[600MRG] Starting at 19:37 UTC - late afternoon

[Bill Cromwell]

Hi Paul,

I have a small dog or maybe a mouse in this horse race. I don't care for 
the slow modes and nobody makes me use them. There is plenty of room in 
the bands for all of it.

The only question I have remaining is the requirement to ID every 10 
minutes. It's not part of anybody's written definition of a QSO. It is 
(or was) a regulatory requirement of the FCC. During busy, roundtable 
discussions on the air, or in nets - including traffic nets - hams might 
not have an opportunity to ID at intervals of less than 10 minutes and 1 
second. The FCC ruled that we should then send our callsign when we *do* 
have the opportunity. It seems that the slow modes are accommodated by 
that. Since I am not copying WSPR I can't verify that call signs are 
used but I would presume that is how we would know what station we are 
copying. Did I miss something? I think I see callsigns in the printed 
reports.

I don't have an interest in using the slow modes but I am always 
interested in what other hams are doing.

73,

Bill  KU8H

On 1/11/19 7:21 AM, N1BUG wrote:
> It seems to me we are talking about two very different things here.
> I am one of those who completes a QSO over several days using DFCW
> or QRSS and I consider that a QSO if:
> 
> * full call signs are copied over the air in both directions
> * reports are copied over the air in both directions
> * acknowledgment is copied over the air in both directions
> 
> * it is one single, unbroken QSO attempt
> 
> The first three were the long held and published criteria for a QSO
> over many decades. It still is, except that the first item has been
> downgraded to 'identification of a station' since the coming of
> certain digital modes. I don't recall seeing the last point written
> except perhaps in some special interest newsletters and the like,
> but it was well acknowledged and followed within all interest groups
> I had experience with. To my knowledge there was never any mention
> of a time limit so long as it was one continuous attempt at a QSO.
> If a QSO attempt was aborted and then retried at a later date or
> time, it started over from the beginning with exchange of call signs.
> 
> Absolutely NOTHING that fails the above criteria will be claimed as
> a QSO by me. I would never consider two way WSPR or OPERA to be a
> QSO. Clearly neither meets the above criteria for over the air exchange.
> 
> Paul N1BUG
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/10/19 7:48 PM, K9FD wrote:
>> Some people on this list claim it is, they make contact and confirm
>> transmissions over a period of
>> two to three days and claim it as a QSO.
>> I guess you can call that slow JT-9-48  for 48 hours.
>>
>> Merv K9FD/KH6
>>
>>> Indeed, acknowledgement is needed.
>>> Because all information should be exchanged over radio on the same frequency(band), during the QSO there should be no other means of information exchange (Not via intenet, nor via contact on an other band).
>>> So without acknowledgement  you just cannot know the other station copied you.
>>>
>>> Based on the rule "If 2 stations receive each other, it is a QSO", I (and many others) would have made hundreds of QSO's on WSPR without even knowing.
>>>
>>> To put it to an exteme: I copy a station on WSPR and that same station copies me 2 weeks later.
>>> I cannot imagine that this would count as a valid QSO?
>>>
>>> 73, Rik  ON7YD - OR7T
>>> ________________________________________
>>> Van: 600mrg-bounces at mailman.qth.net <600mrg-bounces at mailman.qth.net> namens Bill Cromwell <wrcromwell at gmail.com>
>>> Verzonden: donderdag 10 januari 2019 22:42
>>> Aan: 600mrg at mailman.qth.net
>>> Onderwerp: Re: [600MRG] Starting at 19:37 UTC - late afternoon
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I thought they had to acknowledge one another too.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> Bill  KU8H
>>>
>>> On 1/10/19 4:35 PM, jrusgrove at comcast.net wrote:
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>>> If 2 stations receive each other, it is a QSO.
>>>> Are you saying that only two(!) transmissions now constitute a
>>>> legitamite QSO? If so, someone should
>>>> inform K1JT of this so he can shorten his sequences ;~).
>>>>
>>>> Jay W1VD
>>> --
>>> bark less - wag more
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> 600MRG mailing list
>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/600mrg
>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>> Post: mailto:600MRG at mailman.qth.net
>>> Message delivered to rik.strobbe at kuleuven.be
>>>
>>> This list hosted by: https://www.qsl.net
>>> Please help support this email list: https://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> 600MRG mailing list
>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/600mrg
>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>> Post: mailto:600MRG at mailman.qth.net
>>> Message delivered to merv.k9fd at gmail.com
>>>
>>> This list hosted by: https://www.qsl.net
>>> Please help support this email list: https://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> ______________________________________________________________
> 600MRG mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/600mrg
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:600MRG at mailman.qth.net
> Message delivered to wrcromwell at gmail.com
> 
> This list hosted by: https://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: https://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> 

-- 
bark less - wag more