Editor's note: MFSK16 is a new digital mode fully described in the January 2001 issue of QST Magazine. The author of the article also devised the new mode. Murray ZL1BPU is obviously a talented and experienced digital guru. Ably assisted by Nino IZ8BLY the two of them completed the software and made the first QSO, an 11,000 mile link using 25 watts and dipoles on 17 meters, on June 18, 2000. Six months later MFSK16 seems almost as pervasive as PSK31. Acceptance of MFSK 16 is not the problem, for after all it is a form of improved RTTY and the low power performance is truly remarkable. But its use created a storm. The war is not only the new versus the old, but about spectrum turf. And those are the worst arguments of all, whether it is the historic CW vs 'Spark' scrap, or the more recent SSB vs AM spat, or the current fuss. These battles soon have a life of their own.
In essence, the turf defenders claim that even though the traditional RTTY space is currently used almost exclusively for contests and DX, perhaps 10 percent of the time, 14.080 is a hallowed DX frequency that must not be invaded by any other mode at any time. These words are from the same folks who occupy every bit of space between 14.060 and 14.100+ during even the pint-sized contests. The invaders maintain that MFSK is simply another kind of RTTY and is therefore entitled to work in the same part of the spectrum . . . and that the 14.080-14.090 area is essentially unused space!
The initial thrust was launched by Don AA5AU in a widely distributed Email. Elements of the long note follow. This led to an eruption of messages, some for, some against, some neutral in tone. We can only assume a continuation of the discussion as the use of the new mode accelerates. After receiving a note from Murray, I ask him to outline his views for publication in Newsletter #89. He responed at some length and, although selected portions appear in the newsletter, his note is reproduced here in full. It deserves a careful reading. Extracts from other notes are quoted simply because they demonstrate one or another of the argument's facets. Please feel free to add your thoughts by Emailing me at jem@n2hos.com.
Let the thread begin! de Jim N2HOS
Don AA5AU said, in part, "The MFSK16 interference being rendered on the lower end of the RTTY sub-band of 20M is becoming unbearable. We are expecting 3Y0C to come up on RTTY, not to mention other weak signal DX signals. If we don't stop this, all RTTY DXers could possibly miss out on a new country due to this QRM. The program's author suggests operating at 14.080, 21.080 and 28.080. Since this is another AFSK mode, this puts their signals at 14.082, etc. This means weak signal RTTY will be QRMed by this new mode. If we don't use this spectrum, we might lose it. I urge you to use it extensively. Personally, I plan to auto-CQ on these frequencies whenever I am in the shack.
"I am not against any other digital mode. I just feel that this frequency must be held for RTTY. It has been there long before these other modes and it is still the number one choice for digital DX . . .and weak signal DX is far more important to more people than having a casual QSO on MFSK."
Note: ZL1BPU cautions the new digital users about tuning. Instructions include the following paragraph:
Where to Use MFSK16: MFSK16 is a digital mode, and an FSK mode. Use it at the lower end of the digital allocation on each Amateur band, where RTTY operation normally takes place. For example, look around 14.080 MHz on the 20m band. Be careful if the band is busy with other signals. Use the waterfall display to find a gap about 250 - 500 Hz wide, and fit your signal in. The MFSK signal is typically 350 Hz wide - narrower than many other digital signals.
The response was immediate. One of the more interesting replies came from Barry W2UP who said in part, "I think we are trying to preserve a mode (Baudot) that is on the verge of extinction. We all agree that there is little Baudot activity except for DXpedtions and contests. Why? Could it be that these newer modes are, in fact, better (less bandwidth, better weak signal copy)? Why are we resisting progress?"
Chen AA6TY chimed in with his usual words of wisdom, saying "In terms of a mode, MFSK is just another one that is permitted by that license that hangs on the wall. Why should we single it out for banishment? After all, we may all end up using MFSK. The MFSK signal in the middle of the band does not interfere with a DXpedition any more than a steam powered ragchew at 14.085. We lived with that. Why can't we live with MFSK? Somehow we have adopted the attitude that a signal that does not sound like ours doesn't belong in our hunting grounds!"
