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

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

So why does everyone have to play by your rules and not those of the 
people giving out the awards?  How about the built in 10 to 15 db 
advantage of living next to the pond may give?  Remote radio is ok but 
Digital is not.


You get your awards your way, I will get mine mine.

73

W0MU


On 10/26/2017 2:27 PM, k8...@alphacomm.net wrote:

Hi Steve,

Thank you very much for bringing this topic up, and for your summary. 
The elephant in the room needed addressing.


I almost bought the new transceiver I've been wanting this 
yearuntil I saw the reflector post about the gentleman who "worked 
20 new ones this season, and I couldn't hear any of them!". Since then 
I've seen a couple of DX entities I need (I'm now at 235) which were 
operating digital only...The new purchase is now on hold, until I see 
how this plays out. If there is a rapid change to digital only DXing 
on 160, I'm going to be happy I saved my money for one of my more 
interesting hobbies. Those digital operators who don't understand why 
their DX qso's shouldn't count the same are purposely overlooking 
their 10-15 dB advantage. Looking at it another way, if the ARRL 
doesn't create a Phone, CW, and Digital classification for their 
awards and contests, then their present "rewards" will be cheapened by 
10-15 dB


I haven't operated QRP, but have great respect for anyone who tackles 
TopBand that way. I, too, have the utmost respect for those DXCC Honor 
Roll members who have spent decades getting there. If their efforts 
can be duplicated easily by anyone having a 10-15 dB advantage, this 
is great technologically, but obviously isn't the same. The ARRL and 
probably CQ need to address this head on.


I've been licensed for over 60 years, and have been a thankful 
participant in ham radio's golden years, but if continuing on means 
having to make qso's that I don't hear and that I can't understand 
without a computer, then it's of no further interest. I was an avid 2 
meter VHFer for decades and managed to work all 50 states in less than 
a year, using every form of propagation available. First meteor 
scatter fell to digital modes, then eme followed, and finally long 
range tropo. I dismantled the big voice from EN75, and went to TopBand 
to avoid such activity. Now it has hit 160


Like I said, I'll be interested to see how this plays out. If it goes 
all digital, I'm gone. Back to the 5 string banjo, antique (1920's) 
broadcast radios, brook trout fishing (where I don't use stocked trout 
ponds that guarantee fish), bird hunting (and not at those hunt clubs 
that raise birds and release them when you want to shoot), and 
primitive camping. All these are much more entertaining than watching 
my computer "work" DX  when I push a button.


Thanks again Steve, well done...

Brian K8BHZ


On 10/26/2017 9:43 AM, Steve Ireland wrote:

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 

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

[Dave AA6YQ]

>>>AA6YQ comments below

-Original Message-
From: Mark K3MSB [mailto:mark.k3...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 1:28 PM
To: Dave AA6YQ
Cc: topBand List
Subject: Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant 
alongside FT-8? (long)

You can’t retract any awards,  and I don’t believe you even have to worry about 
that.

>>>I'm not personally worried, Mark. As I said, none of my DXCC or Challenge 
>>>award credits were made with K1JT modes. I was referring to the impact on 
>>>award recipients who included K1JT modes in their submissions over the past 
>>>several years.

Let’s say you have 150 Confirmed on 160M right now using a combination of SSB, 
CW, FT8 etc.   The current single band award would not change – it’s “Mixed” by 
default.   I would envision 3 new awards to come into existence --  160M-SSB,  
160M-CW, and 160M-FT8.

As I mentioned before,  once you have the software written for one mode 
specific band award (ex:  160M-CW),

>>>Extending DXCC to include band-mode combinations would have large 
>>>implications for the award program. Why just for 160m, as you propose above? 
>>>From the other extreme, many ops complain about pileup congestion caused by 
>>>award chasers seeking new entity-bands for DXCC Challenge; adding 
>>>entity-band-modes would make this worse.

  then it’s a simple extension to add –SSB, -FT8, -AM, -PSK31, -Digital etc  
(unless you really bolloxed up the architectural stage of the software design). 
 The ability to easily add new band/mode combinations will be essential to 
facilitate new modes that will be available in the future.Like I posted 
before, it’s not rocket science to get this done.

