On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 02:21 am, David Bowman wrote:
To fill a band with automated beacons may be pleasing for an individual for a short period of time, but in the grand scheme of things it's QRM.
No it's not.? QRM is using 1000W transmitters on a QRPp-designed mode and blowing every other nearby signal out into oblivion with their backblast.? Anyway, the number of QRP beacons are hardly going to "fill" a mode this active (and this abused).? The misuse on FT8 is coming from QROo abusers, not QRP beacons, which are perfectly legitimate for FT8 use and few in number.
So, why is it "wrong" to use a U3S on FT8 and OK on JT65, JT9 and all the other "QSO" modes on its firmware???? Your objection just doesn't seem sensible to me.? It's certainly not consistent with current U3S usage.? As I've pointed out, there is no obligation to QSO, ever, if you didn't CQ in the first place.? That's why you preface your line with B instead of CQ.? Having QSO
capabilities doesn't make anything QSO
mode.
WSPR appears to be fading in popularity, and inferior to a faster mode in revealing propagation from weaker signals.
The U3S has as much right to use FT8 as anyone.? If you want to take the band cop view of this, maybe you should concentrate on the disruptions caused by those who are QROo-ing FT8 to death and creating all the
real problems as opposed to imaginary ones.
TrueBlue