Topband: The use of digital modes on 160 metres

[N1BUG]

On 09/19/2012 08:33 AM, Tom W8JI wrote:
>>> Maybe we will need two versions of 160m DXCC -
>>> one of which specifically states "SSB and CW only" or somesuch!
>
> That's a good suggestion. It really should be one award for the case where a
> human operator copies the signal, a man and his radio, and another
> certificate where a machine actually copies the signal, a man reading the
> text decoded and printed on a machine.
>
> This fits with the trend to make rewards in life increasingly less dependent
> on human effort, patience, and skill, and those who prefer to do it with
> human involvement. There should be two clear classes.

Awards fairness is the primary "issue" for me and it is the reason I 
came back to 160/HF after many years chasing DX on VHF/UHF EME. 
After digital modes largely took over that world, those of us who 
were stalwart CW (and/or SSB) operators argued for mode-specific 
awards. That would have made the difference between staying or going 
for some of us. But ARRL was strongly opposed, as were most digital 
operators who insisted on leaving things as they are. Most were 
vehemently opposed to mode-specific awards. It obviously was and 
remains a lost battle.

At least on HF we have CW *or* SSB awards, which is a huge step 
above the free-for-all we are forced to endure on VHF and up. But 
even here, I think adding a "mixed non-digital" category (for SSB 
and CW) would be a step forward in today's world. It would 
undoubtedly improve my somewhat waning enthusiasm for the hobby.

For the record, I have tried JT65 and other digital modes. I'm not 
opposed to them, but they are not for me. To each their own, of 
course, but I would rather watch paint dry than work digital modes. 
For me it takes the fun and sense of personal achievement out of 
operating.

73,
Paul N1BUG