>>>Given the context, it's not obvious why you're focusing on software, but if 
>>>you're referring to DXLab, which I develop and maintain, it has long 
>>>supported the pursuit of WAZ awards, which do support a full matrix of 
>>>zones, bands, and modes. I'll extend DXLab to support whatever the ARRL and 
>>>the other primary award sponsors do, as I (and other logging application 
>>>developers) have done for many years.

>>>A  "level playing field" issue that ops have raised is that some have 
>>>labored a lifetime to achieve Honor Roll on RTTY, only to have the ARRL 
>>>"dilute" this by accepting digital modes that make it "easier" to work DX: 
>>>PSK, Olivia, JT65, and now FT8. There's a similar issue with Mixed awards 
>>>for particularly challenging bands like 160m and 6m. Adding new 
>>>mode-specific awards avoids the "retraction" issue that would occur if the 
>>>ARRL were to redefine the 160m DXCC awards and endorsements to exclude FT8, 
>>>or redefine the DXCC Digital awards and endorsements to exclude FT8 - but 
>>>adding new mode-specific awards doesn't address the "dilution of my lifelong 
>>>effort" issue. 

73,

 Dave, AA6YQ


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

[k8...@alphacomm.net]

Hi Steve,

Thank you very much for bringing this topic up, and for your summary. 
The elephant in the room needed addressing.


I almost bought the new transceiver I've been wanting this yearuntil 
I saw the reflector post about the gentleman who "worked 20 new ones 
this season, and I couldn't hear any of them!". Since then I've seen a 
couple of DX entities I need (I'm now at 235) which were operating 
digital only...The new purchase is now on hold, until I see how this 
plays out. If there is a rapid change to digital only DXing on 160, I'm 
going to be happy I saved my money for one of my more interesting 
hobbies. Those digital operators who don't understand why their DX qso's 
shouldn't count the same are purposely overlooking their 10-15 dB 
advantage. Looking at it another way, if the ARRL doesn't create a 
Phone, CW, and Digital classification for their awards and contests, 
then their present "rewards" will be cheapened by 10-15 dB


I haven't operated QRP, but have great respect for anyone who tackles 
TopBand that way. I, too, have the utmost respect for those DXCC Honor 
Roll members who have spent decades getting there. If their efforts can 
be duplicated easily by anyone having a 10-15 dB advantage, this is 
great technologically, but obviously isn't the same. The ARRL and 
probably CQ need to address this head on.


I've been licensed for over 60 years, and have been a thankful 
participant in ham radio's golden years, but if continuing on means 
having to make qso's that I don't hear and that I can't understand 
without a computer, then it's of no further interest. I was an avid 2 
meter VHFer for decades and managed to work all 50 states in less than a 
year, using every form of propagation available. First meteor scatter 
fell to digital modes, then eme followed, and finally long range tropo. 
I dismantled the big voice from EN75, and went to TopBand to avoid such 
activity. Now it has hit 160


Like I said, I'll be interested to see how this plays out. If it goes 
all digital, I'm gone. Back to the 5 string banjo, antique (1920's) 
broadcast radios, brook trout fishing (where I don't use stocked trout 
ponds that guarantee fish), bird hunting (and not at those hunt clubs 
that raise birds and release them when you want to shoot), and primitive 
camping. All these are much more entertaining than watching my computer 
"work" DX  when I push a button.


Thanks again Steve, well done...

Brian K8BHZ


On 10/26/2017 9:43 AM, Steve Ireland wrote:

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 

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

[Mark K3MSB]

You can’t retract any awards,  and I don’t believe you even have to worry
about that.

Let’s say you have 150 Confirmed on 160M right now using a combination of
SSB, CW, FT8 etc.   The current single band award would not change – it’s
“Mixed” by default.   I would envision 3 new awards to come into existence
--  160M-SSB,  160M-CW, and 160M-FT8.