Shelby K4WW laid out the best slogan--"If you hear something, anything, the frequency is apparently in use by someone else!"
But Walt AH6OZ mostly agreed with Don's point of view. He said, "I agree with Don on the poor choice of MFSK suggested frequencies and I echo the thought that these operators know where their signal is on the band. I also agree with Chen that newer and better modes are on the horizon and maybe MFSK-X will replace RTTY as the mode of choice. But I also think the current MFSK implentation is overkill. MFSK8 . . . would give narrower bandwidth with the 8 tones. One big problem with MFSK is that it is 'so simple' to setup. Just plug in your rig and go! Many newcomers seem clueless when it comes to tuning"
New arguments were introduced by Dennis W5DG. Of Don's auto cq-ing, he said, "It will not cause MFSK any serious problem because it is robust and your signal can be worked around using the waterfall tuning. MFSK is superior to RTTY in weak signal. I also enjoy RTTY in contesting, but this thread has all the earmarks of going down the road called 'keep those sob's out of my neighborhood.' Remember, the more digital activity of any kind the better. It will keep the bands for amateur use. And, MFSK is not a bad DX mode either. It's just that not many have tried it."
Then along came Jim KU4VE. His comments were right on the mark. "Most nights I can't even find a RTTY station to work on any frequency. Night before last I was on 80M and saw several stations working MFSK not more than 50 cycles apart. And none of them reported running more than 30 watts. Can't say that for most of the RTTY stations I hear.
Doug N6TQS sums up by saying, "My personal feeling is that any digital activity between people is good. And I can tolerate and use the Pactor BBS's, which are the real problem. There are a few of those that have .0799 center frequencies listed."
Once again, the ultimate solution was proposed by Bill W7TI. Despite the historic and monumental discussions on the subject of band plans for the digital space, and the continued rejection, Bill proposed a four part division, giving roughly equal space to PSK-Clover, Pactor-Amtor, RTTY and sort of an All Other group. Surprisingly, RTTY came up with the largest space (14.080-14.090) and MFSK was booted upstairs, above 14.090 or above 14.100.5. If this plan was adopted would RTTY stations vow never, ever to leave that space . . . in contests, when rare DX was on? You may answer the question.
Then, the middle of the pack, Duane W5BEN stated that "There is so little digital activity nowadays it would seem prudent to utilize our frequencies somehow to assure we do not lose them. Digital is digital . . . BUT I do support Don's position regarding RTTY DX."
Finally, some astute observations arrived from an old hand called Luciano I5FLN. For example, "New modes seem to be very nice for their technical aspects but not for the ham spirit . . . we should not do anything against (the new modes) for you must remember the very nice ham spirit we had and still have." One of his most interesting thoughts, "New modes attract hi-tech hams doing radio rather than old hams using digital like another tool." And searching for a solution, Luciano suggests that the CW space be reduced. Sure! But then finishes with this thought, "Electronic innovations in RTTY systems have made it more attractive to users and listeners. We must think about that!"
Now, let's go to Murray's note. This is the full content of the message sent to N2HOS in late December. It addresses the thread summarized above and, perhaps, most specifically AA5AU's comments.
I take issue with the comments about MFSK16. For a start there is no adversarial intent in the development and promotion of MFSK16, so the RTTY old-timers need not feel threatened. Indeed, the mode was developed to provide MORE FSK activity, to protect our under-used bands and encourage computer users into ham radio. You won't encourage new users with steam radio, be it Morse or RTTY -- there needs to be some high-tech feature, and a slew of operating satisfaction involved.
You suggest that the 14.080 MHz area is RTTY DX "hallowed ground". Oh? Where is that written in the rules? I understood that was in the middle of the area set aside for narrow band digital modes. In fact as I read it, the digital mode sub-band in the US is more generous than in most countries. Where else should one operate an FSK mode with a bandwidth of about 300 Hz (such as RTTY or MFSK16) except in the narrow band digital sub-band? We should all be much more concerned about the uncontrolled proliferation of Pactor BBS stations in the sub-band, many of them illegal and blatantly commercial in intent.
