No, Mike ... it is the equivalent of AM being changed to Phone.
... and it's already that way. Remember, "Phone" includes AM,
SSB. FM, SSTV, DV and FSTV.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 8/2/2011 7:47 PM, Michael Haack wrote:
> No Joe, Its NOT inevitable.
>
> It was a Choice somebody made.
> Its equivalent to the PHONE award being changed to VOICE.
>
> And I wonder how far that would get.
>
> 73, Mike WB9B
>
>
> On 08/02/2011 6:40 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>> > I agree. This is a mistake. RTTY is a fundamental and historical
>> > mode. CW, SSB, RTTY. Dropping it in favor of a generic Digital tag
>> > does not provide proper respect for a core mode.
>>
>> While I also mourn the loss of the "RTTY" DXCC, it is a change that is
>> inevitable. Even the "SSB" DXCC is not "SSB" DXCC - it is "Phone"
>> DXCC (check your certificates if you have one and look at the DXCC
>> page on the ARRL web site. Just as the "RTTY" (now "Digital") DXCC
>> accepts confirmations using a wide variety of digital encoding -
>> from IAT2 ("RTTY") in various data rates, to PSK, QPSK, AMTOR/PACTOR,
>> at their various rates to "strange" modes like MFSK, JT-modes, etc.
>> so to does the "Phone" DXCC accept many forms or analog modulation
>> - from double sideband with carrier "AM" to SSB, FM, and even SSTV
>> and probably digital voice.
>>
>> "RTTY" has not been an accurate name for the RTTY DXCC for many - maybe
>> 20 (?) years. I'm sure there were as many complaints from many of the
>> old-timers when the "AM" DXCC was changed to "phone" - certainly there
>> were complaints when confirmations using "SSB" were first accepted
>> (after all, SSB had that 10 dB advantage over AM - it was unfair).
>>
>> I am happy my "Digital" DXCC says RTTY and I don't intend to change it
>> - but it's time to recognize what has been happening for a long time.
>> Several of my confirmations are digital modes other than ITA2 - even
>> though I've worked all of the entities using "RTTY" - since some of
>> the "RTTY" operators simply would not QSL over the years while newer
>> "digital" operators don't seem to be so pecuniary!
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> ... Joe, W4TV
>>
>>
>> On 8/2/2011 6:47 PM, Jeff Blaine wrote:
>>> I agree. This is a mistake. RTTY is a fundamental and historical
>>> mode. CW, SSB, RTTY. Dropping it in favor of a generic Digital tag
>>> does not provide proper respect for a core mode. I can see something
>>> (also traditional) like SSTV being logically called Digital. But
>>> this is a minor mode as is PSK and all the other digital variants.
>>>
>>> RTTY because of it's fundamental place in radio history, strong use
>>> in modern times, and huge growth rate, deserves to remain a separate
>>> category. I can only believe that the league did not have an
>>> adequate understanding of the prevalence of RTTY when considering
>>> their vote otherwise they would have left RTTY as a separate and
>>> distinct entity.
>>>
>>> 73, Jeff ACØC www.ac0c.com
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: iw1ayd Sent: Tuesday, August 02,
>>> 2011 5:32 PM To: rtty@contesting.com Subject: [RTTY] Digital DXCC or
>>> ARRL Board of Directors, respectfully: have my strong disagreement
>>>
>>> Hi to all.
>>>
>>> Just to read the doc abou and not my personal opinion go there:
>>>
>>> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About%20ARRL/Board%20Meetings/2011%20Second%20MeetingMinutes%281%29.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> ( Take care of the URL line fragmenting and about the dead space
>>> representation as %20 )
>>>
>>>
>>> Abstract from "Minutes of the 2011 Second Meeting - ARRL Board of
>>> Directors - July 15-16. 2011"
>>>
>>> 29. On motion of Mr. Fenstermaker, seconded by Mr. Edgar, the
>>> following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS the DX Advisory Committee
>>> (DXAC) was charged to investigate many aspects of the ARRL DX
>>> program; and WHEREAS Amateur Radio technology has advanced to include
>>> many variations of digital communication; and WHEREAS the DXAC has
>>> recommended changing the DXCC Award category from RTTY to Digital or
>>> RTTY/Digital or Digital Mixed; and WHEREAS the Programs& Services
>>> Committee (PSC) deliberated this change and, along with ARRL staff
>>> believe the best revised name for this award is Digital DXCC, and
>>> WHEREAS, the ARRL thanks the DXAC for its work on this name change;
>>> Therefore, it is RESOLVED that the ARRL Board accepts the
>>> recommendation of the PSC to change the title of the RTTY DXCC Award
>>> to the DIGITAL DXCC Award.
>>>
>>>
>>> What to say, there are no reasons nor facts by any means about the
>>> decision taken inside that document, as seen here in the abstract.
>>> The phrase " WHEREAS Amateur Radio technology has advanced to
>>> include many variations of digital communication ...", tells by
>>> itself all. Technology have changed a lot since the radio was only
>>> used for CW, sparking or funk (DL), in the meantime, since than and
>>> until quite now, there weren't changes in the radio technologies,
>>> accordingly to this 2011 sentence: unbelievable.
>>>
>>> So, RTTY was RTTY, Phone was Phone and CW was CW. Now, 2011, the
>>> silliest and subtle discovery that whatever is not Phone or CW must
>>> be called Digital, like several appliances we have on hands or at
>>> home. So CW, a digital mode by default and by any mean, will remain
>>> unDigital as Phone, they couldn't could not be assimilated. RTTY,
>>> that by itself haven't any remarkable nor visible soul as Phone o CW,
>>> instead will be fully assimilated. Yes like the Star Trek saga, "Any
>>> resistance will be futile ...". In the movie that was a nice
>>> characterization, now it is only an awful envision at best.
>>>
>>> Instead to clearly change anything, i.e. adding a Digital DXCC award
>>> - yes why not, now we are all assimilated as Digital Borg. Worst,
>>> leaving out more than half of the world that is already digital since
>>> than. The sacred soul of CW and its big weapons. Playing between
>>> presence or absence of a single signal and coding signs accordingly
>>> mean enough digital to my, any(?), eyes and my ears, but I would not
>>> start a religious discussion there. All the old DEC self instruction
>>> tapes have already made this point strong enough in the NRZ signals
>>> chapter, almost 35 years ago (just the clock/timing recovering may
>>> seems to gets out of the picture ... fuzzy or not fuzzy). Well done,
>>> another foot in the grave and nobody know how many of those we have
>>> to spare.
>>>
>>> Nemo propheta in patria.
>>>
>>>
>>> 73 de iw1ayd Salvo
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|