As I mentioned before,  once you have the software written for one mode
specific band award (ex:  160M-CW),  then it’s a simple extension to add
–SSB, -FT8, -AM, -PSK31, -Digital etc  (unless you really bolloxed up the
architectural stage of the software design).  The ability to easily add
new band/mode combinations will be essential to facilitate new modes that
will be available in the future.Like I posted before, it’s not rocket
science to get this done.

73 Mark K3MSB

On Oct 26, 2017 12:31 PM, "Dave AA6YQ"  wrote:

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
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

[DXer]

That's right. Make sure to disable PSKReporter in WSJT-X, and Hamspot.net
in JTAlert. This way you won't look bad saying one thing, and doing
another. LOL

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:35 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett  wrote:

>
> I know that 3Y0X will have the ability to do FT8 with them.  Like I said
> earlier, when they get on 160m FT8, if they do, how many calls of people
> dead against this mode will we see in the pileups...
>
>
> W0MU
>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

The ARRL will create a new certificate.  It will be new income. This is 
a no brainer.  They already have an FT8 mode in WAS.


I know that 3Y0X will have the ability to do FT8 with them.  Like I said 
earlier, when they get on 160m FT8, if they do, how many calls of people 
dead against this mode will we see in the pileups...


DX pileups should not be that much different than RTTY.  They will need 
to tell people to operate split, which is fine because FT decodes the 
entire FT8 spectrum.


W0MU


On 10/26/2017 9:27 AM, Tim Shoppa wrote:

Quoting ARRL Contest Update for October 18 2017:

"FT8 mode usage continues to increase! According to a tweet by Michael,
G7VJR, operator of Club Log, "In September 2017, the number of FT8 QSOs
uploaded to Club Log was the same as CW and SSB combined." (Bengt, K7ADD)"

DXCC concept of "by mode" awards has been reworked several times in the
past 70 years and I don't see why it can't be reworked again.

In 1940 only 4 hams had "radiotelephone" DXCC.

It wasn't until the mid-1970's that they made a certificate for CW.

I'm not sure when RTTY DXCC Certificate began but it morphed into "Digital"
in 2011.

I do a lot of RTTY contesting and think I've built up a good skillset for
that particular mode.

I've made a few dozen FT8 QSO's, kinda have the basic hang of it, but I'm
sure the FT8 experts know more than me about how to work rare DX with it.
When we get a truly rare dxpedition using FT8 they will have to manage the
pileup somehow, I'm actually looking forward to see what operating
practices are adopted.

Tim N3QE

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Nick Maslon - K1NZ <k...@arrl.net> wrote:


Hi Dale,

My comments were more aimed at the "let's separate FT/JT modes into their
own separate DXCC category and disqualify them from Mixed" sentiment. I
have no problem with the per mode style DXCC awards. I just wanted to point
out that someone can't retroactively change the definition of Mixed because
they don't like a specific mode being in there. I guess I wasn't as clear
as I could have been in my phrasing.

73,
Nick K1NZ

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Dale Putnam <daleput...@hotmail.com>
wrote:


Hi Nick,

   Not necessarily  needed retraction. Not at all..

It seems to me that a solely one more or other.. is called for, also,

a mixed mode, already in place, with any or all of a mix of modes.

These are all digi modes that I am speaking of.

Pretty much the same as "phone" awards.. doesn't care if it is FM voice,
SSB voice, or AM voice.

Neither would the "digi" award.. but the difference would be noted with a
single mode cert.


Have a great day,
--... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy

"Actions speak louder than words"
1856 - Abraham Lincoln


--
*From:* Topband <topband-boun...@contesting.com> on behalf of Nick

Maslon

- K1NZ <k...@arrl.net>
*Sent:* Thursday, October 26, 2017 8:58 AM
*To:* topband@contesting.com
*Subject:* Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant
alongside FT-8? (long)

I just have one question about your suggestion about creating a "new"

digi

DXCC award and excluding JT/FT modes from mixed. Are those people (myself
included) who have applied JT/FT credit to their Mixed award and received
it as such going to have to mail the certificate back to the League and
have the award retracted? It will be difficult to retroactively create a
"new" award without including every mode in mixed, which by definition is
mixed. Creating a "Mixed but without JT/FT modes" DXCC is getting into

the

splitting hairs and logistics nightmare ballpark.