I should point out that I have promoted the area BELOW 14.080 MHz as the operating area for MFSK16, and the most well used MFSK16 software actually states on its start-up screen the calling frequencies for all bands. At present it reads 14.080 MHz, implying 14.080 MHz idle tone frequency (i.e. tones go up 234 Hz from there), and I have the ability to change that to a lower frequency if it somehow eased conflict. The frequency was chosen on advice from the Europeans and Pacific users who felt that there was an unused gap between 14.075 and 14.085.
I'm all for debate on equable use of the digi-mode sub-bands, and I'm realistic enough to know that the IARU are not going to solve the problem any time soon. We all need to be fair and tolerant. We're all amateurs with an interest in preserving our privileges, after all.
As to "This new mode is not seen as one with any real chance to displace the popularity of PSK31, let alone RTTY", I think you've missed the boat! Check the bands any day of the week - apart from during contests, PSK31 signals out-number RTTY signals in my part of the world by about 10:1, and MFSK16 (only 3 months old) already outnumbers RTTY.
Yet there should be no sense of competition - most important of all is that there IS digi-mode operation keeping the bands alive. Use it or lose it! You might like to pass on to the likes of those who are having trouble working that 500th country on RTTY with 5 kw and a 100 ft tower with multiple monoband yagis, they perhaps could try PSK31 or MFSK16 with 25 Watts - and might find that's where all the elusive RTTY operators have gone! I note that many of the DXpeditions are now quoting operation on PSK31 AND MFSK16.
73 de Murray ZL1BPU, developer MFS16
The following represent updated comments from the reflectors during the January17-19 2001 period. These are direct clips from assorted Emails. No editing at all! Enjoy.
I just wish even 5% of us 3,000 guys would get on the air sometime besides during a contest. That would straighten things out a bit better than trying to "educate or reason" with the unaware MFSK ops. Instead we sit here reading/sending email, watching the DX Summit, etc. While we're reading and complaining, MFSK ops are making Q's and having FUN. de John - WA9ALS.
Randy, amateurs are big boys able to make decisions for themselves, both as to what modes to operate, and where to operate them, and they will do this despite any recommendations of mine. Here however is the thinking behind my recommendations.
MFSK16 is FSK, just like RTTY, and shares the same ITU designator - F1B (which is what matters to both the IARU Recommendations and in your case the FCC). Therefore I conclude that the correct operating place for MFSK and RTTY is the narrow band digital mode area of each band. This therefore is my recommendation.
You will recall that I designed MFSK16 as a replacement mode for RTTY, in order to provide improved performance, especially for those who cannot afford high power and large antennas. The signal bandwidth is similar, and the operators are in generakl the same folk as operate RTTY (I have no secret source of operators!) Therefore I conclude that the problem of sub-band occupancy by multiple modes is NOT a problem. I am sure RTTY operators have experienced problems with QRM from other RTTY operators in the past.
I don't see a problem with amateurs making their own decisions. I'm certainly NOT going to change my recommendations (which is all they are) just for one of the 300 countries in the world. This hobby is international. 73 de Murray ZL1BPU
RTTY operators are not trying to "discourage" the use of MFSK. We are only trying to et you to move it above 14090 USB. There's plenty of unused space up there where we can operate MFSK successfully and keep the peace with RTTY operators. Yes, I said WE. I am an MFSK operator too now. Although I am becoming disillusioned with the whole ordeal - what frequency? what power? what sideband? No organization.
Murray states that he designed MFSK to replace RTTY. I'm sorry Murray, MFSK will NEVER replace RTTY (at least in our lifetime). And by suggesting the operation of MFSK in the RTTY SUB-BANDS you are only dooming your pet mode to be put to an early grave by stupidity.
