band etiquette
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org


On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:39:59 -0000
"Dave Sergeant" <dave@davesergeant.com> wrote:

> On 21 Nov 2007 at 8:58, John Pumford-Green GM4SLV wrote:
> 
> > However I've become aware recently of neglect of this courtesy when
> > using cross-band for contacts with non-UK or non-NoV stations.
> > 
> > Last night, as an example, a 3-way cross-band QSO was ongoing
> > between 2 UK stations on 501.316kHz and a PA station on 3533kHz. 
> 
> Interesting comments John.
> 
> You must certainly bear in mind that working crossband 80m to 500kHz 
> is currently a very minor interest and something that the vast 
> majority of users of 80m will be totally unaware of. 

Hello Dave, LF,

Yes, I totally agree that for the majority of 80m users the existence
of 500kHz cross-band activity is either unknown of of no interest. I'm
not surprised or concerned, that normal 80m QSOs occur on 3533. There's
no reason why they shouldn't.

> In that respect  the choice of 3533 is perhaps unfortunate as it is
> in a part of the band heavily used for local QSOs on that band.
> Somewhere rather higher, say between 3565 and 3580 or so would be far
> better. 

Again I agree, as a way of protecting ourselves from unintentional QRM
from 80m users.

> 
> To call CQ on 80m and say QSX 502 is doubly confusing.

I still don't know what the motiviation is for this action by an NoV
holder. Anyone who can answer on 502 should be worked in-band on 502. I
fully understand non-UK or non-NoV holders calling on 80m "QSX 502". 


My real concern is the lack of courtesy or operating skill of actual
NoV holders who open up on 500 or 80m (or both alternately) without
following the accepted norms of checking (very carefully, given the
weak signals likely to be encountered) that both the 500 and 80m
channels are clear. If one or other is busy then an alternative
frequency should be chosen. It also seems counterproductive to call "CQ
QSX 3533" when 3533 is blatently in use for a 2-way in-band QSO by
"normal" 80m stations with no interest in 500. What's a prospective
cross-band responder supposed to do... call over the top of an existing
QSO?


Some flexibility is surely called for.

John

GM4SLV