PS. I am also one of the <30 crowd.

73,
Nick K1NZ
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
TopBand Mail List Archives - contesting.com
<http://www.contesting.com/_topband>
www.contesting.com
Topband Mailing List Archives. Search String: [How to search] Display:

...




_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

[Dave AA6YQ]

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-boun...@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 

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

[k8gg]

Gentlemen:

Tim writes very well below.  However, I have had 45 or more FT8 emails and
I truly think we are airing the same laundry many times.  Steve Ireland
did raise a very good point..but

While I respect all the varied opinions, it may be time to stop beating
the modes to death (new and old) and get on with real stuff like how
strong or weak the H40 station was two days ago, how strong 3C0L was the
other night, or the VK9 announcement about 4 square RX antennas with no
preamps at the verticals.

Thank you for your patience... mine has gone click-click-click on the
delete button many times this week.

73 to all,   George,  K8GG





> Quoting ARRL Contest Update for October 18 2017:
>
> "FT8 mode usage continues to increase! According to a tweet by Michael,
> G7VJR, operator of Club Log, "In September 2017, the number of FT8 QSOs
> uploaded to Club Log was the same as CW and SSB combined." (Bengt, K7ADD)"
>
> DXCC concept of "by mode" awards has been reworked several times in the
> past 70 years and I don't see why it can't be reworked again.
>
> In 1940 only 4 hams had "radiotelephone" DXCC.
>
> It wasn't until the mid-1970's that they made a certificate for CW.
>
> I'm not sure when RTTY DXCC Certificate began but it morphed into
> "Digital"
> in 2011.
>
> I do a lot of RTTY contesting and think I've built up a good skillset for
> that particular mode.
>
> I've made a few dozen FT8 QSO's, kinda have the basic hang of it, but I'm
> sure the FT8 experts know more than me about how to work rare DX with it.
> When we get a truly rare dxpedition using FT8 they will have to manage the
> pileup somehow, I'm actually looking forward to see what operating
> practices are adopted.
>
> Tim N3QE
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Nick Maslon - K1NZ <k...@arrl.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dale,
>>
>> My comments were more aimed at the "let's separate FT/JT modes into
>> their
>> own separate DXCC category and disqualify them from Mixed" sentiment. I
>> have no problem with the per mode style DXCC awards. I just wanted to
>> point
>> out that someone can't retroactively change the definition of Mixed
>> because
>> they don't like a specific mode being in there. I guess I wasn't as
>> clear
>> as I could have been in my phrasing.
>>
>> 73,
>> Nick K1NZ
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Dale Putnam <daleput...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Nick,
>> >
>> >   Not necessarily  needed retraction. Not at all..
>> >
>> > It seems to me that a solely one more or other.. is called for, also,
>> >
>> > a mixed mode, already in place, with any or all of a mix of modes.
>> >
>> > These are all digi modes that I am speaking of.
>> >
>> > Pretty much the same as "phone" awards.. doesn't care if it is FM
>> voice,
>> > SSB voice, or AM voice.
>> >
>> > Neither would the "digi" award.. but the difference would be noted
>> with a
>> > single mode cert.
>> >
>> >
>> > Have a great day,
>> > --... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy
>> >
>> > "Actions speak louder than words"
>> > 1856 - Abraham Lincoln
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > *From:* Topband <topband-boun...@contesting.com> on behalf of Nick
>> Maslon
>> > - K1NZ <k...@arrl.net>
>> > *Sent:* Thursday, October 26, 2017 8:58 AM
>> > *To:* topband@contesting.com
>> > *Subject:* Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes
>> vibrant
>> > alongside FT-8? (long)
>> >
>> > I just have one question about your suggestion about creating a "new"
>> digi
>> > DXCC award and excluding JT/FT modes from mixed. Are those people
>> (myself
>> > included) who have applied JT/FT credit to their Mixed award and
>> received
>> > it as such going to have to mail the certificate back to the League
>> and
>> > have the award retracted? It will be difficult to retroactively create
>> a
>> > "new" award without including every mode in mixed, which by definition
>> is
>> > mixed. Creating a "Mixed but without JT/FT modes" DXCC is getting into
>> the
>> > splitting hairs and logistics nightmare ballpark.
>> >
>> > PS. I am also one of the <30 crowd.
>> >
>> > 73,
>> > Nick K1NZ
>> > _
>> > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>> > TopBand Mail List Archives - contesting.com
>> > <http://www.contesting.com/_topband>
>> > www.contesting.com
>> > Topband Mailing List Archives. Search String: [How to search] Display:
>> ...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> _
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