And that's not just my opinion...de Don AA5AU
I am not against new technology, used some of the new modes like Hell, PSK, but MFSK is not combatable with RTTY. The frequency shift of MFSK is 316Hz, so in theory taking up nearly two 170Hz RTTY channels. And some of the MFSK "operators" don't seem to give a damn who is on "Their" frequency. Heard one clown saying that RTTY ops are trying to claim their frequency, we only been here for the last forty years or so. Lets have more activity on 14080 14083, same on 15 and 10 mx and protect our little slice of the band. 73 de Karl VK2KM
The problem is, even though they are only transmitting (legally) in a 350 Hz bandwidth, some of these stations still open up their receiver bandwidths to 3 kHz. Then they sit in USB with a suppressed carrier frequency of 14080. So, anything within 14080 to 14083 is QRM.
Well, too bad. If these guys don't start using narrow filters, it is not my fault if my signal at 14082 is causing their AGC to fold up, or causing their Sound Card A/D converter to pin at the most significant bits.
If you operate SSB with a 6 kHz receiver bandwidth, you can't complain that a CW signal 4 kHz away is giving you fits. Get a better filter. Ditto MFSK31.
The reason I love the newer modes is that they are spectrally efficient . When they are not as narrow as steam RTTY, they are more robust. But the way some ignorant hams are using it, they are treating it as a 3 kHz-wide mode. Personally, I don't mind co-sharing band segments with a different mode (I know some of you do..). But I get royally ticked off when they consider me to be QRM when I am legally 600 Hz away! de Chen AA6TY
We are confronted with a very serious situation. It is the use by the MFSK users transmitting from about 080 to 084 or so on 10, 15, 20 meters and also in the "DX" portion of 160 meters. I have been using FSK and AFSK since 1982 and I for one do not intend to stop using FSK from 080 to 084 on each of the HF bands. I do not advocate stopping the use of MFSK but I do advocate stopping the use of MFSK from 080 to 084. I will continue to transmit my FSK signals from 080 to 084 whenever I want and how I want to use that spectrum.
I encourage ALL FSK users to use 080 to 084 and up any time you want on each of the HF bands.
In my opinion, for the most part, I blame the writer of the MFSK program and not the users of MFSK because they were told to use Upper side band on 080, which puts the MFSK signals from 080 to 084 and MOST of them do not realize what trouble they are causing for FSK users from 080 to 084. It was not thought out by the writer of the program which is sad and will probably cause confrontations on top of confrontations. He made a major mistake thinking that the MFSK mode would be compatible with FSK and it is not. I would hope that he can correct his mistake but I have my doubts.
If this message sound harsh it is meant to be, how one person could have caused so much trouble is beyond me. I am very upset and I do not plan on giving up my FSK hobby that I have spent so many hours working to achieve my goal of working all of the countries in the world on RTTY. de Michael W5ZPA
I have called CQ on MFSK16 on 14075 USB the past two evenings with no takers. I did however make my first MFSK16 QSO last night when I CQ'ed on 3578 LSB. I was answered by Jeff, K1AM. Jeff and I had a QSO that lasted well over 30 minutes. In that time, the print was nearly 100%. He was running 50 watts and a vertical. I was running 80 watts and an inverted vee. There would have been no way we could have had this same QSO on RTTY nearly error-free. I wasn't really impressed at the time, because I have been copying MFSK signals the past two weeks and realized from the beginning that this is an excellent weak signal mode. If you ever thought that PSK31 was good, wait until you try MFSK. It runs circles around PSK31.
I would encourage everyone that is interested to try MFSK and to subscribe to that reflector and give your thoughts about where it might reside so as not to conflict with weak signal and DXpedition RTTY frequencies. You may find yourself enjoying this interesting digital mode - I have. Don AA5AU.
There's room enough for everyone, nobody owns frequencies (save that kind of behavior for when you're on the Liberty Net or up near the maritime nets on twenty!) and the usual rule is to try to observe a band plan of sorts and to avoid stepping on people. If the MFSK people accidentally cause you QRM, then either try to politely explain it, live with it or shift a little. Vice versa for RTTY. It ain't going to kill either bunch and people ought to understand that things need to have time to shake down a bit while operating practices and frequencies jell. I did it for AMTOR, I did it for (those hellish) packet stations, I did it for CLOVER, etc., etc. (I even keep quiet and keep my head down during RTTY contests - I don't have too much use for them myself and rarely participate but I understand that a lot of folk participate in them for pleasure! I happily put up with just about any non-WARC band digital subband being made unusable for non-contesters for 48 hours at a stretch.) There are aspects of the hobby that aren't to my taste, that drive me nuts, that inconvenience me - but I don't use that as an excuse to behave badly to complete strangers who are associated with those things.
