[CQ-Contest] Clarification CW, SSB and the FCC

[Bill Tippett]

K4JRB wrote:

>First off the person who heard this comment was a retired FCC Engineer (then
called a FOB Chief Engineer).  He was with a group of visiting hams.  This
was about 1 year ago when the FCC Chairman was new.   My take it was a
challenge statement not a statement to abandon CW and SSB.

        Original statement: "The new FCC Chairman told a group of hams that 
its time for amateurs to move to the new modes and leave what he considers 
are obsolete modes.   He said (and ARRL agrees) that a mode such as PSK31 
is superior to CW in weak signal environments."

        "Obsolete" is a very strong word which the dictionary defines as:

1.No longer in use: an obsolete word. 
2.Outmoded in design, style, or construction: an obsolete locomotive. 

Neither CW nor SSB is obsolete; in fact, both are far superior to any of
the new digital modes at rapidly communicating information between
many different stations under extreme conditions.  In fact, PSK31 has
NOT been proven to be superior to CW in weak signal environments IMHO.
PSK31, WSJT, QRSS, etc are superior ONLY if you know the exact frequency
to tune your receiver to the signal buried in noise.  Without this 
critical information (either from a prearranged schedule or via the 
Internet), they cannot magically extract signals from noise.  Can you 
imagine a contest where you tune your receiver but cannot hear the 
signals?  I don't think so.

        I think it always is in our interest to challenge factually 
incorrect statements, especially if they are attributed to someone who
is in a position to affect us.  What we need is more education of our
officials and maybe a little more critical thinking before accepting as
gospel some of their pronouncements.  In this case, I think it remains
to be proven exactly what Chairman Powell actually said.  

        "I also found out that several don't believe that digital 
(from RTTY to PSK 31 et al) is really amateur radio."  That is not
what was said.  What I said was "I personally do not think a 
computer-to-computer 'QSO' means much".  I specifically meant when
neither station can hear the other station (with their own ears),
and I'll stand by my statement.  To me, a QSO like this is just like
nets where the Netmeister tells each side of the QSO "Good Contact"
when in fact neither station can hear the other.  The only difference 
is our computers have replaced the Netmeister!  

                                                73,  Bill  W4ZV