[Tim Shoppa]

Quoting ARRL Contest Update for October 18 2017:

"FT8 mode usage continues to increase! According to a tweet by Michael,
G7VJR, operator of Club Log, "In September 2017, the number of FT8 QSOs
uploaded to Club Log was the same as CW and SSB combined." (Bengt, K7ADD)"

DXCC concept of "by mode" awards has been reworked several times in the
past 70 years and I don't see why it can't be reworked again.

In 1940 only 4 hams had "radiotelephone" DXCC.

It wasn't until the mid-1970's that they made a certificate for CW.

I'm not sure when RTTY DXCC Certificate began but it morphed into "Digital"
in 2011.

I do a lot of RTTY contesting and think I've built up a good skillset for
that particular mode.

I've made a few dozen FT8 QSO's, kinda have the basic hang of it, but I'm
sure the FT8 experts know more than me about how to work rare DX with it.
When we get a truly rare dxpedition using FT8 they will have to manage the
pileup somehow, I'm actually looking forward to see what operating
practices are adopted.

Tim N3QE

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Nick Maslon - K1NZ <k...@arrl.net> wrote:

> Hi Dale,
>
> My comments were more aimed at the "let's separate FT/JT modes into their
> own separate DXCC category and disqualify them from Mixed" sentiment. I
> have no problem with the per mode style DXCC awards. I just wanted to point
> out that someone can't retroactively change the definition of Mixed because
> they don't like a specific mode being in there. I guess I wasn't as clear
> as I could have been in my phrasing.
>
> 73,
> Nick K1NZ
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Dale Putnam <daleput...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Nick,
> >
> >   Not necessarily  needed retraction. Not at all..
> >
> > It seems to me that a solely one more or other.. is called for, also,
> >
> > a mixed mode, already in place, with any or all of a mix of modes.
> >
> > These are all digi modes that I am speaking of.
> >
> > Pretty much the same as "phone" awards.. doesn't care if it is FM voice,
> > SSB voice, or AM voice.
> >
> > Neither would the "digi" award.. but the difference would be noted with a
> > single mode cert.
> >
> >
> > Have a great day,
> > --... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy
> >
> > "Actions speak louder than words"
> > 1856 - Abraham Lincoln
> >
> >
> > --------------
> > *From:* Topband <topband-boun...@contesting.com> on behalf of Nick
> Maslon
> > - K1NZ <k...@arrl.net>
> > *Sent:* Thursday, October 26, 2017 8:58 AM
> > *To:* topband@contesting.com
> > *Subject:* Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant
> > alongside FT-8? (long)
> >
> > I just have one question about your suggestion about creating a "new"
> digi
> > DXCC award and excluding JT/FT modes from mixed. Are those people (myself
> > included) who have applied JT/FT credit to their Mixed award and received
> > it as such going to have to mail the certificate back to the League and
> > have the award retracted? It will be difficult to retroactively create a
> > "new" award without including every mode in mixed, which by definition is
> > mixed. Creating a "Mixed but without JT/FT modes" DXCC is getting into
> the
> > splitting hairs and logistics nightmare ballpark.
> >
> > PS. I am also one of the <30 crowd.
> >
> > 73,
> > Nick K1NZ
> > _
> > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> > TopBand Mail List Archives - contesting.com
> > <http://www.contesting.com/_topband>
> > www.contesting.com
> > Topband Mailing List Archives. Search String: [How to search] Display:
> ...
> >
> >
> >
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

[DXer]

Mixed, as per one of the definitions: containing a mixture of both
favorable and negative elements.

