I agree but:
- the digital mode activity is growing due to its possibilities;
- in few years there will be much more activity on FT8/FT4 than on other modes
(expecially if they will find a way to reduce QRM due to single frequency
congestion);
So, I think in VHF Contests, it will be right to have a MIXED MODE CATEGORY
(SSB/CW/DIGITAL) and SINGLE MODE CATEGORY (SSB/CW/DIGITAL) but ENANCHING QSO
POINTS for SSB/CW QSOs.
If not done, detractors will remain alone calling CQ and spending a lot of
power on desert frequencies as you can see these days on VHF (50 and 144 MHz):
Es QSOs are almost 90% FT8/FT4 even if it is convenient to operate high speed
SSB in short openings.
This is what I think. My one euro cent!
73 de Fabio, IT9GSF.
> Il 10 giugno 2020 alle 0.28 Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com> ha scritto:
>
>
> On 09/06/2020 22:23, Jim K9YC wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I see little difference between the attitude expressed in this post
> > and those who, in the '50s and '60s, refused to switch to that
> > new-fangled SSB.
> >
> > I also fail to see how FT8 differs from RTTY implemented by stations
> > using, for example, N1MM or WriteLog with multiple decoder windows in
> > which one simply clicks on a callsign to start an automated QSO and
> > clicks on the report to enter it into the log.
> >
> > Perhaps someone could explain the difference.
>
>
> Jim is right - there is no significant difference. As described, both
> FT8 and RTTY represent automated machine-decoded data modes. All the
> more reason, I suggest, to refrain from combining either with SSB/CW in
> individual contests.
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|