[Moon-net] The World, The Moon, and JT65

[Lance Collister]

Jerry Kleker wrote:
> This message is only to let all interested parties know about:
>
> Subject: Need for minimum requirements for a valid digital QSO
> You will  be able to read his intended proposal to Region I of the IARU
> I support  SM2CEW Peter Sundberg’s proposal whole heartedly and encourage the 
> members  of the 432 & Above net to do the same.   Wayne K9SLQ
>  
> http://www.parlorcity.com/k9slq/SM2CEW.htm<http://www.parlorcity.com/k9slq/SM2CEW.htm>
>
> The above is recommended reading for ALL!
>
> My input is the following and it is NOT put up for discussion:
>
> THE TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY EXISTS SO THAT A PERSON OF "MEANS"
> COULD IMPLEMENT AN EME STATION, THAT WOULD DO ALL OF THE
> OPERATIONS REQUIRED, TO OPERATE A WEEKEND OF THE ARRL EME
> COMPETITION, WHILE HE SPENDS THE WEEKEND AT HIS FISHING RETREAT.
>
> AND THEN THERE IS THE ANNUAL "SOAPBOX DERBY".
>
> 73,
>
> Jerry   W7QX
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moon-Net posting and subscription instructions are at http://www.nlsa.com/nets/moon-net-help.html
>
>
>
>   
Thanks for sharing this activity with us, Jerry. I usually do not bother 
taking the time to comment on these types of issues, but the concepts 
being promoted by SM2CEW are so backward and filled with irrelevant 
information, that I feel compelled to present a more enlightened, 
objective viewpoint. In fact, I feel compelled to say something, because 
most of the rational, well educated people and inclusive members of our 
community are already simply ignoring this type of groundless banter. I 
am quite concerned that failure to reply might be misconstrued as 
endorsing such a proposal.



1. The standards for "what constitutes a QSO" are well established, and 
do not need any modification or discussion (unless of course there is a 
consensus to reduce the requirements, to more closely match the less 
restrictive procedure commonly used on all HF bands, and also on VHF/UHF 
bands during contests). This established procedure requires:

The exchange of both callsigns, the exchange of some other information 
(most usually a signal report, but could also be grid square, sequential 
number, county, depending on the agreement of the stations or the 
requirement of a ontest, etc.) confirming receipt of both callsigns, and 
an acknowledgement (most usually a "ROGER") that the the additional 
information (such as a signal report) has been received.

The above protocol is totally open makes no restriction or prejudice 
against frequency or mode of communication. You could use this accepted 
procedure on spark gap, AM, FM, RTTY, SSB, SSTV. Morse Code, some other 
mutually agreed-upon code for CW, laser modulation or any existing or 
future mode that is yet to be developed. Of course, you also must 
realize that the protocol does not specify HOW such radio information is 
finally exchanged to the human operators - it can be audible, visual, 
tactile, or probably other methods yet to be invented. However, any 
intelligent and logical person will understand that as long as the 
operators can proceed to the next step in the protocol, whatever method 
they are using is acceptable.

Obviously any proposal that suggest that the only way a SSTV contact can 
be valid is to for each operator to audibly receive a specific "._." 
tone of a certain speed and pitch at the end of the contact is 
ridiculous! Each mode has its own capabilites and the users can 
establish the best ways to embody the accepted protocol into each 
particular mode. I have never operated SSTV, for example, but I can 
readily see how the concept and spirit of "final RRR's" could very 
easily be achieved by sending a blank GREEN screen. Or maybe "73" could 
be sent by sending a blank RED screen. That would certainly make it 
easier to complete the traditional protocol exchange, even with very 
weak signals.


2. A ridiculous argument is made by SM2CEW to the VHF Managers that we 
should not have any new modes or technologies if the results cannot be 
directly compared to previous records or accomplishments made by using 
CW or SSB modes. It is like comparing apples to oranges. OF COURSE some 
modes will need to have sronger signals in order to complete contacts of 
the accepted protocol! What does the mode have to do with anything? If I 
want to work DXCC using QRP AM, I am free to do it, and nobody is going 
to say that it should be the same accomplishment as achieving DXCC on 
CW. The same is true for SSB, SSTV, RTTY, PSK31, or any number of other 
modes. The underlying principal is the same contact protocol is used on 
all modes.

3. There seems to be a misunderstanding of what is required with JT65 
signals. SM2CEW concludes his proposal by saying that "Anyone following 
the contact should be able to decode the same information, without 
having the informaiton present on their computer." Well, it is just a 
question of how strong the station is and how big a station the person 
"following the contact" has. Anybody with a big enough station and 
propagation can easily follow any JT65 contact, and I suspect the same 
applies to any type of contact, whether it be AM, FM, SSTV, SSB, PSK31. 
Whether of not the operator is able to effectively discern the next step 
of the contact protocol from the tools at his disposal often depends on 
signal strength.

The fact that I can send JT65 plain text messages of whatever content I 
wish is proof that ANYBODY with a big enough system can "listen in" if 
they want. The fact that I routinely decode such unexpected messages is 
further evidence regarding the flexibility and viability of the mode. 
However, to outlaw a mode of operation simply because one particular 
individual does not have a big enough system and/or the propagation to 
be able to monitor all the contacts being made around the world by all 
the modes at a particular time is absurd!


I would be quite concerned about the professional and credibile 
reputation of the ham radio community and its future if such a 
disjointed and groundless proposal actually gets any serious 
consideration at any meeting. To do so would basically hold hostage the 
future advancements and developments of ham radio, and the individual 
operator's freedom and right to operate whatever mode he desires on the 
airwaves, all by the whim of one individual. I promise I won't bother 
taking the time to comment on this again,

-- 
Lance Collister, W7GJ (ex: WN3GPL, WA3GPL, WA1JXN, WA1JXN/C6A, ZF2OC/ZF8)
P.O. Box 73
Frenchtown, MT  59834  USA
QTH: DN27UB
TEL: (406) 626-5728
URL: http://www.bigskyspaces.com/w7gj
2m DXCC #11/6m DXCC #815