Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant alongside FT-8? (long)

Thu Oct 26 12:31:19 EDT 2017

An issue that you'll have to confront in your proposal to the ARRL is the disposition of awards already granted to operators based on QSOs made in "K1JT modes". Will recent DXCC awards that included some FT8 QSOs be retracted? Will 5BDXCC awards or Challenge endorsements be retracted if they included JT65 QSOs? What about WAS and VUCC awards?

For the record, none of my DXCC or Challenge award credits come from "K1JT mode" QSOs, but I am using FT8 QSOs in this year's CQ DX Marathon on 160m.

      73,

              Dave, AA6YQ

-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Steve Ireland
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 9:43 AM
To: Topband reflector
Subject: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant alongside FT-8? (long)

G�day

Thanks very much to all those who contributed to the thread following my �FT8 - the end of 160m old school DXing?� post. Here is a summary of what appeared in my �In Box�.

First, special thanks to CJ Johnson WT2P for bravely giving the �new school� perspective and actually taking radio, in FT-8 form, into his workplace . As CJ says, FT-8 is just another natural progression of the hobby, which actually appeals to the �20-somethings� we need to join us (and who just happened to be brought up with lots of screens rather than cardboard loudspeakers and bakelite headphones). Vive la difference!

In regard to the emails received via the reflector  or privately, there were three things that came through very loud and clear (actually deafening).

1. There are lots of long-time, old-school topbanders (and 6m users) like me who enjoy chasing weak signal DX on CW and SSB and are now worried about the future of this activity because of the current high usage rates of FT-8 on those bands. Always better when you aren�t alone!
---------------------------------------
2. We can band together and do something about this - the solution for us old school ops who want to keep CW and SSB vital on the two magic bands is to go back to first principles � lots of CQing, tuning the band regularly and answering CQs � rather than just watching our bandscopes and DX clusters.  We all know that only activity breeds more activity. Duuh! (I feel really stupid now).

As JC N4IS said:

�With the computer our habits are different. Nowadays we turn [to] the PC first and if we see a spot or a RBN entry we try to call.... We should [go] back to call[ing] CQ for the fun to work someone. Call CQ five times and then turn your computer on, every day. If all of us do it once a day, the band will be fun again.�

We�ve all got CW memory and/or voice keyers � if we don�t want to actually CQ manually, we can use them for lots of daily CQing and make sure we answer anyone who calls us. 

We also need to answer those who we hear calling CQ to keep the band alive, even if we worked them the day before � as we did in the older, less hurried, more polite days of yore.     
--------------------------------------------
3. The ARRL could be encouraged to change the DXCC program and add a new mode-specific category for the evolving �new wave� (i.e. WSJT) family of digital modes, where contacts can be made with stations that are basically inaudible (i.e. as Hans SM6CVX suggested, where the signal levels are �1dB or more below the noise). 

To keep the peace with existing DXCC holders, one potential solution is those traditional modes which generally need audibility � typically CW, SSB, RTTY  and PSK-31 � would count for the long-standing Mixed mode, but the inaudible �new wave� digi modes would not. 

However, the growing and evolving family of inaudible �new wave� digital modes could have a whole, bright, shiny new DXCC category to themselves, for which all the current WSJT modes and their evolving, successor modes would count.  

This �new wave� digital award could have a new cool, 21st century-looking certificate (are holograms 21st century?) , would give new wave digital operators the chance to be among the first to get this award and would also give the ARRL DXCC program the chance to potentially get some extra revenue in issuing these awards.  Of course, all the contacts would be submitted electronically. ;-)

Another different but related idea came from Mark K3MSB  - why not ask the ARRL to consider awarding band-specific DXCC awards with mode endorsements (i.e. 160M DXCC-CW,  160M DXCC-FT8,  40M-Digital, 17M-SSB etc).

If we want to get this kind of change to the ARRL�s DXCC program, then as Mark suggests we need to make our voices heard. This could be simply done by creating an electronic petition to the ARRL signed by as many current members of the DXCC program as possible, clearly spelling out what sort of change the petitioners think is needed. There is a great website which can be used for this purpose -   see https://www.change.org/start-a-petition � and it should be easy to publicise a petition of this kind, using reflectors. 

For many years I was involved in administrating amateur soccer and have experience of using electronic petitions as a means of showing an administrative body the level of support for specific changes to the way the game is run.  In my experience, electronic petitions are a viable way to get rules changed these days. Some people hate them, but BIG petitions actually do get results.

Hope the above summary of ideas was of interest. Please excuse me now and I�ll get along to the low end of 160m, start doing something practical like CQing and stop worrying about the demise of old school radio (which I�ve probably greatly exaggerated).

Vy 73

Steve, VK6VZ/G3ZZD

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com