[CQ-Contest] RM11708 and the Future

[Stan Stockton]

Random thoughts:

We do need to consider the issues in moving forward.  My opinion at the time of eliminating the requirement to actually copy code as opposed to a multiple choice test was that it was a bad idea.  That was about 40 years ago and was the only thing I can remember which led me to write letters of protest. Where did that change lead us?  I think it has dramatically increased the number of ham licenses and dramatically decreased the activity on the bands.  More is better?  Not sure about that.

Memorizing the answers to a few questions to get a license does not make you a ham radio operator (by my definition).  How many people with licenses have ham radio on their mind more than a couple hours per week?  Used to be one in a thousand were hams. 

Sure, we are in a transitional period.  

Sorry to say that we are one small step away (eliminating an easy multiple choice test from a question pool) from combining amateur radio with CB when the only requirement to becoming a ham will be to have enough money to buy some kind of communication device at the next truck stop.

Used to be that I was way more proud to tell someone I was a ham radio operator.

In the meantime, let us not take steps to accelerate the inevitable.

73... Stan, K5GO

> On Aug 24, 2016, at 9:36 PM, Ward Silver <hwardsil at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Well, it's an important conversation - this is a transitional period in ham radio (just like at several points in the past) and we need to consider the issues in moving forward.
> 
> I don't see any of the human-copy modes going completely away. Like Charly said, they're fun, and like a lot of other sports, music, and recreations, they will likely remain popular despite there being more effective means of communication.  And I think they can hold their own in the face of competition - IF their practitioners are willing to be flexible and adapt to the changing circumstances.  We've already come quite a long way, truth be told, but getting along requires accepting the validity of someone else's use of the ham bands.  There's that behavior thing again :-)
> 
> Anyway, from a separate conversation about RTTY, there is a need for a reasonable-speed, session-less (what the Handbook's chapter 16 refers to as "unstructured"), keyboard-to-keyboard mode.  Like RTTY but with a fuller character set (like 7-bit ASCII), more robust encoding, and less susceptibility to selective fading. Maybe a variant or derivative of DominoEX or Olivia?  A higher-speed phase-locked version of PSK31?  We use RTTY out of inertia because it was the only game in town for a long time and could be decoded by simple circuits and microprocessors back in the day.  Maybe RTTY is "good enough" for DXing and contesting but I'm sure we can do better.  With software like FLDIGI supporting dozens of modes over a common audio interface, changing modes would only involve a menu selection.  Protocol development is a hotbed of innovation and a real feather in the amateur's technical cap.
> 
> Whatever.  I understand why people are concerned.
> 
> 73, Ward N0AX
> 
> 
>> On 8/24/2016 7:15 PM, Ktfrog007 at aol.com wrote:
>> Ward, I'm in general agreement with you but have some comments.  Many of the most committed and enthusiastic hams (and most vociferous) are DXers and contesters who use CW, RTTY and SSB. These may be archaic modes, but nothing better has come along for DXing and contesting so these modes will stick around for a long time and may need protection from indicriminate wide modes.
>> The future of CW is in doubt and it will likely fade away except for DXing and contesting.  Most recently licensed hams are not proficient in CW.  This is obscured somewhat because skimmers, the RBN, clusters and pretty good code readers make CW usable for DX and contests even if you don't know it well.
>> Your post was courageous but don't get wrapped up in endless defenses.  You'll just get dragged down into the muck.
>> 73,
>> Ken, AB1J
>> In a message dated 2016-08-23 9:05:13 P.M. Coordinated Universal Tim, hwardsil at gmail.com writes:
>> 
>>   First, I do agree with N9NB that there needs to be a bandwidth
>>   limit in
>>   the amateur bands -
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest