Terry makes the crucial point: FT8 (and the likes) should be in a different
class. Other hobbies do that: sailboats don't race against power boats, etc.
I don't think that there is much point arguing whether FT8 is Amateur Radio
or not. It is. I don't care for it, but I have been involved with enough FT8
efforts to see that it has many aspects of what we call Amateur Radio. FT8
has its place by attracting a different cohort of operators. It is also true
that it requires less effort, but that suits some people just fine. (Many
FT8 operators watch movies, are on the Internet, etc., while working FT8.)
It is lamentable that often when the CW segment is empty, the FT8 segment is
busy. But that is not the fault of the FT8 operators. Regardless, CW is
alive and well: witness the CQ160 CW contest. It was super busy (most of the
time) and far more exciting than FT8 ever will be.
73,
George,
AA7JV/C6AGU
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:59:06 -0800 (PST)
terry burge <ki7m@comcast.net> wrote:
JWIT,
Or to put it, just what I think. Paul's description of how WSPR and FT8 can/is
automatic points out what a lot of us object to. It would not be bad IF they
had a separate class for DXCC for the digital modes just because it can be like
'shooting fish in a barrel'. Some of us have work over 40 years to build a
great DXCC total. Now FT8 comes along and apparently you can do it in a few
weeks. We are at the bottom of the sunspot cycle but when it gets good see how
long it takes to get a DXCC with FT8. People who have been around for a few
cycles know the 'work the world with a wet noodle' expression can be valid up
on 10 meters. So imagine what FT8 can do. Can that be compared to working them
yourself by hand with CW or phone?
It just should not be considered when competing with CW or SSB. It is too easy. And automating contacts just threatens to destroy the whole basis of DXCC and perhaps DX'ing. Make a different class for the digital modes on DXCC at try to keep the challenge in ham radio.
That's my feeling anyhow.
Terry
KI7M
On January 31, 2019 at 1:37 PM MICHAEL ST ANGELO <mstangelo@comcast.net> wrote:
I don't understand why there is such uproar for FT-8 while some of those people use DX Spotting while operating. Both are computer assisted applications. we've been doing spotting for years.
It's up to the user. I prefer CW but may use FT-8 in he future. The genie is
out of the bottle; you can't put it back in
My $0.02
Mike N2MS
_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
|