Topband: Top Band and JT65

[DXer]

Mark,

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
> simple.
> 
> 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
> purposes.
> 
> 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