[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65

Subject: Re: Topband: Top Band and JT65
From: DXer <>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 17:45:33 -0400
List-post: <">>

Very well said, but unless you consider the JT modes in a different class still than RTTY and PSK, except for mixed mode awards/contests, there is already a level playing field.

Mixed is, well, mixed, but everything else is separate already. One cannot apply for an SSB award with JT QSOs. One cannot compete in the CQWW SSB using RTTY.

The distinction you make about computer assisted modes is a good one, otherwise a 'crazie' could say that CW should not be a separate category, but be in the digital one. :^)

As for the use of remotes, they can be an issue in large countries. A guy in San Marino, operating his home station remotely from his cottage in San Marino, is not the same as a guy in Halifax, operating his home station remotely in Vancouver. It's perfectly 'legal' under current DXCC rules, but some will say it's unfair to the San Marino ham.

I was only making the point that things can change, not that they need to change. For me everything is fine as it's currently in place, live and let live, yada yada, but I accept your point that as technology advances and/or destroys the status quo, the existing rules need to be revised.

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On 2017-05-21 4:29 PM, Mark K3MSB wrote:
The issue is not one of any mode being more "valid" that the other,  nor is
it one of a QSO being "valid" or "invalid" based upon the mode.    If a two
way exchange is completed between two legally licensed amateur stations
using lawfully authorized modes,  the QSO is valid.    I think it's that

But that's not what I had brought up in my post of several days ago.    The
issue I brought up is that of a level playing field for competition / award

Modes that require a computer to effect a QSO should be in a different
category than modes that do not.    By "require" I do not mean "make
easier",  but rather could not be accomplished without a computer.     My
ICOM makes a  QSO easier than my ARC-5s,  but both still need a human's
skill to complete the QSO.   Stated alternately,  modes that requires a
human skill should be categorized differently than those that do not -- and
by human skill I do not mean downloading software and  pushing buttons.  As
someone pointed out,  the DXCC rules are not part of the 10 commandments.
It is my opinion that technology has reached a new level in which the rules
need to be changed to accommodate that level.

The same is true of remote operations.    I can whip out my credit card and
use a station on the west coat and get my 5 remaining zones on 80 to
complete my 5BWAZ.   I will not do that as I feel it is unsportsmanlike to
do so.   Are the QSOs legal as per the rules?   Yes (unless CQ has changed
them recently). But, to my way of thinking,  the journey is an important
part of getting to the destination.

This issue is not about validating someone's worth as a "real amateur"  (no
code, know code, extra light etc),  but rather recognizing that human skill
in achieving a goal should be treated differently than letting a computer
alone achieve the same goal that requires no such skill.

There is nothing wrong with the JT modes;  they are a wonderful advancement
in communications technology in the spirit of the advancement of amateur
radio.   But in the light of competition based upon human striving and
skill,  they are in a different category.   They are not good or bad, they
are not valid or invalid;  they are just different.  Technology has moved
on to the point where the existing rules need to be changed.

Mark K3MSB
Topband Reflector Archives -

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>