The reported death of Amateur Radio due to FT8 is an exaggeration

I still make an occasional FT8 mode QSO on the fringes of the bedlam waterfall. But I've also been making more QSO's again on JT65A and JT9. There are still QSO's to be made on 20 meters at day and 40 meters at night.

I've also been making allot of QSO's on OLIVIA again on 20 and 40 meters. It's a nice rag chew mode.

 

The pressure on HF is greater than many think (witness what I will be the first to admit was a disappointing outcome on 60 meters at WRC-15--those "unused" fixed and mobile segments have a lot of incumbents who see great value in their limited use).

FT8 is a great new tool in the arsenal to defend our allocations, including those at HF (it shows that we can still do some cutting edge stuff), but it's only one of several tools necessary. It is critical to have a variety of ways to utilize amateur radio to effectively build the case.

The need to make this case is among many reasons why it's vital to have an ARRL, no matter how much ARRL may or may not ¶!$$ you off at any given time.

 

I worry quite a bit about both.

 

Agree. Any spectrum is valuable. A loss is a loss, whether an individual ham uses it or not. Once lost, it's not likely to return.

Frequencies that are considered 'useless' today, may be very useful tomorrow.

Commercial interest will always jump at an opportunity. Hams are best placed to explore the 'unknown', even at the cost of being 'elbowed out' after the 'discovery', but if we are 'there', we may keep some of it, if not, it's all gone.

Look at the so called "Dreamer's Band". There is a small group of hams, mostly in Europe, experimenting with transmissions on 2, 5, and 9 kHz.

Nothing wrong with exchanging medical history on 80M SSB, but experimentation is what started the 'service', and will keep it going.

 

FT-8?...…….…….Yep I worked him.

 

I can't stress enough that we need to PURGE this 'code word(s)' of COMMERCIAL INTEREST . And BEATING on it.

What you mean is NON-AMATEUR INTEREST.

I am one of many who are getting tired of these chronic jabs at the free enterprise system.

I know for a FACT that at least SOME of the 'interest' is NON-COMMERCIAL.

Call it NGO's, or whatever--they are not designed to make money. And they are not 'commercial interests'.

OK?

Thanks!
Chip W1YW

 

Not a big fan of FT8, but it seems to me that so long as not one single operator is blocked from using the old fashioned ways, it's a non-issue.

They said that dropping the practical exam would kill the hobby. It didn't.
They said that dropping the code requirement would kill the hobby. It didn't.
They said that Baofeng would kill the hobby... It didn't.

FT8 is a toy. An amusing technical toy. Nothing more.

 

That's a fair point. There was no "chronic jabs at the free enterprise system" from my part.

I was not aware "that at least SOME of the 'interest' is NON-COMMERCIAL".

So, from now on, from me at least, it's "NON-AMATEUR INTEREST".

 

OM, I believe you missed the point.

Since a near-majority of contacts on HF are now done thru FT8, and FT8 has been 'channelized' into essential one narrow band channel within an HF ham band, the spectral use of our HF bands has been reduced in a measurable--and measured-- way.

Because we have allocated spectrum with a low 'duty cycle', there are eager interests who are seeking large portions of our HF bands as secondary and even primary users.

Its not that we aren't radio-active: its that this innovation of FT8 has had the unfortunate effect of reducing our --apparent-- need for the full amount of allocated HF spectrum. If we don't NEED the spectrum, its use will be redefined--THAT is how 'FT8 will kill ham radio'.

I do believe we will see some spectral reduction at HF in the next 3 years, at least in the US. FT8 will be prominently cited in the context of: 'efficient use of spectrum by the amateurs, which has reduced the Part 97 need for the present allocations'.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Prediction noted. We can add it to the list in three years.

 

FT8 has had the unfortunate effect of reducing our --apparent--Spectrum 'footprint'.

 

I would add that instead of packing 2 or 3 contests every weekend, that they be spread over the week. In addition to that, they need not be 24-48 hours long, even on weekends.

 

I was unaware of this situation. I will study it further. Thanks for enlightening me.