Dave:
I appreciate your response, *in public*, despite my disagreeing with your
arguments. I have no idea how many people read this reflector. I do know
that only a handful have the guts to post in public. You are one of those
few.
I have written an entire essay on the topic of FTx but nowhere to publish
it where it might get some traction. That would be QST. But the ARRL is
totally in bed with FTx, because, as you say, FTx "promotes activity." That
means more potential revenue for the ARRL: more members, more paid Logbook
of the World credits, more advertising revenue.
T.S, Eliot wrote "Democracy dies not with a bang but a whimper."
I'm too old and tired to fight this battle. Thanks for writing,
cain K1TN
I'm not a fan of FT8 for various reasons (mostly its constricted interface),
but you realize that FT8 has encouraged more activity on the bands than
just about anything else, right? Many CWers moved to FT8 for its S/N
advantages, but others moved to FT8 simply because it has far more activity
(HF or VHF) than CW does. And LOTS of the folks on FT8 would not be on CW
if FT8 went away.
Calling FT8 an "existential threat to ham radio" is ludicrous no matter how
much you or I may dislike it. Anything that encourages lots of activity
like FT8 does is exactly the opposite.
Dave AB7E
On 10/25/2022 6:10 AM, James Cain wrote:
When FT-8 crawled out from under a rock a few years ago, I submitted a post
to cq-contest. The reflector "monitor" rejected it. I called FT-8 an
"existential threat to amateur radio." Now, as the N6RO band/mode totals
bear witness, FTx is more than an existential threat, it is *reality*.
cain K1TN
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|