FT8 belongs in it, it's a favorable element. LOL

73 de Vince, VA3VF

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Nick Maslon - K1NZ  wrote:

> Hi Dale,
>
> My comments were more aimed at the "let's separate FT/JT modes into their
> own separate DXCC category and disqualify them from Mixed" sentiment. I
> have no problem with the per mode style DXCC awards. I just wanted to point
> out that someone can't retroactively change the definition of Mixed because
> they don't like a specific mode being in there. I guess I wasn't as clear
> as I could have been in my phrasing.
>
> 73,
> Nick K1NZ
>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

[Nick Maslon - K1NZ]

Hi Dale,

My comments were more aimed at the "let's separate FT/JT modes into their
own separate DXCC category and disqualify them from Mixed" sentiment. I
have no problem with the per mode style DXCC awards. I just wanted to point
out that someone can't retroactively change the definition of Mixed because
they don't like a specific mode being in there. I guess I wasn't as clear
as I could have been in my phrasing.

73,
Nick K1NZ

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Dale Putnam <daleput...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Nick,
>
>   Not necessarily  needed retraction. Not at all..
>
> It seems to me that a solely one more or other.. is called for, also,
>
> a mixed mode, already in place, with any or all of a mix of modes.
>
> These are all digi modes that I am speaking of.
>
> Pretty much the same as "phone" awards.. doesn't care if it is FM voice,
> SSB voice, or AM voice.
>
> Neither would the "digi" award.. but the difference would be noted with a
> single mode cert.
>
>
> Have a great day,
> --... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy
>
> "Actions speak louder than words"
> 1856 - Abraham Lincoln
>
>
> --
> *From:* Topband <topband-boun...@contesting.com> on behalf of Nick Maslon
> - K1NZ <k...@arrl.net>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 26, 2017 8:58 AM
> *To:* topband@contesting.com
> *Subject:* Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant
> alongside FT-8? (long)
>
> I just have one question about your suggestion about creating a "new" digi
> DXCC award and excluding JT/FT modes from mixed. Are those people (myself
> included) who have applied JT/FT credit to their Mixed award and received
> it as such going to have to mail the certificate back to the League and
> have the award retracted? It will be difficult to retroactively create a
> "new" award without including every mode in mixed, which by definition is
> mixed. Creating a "Mixed but without JT/FT modes" DXCC is getting into the
> splitting hairs and logistics nightmare ballpark.
>
> PS. I am also one of the <30 crowd.
>
> 73,
> Nick K1NZ
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> TopBand Mail List Archives - contesting.com
> <http://www.contesting.com/_topband>
> www.contesting.com
> Topband Mailing List Archives. Search String: [How to search] Display: ...
>
>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

[Dale Putnam]

Hi Nick,

  Not necessarily  needed retraction. Not at all..

It seems to me that a solely one more or other.. is called for, also,

a mixed mode, already in place, with any or all of a mix of modes.

These are all digi modes that I am speaking of.

Pretty much the same as "phone" awards.. doesn't care if it is FM voice, SSB 
voice, or AM voice.

Neither would the "digi" award.. but the difference would be noted with a 
single mode cert.


Have a great day,
--... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy

"Actions speak louder than words"
1856 - Abraham Lincoln



From: Topband <topband-boun...@contesting.com> on behalf of Nick Maslon - K1NZ 
<k...@arrl.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 8:58 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: A way forward to keep 'old school' modes vibrant 
alongside FT-8? (long)

I just have one question about your suggestion about creating a "new" digi
DXCC award and excluding JT/FT modes from mixed. Are those people (myself
included) who have applied JT/FT credit to their Mixed award and received
it as such going to have to mail the certificate back to the League and
have the award retracted? It will be difficult to retroactively create a
"new" award without including every mode in mixed, which by definition is
mixed. Creating a "Mixed but without JT/FT modes" DXCC is getting into the
splitting hairs and logistics nightmare ballpark.

PS. I am also one of the <30 crowd.

73,
Nick K1NZ
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
TopBand Mail List Archives - contesting.com<http://www.contesting.com/_topband>
www.contesting.com
Topband Mailing List Archives. Search String: [How to search] Display: ...



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

[Steve Ireland]

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