RTTY is fun. MFSK is fun. PSK31 is fun. Whatever interests you can be fun. It's also a hobby. Try to remember that the next time any of you decide to try to trash some "intruder" (of whatever digital stripe) because he made an honest mistake. And if, to you, such behavior is justified in defense of your "hobby", it's high time you found a new pastime. Be polite, be helpful, contrary to what society thinks it *won't* kill you! Lee ex-G8LCK, ex-N1QGB, presently KD1SQ.
I would have wished this could have been settled in a gentleman's manner. Since ZL1BPU has made his point quite clear, it appears it will have to be done in another manner. Will have to see what 1500 watts into one of my 3 5 element wide spaced yagis does. de Ed k4sb.
Entering his third year spearheading the FCC's Amateur Radio enforcement effort, Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth says "radio rage" could become a bigger danger to the future of Amateur Radio than rulebreaking. "It's the infighting and arguments and juvenile spats," Hollingsworth said this week. "That's going to come back to haunt us if we don't just grow up. It will do the service in, if the ham community doesn't put a stop to it."
Hollingsworth said that he's encouraged that the FCC's enforcement program has the support of "99.9%" of the amateur community and that the vast majority of hams follow the rules. But, he said that radio rage in the form of such things as on-air squabbles or frequency fights can degrade the bands just as quickly as outright rulebreaking. "The FCC can't do anything about that," he said. "It's up to the amateur community."
There is NO EXCUSE for deliberate QRM; we must listen before transmitting and move elsewhere if there is a signal, ANY SIGNAL, in the passband of your "tones". Warring will get us nowhere if we want to see our great hobby thrive in this era of emerging technologies that compete for the attention of prospective hams (i.e. Internet).
Forums such as these internet Email reflectors now make it possible for flames to spread far more rapidly than ever before. Please let us all stay mindful of the long term benefits of peaceful coexistence. Let's approach this issue carefully. 73 and good spirits to all, John W2KI
As you already know, I am one who believes that MFSK and FSK can co-share the spectrum, as long as their individual signals don't overlap. So, my problem is not with MFSK16, but with some MFSK16 ops who use receive bandwidths that are wide as barn doors. And, it is not the wide receivers which troubles me, but the attitude of some of these ops.
The bottom line for me is, if you use a wide filter (in any mode), and someone comes up (in any mode) within that bandwidth, and if their modulated spectrum does not overlap yours, then you have no right to complain.
The bottom line for me is, if you use a wide filter (in any mode), and someone comes up (in any mode) within that bandwidth, and if their modulated spectrum does not overlap yours, then you have no right to complain. The deficiency is in your own reception setup.
We have seen reports of MFSK16 deliberately following and QRM'ing an FSK signal that is CQ'ing between 14080 and 14085. That is not acceptable.
An inexperienced MFSK16 op who uses a wide receive bandwidth may actually be under the illusion that the FSK signal is QRM when he can suddenly not copy a fellow MFSK16 signal, or can no longer see any MFSK16 signal in the waterfall, even though there is no overlap in spectral usage by the FSK signal. One either needs to use narrow filters, or accept the fact that, with a wide filter, there will be times when you can't copy a particular weak signal in the presence of a nearby loud signal.
If this last paragraph is not acceptable to all MFSK16 operators, then we are doomed to fight this frequency battle forever. And, I believe it is not the better mode which will wins; it is the QRO signal which wins. In the end, nobody wins. de Chen AA6TY.
Vy 73 Chen And the discussion goes on. Please join in. Your comments will be appreciated and will be added to this page if you send an Email to jem@n2hos.com. For editorial comment, please read (after January 5, 2001) GAZETTE Newsletter #89, an issue devoted entirely to this subject.
