ARRL DXCC can differentiate modes. https://www.arrl.org/dxcc-rules
However, the DXCC Honor role tosses all into the mixed mode category. *a)
Mixed* (general type): Contacts may be made using any mode since November
15, 1945.
*b) Phone*: Contacts must be made using radiotelephone since November 15,
1945. Confirmations for cross-mode contacts for this award must be dated
September 30, 1981, or earlier.
*c) CW*: Contacts must be made using CW since January 1, 1975.
Confirmations for cross-mode contacts for this award must be dated
September 30, 1981, or earlier. CW contacts dated December 31, 1974, or
before, are credited as Mixed mode.
*d) Digital*: Contacts can include QSOs using any/all digital modes, in any
combination (except CW) since November 15, 1945. Digital modes include FT4,
FT8, RTTY, PSK-31, JT65, etc. and any modes that are only machine-readable,
and any that use computer sound card technology, with the exception of
digital voice, which counts for Phone.
*a) Mixed* (general type): Contacts may be made using any mode since
November 15, 1945.
*b) Phone*: Contacts must be made using radiotelephone since November 15,
1945. Confirmations for cross-mode contacts for this award must be dated
September 30, 1981, or earlier.
*c) CW*: Contacts must be made using CW since January 1, 1975.
Confirmations for cross-mode contacts for this award must be dated
September 30, 1981, or earlier. CW contacts dated December 31, 1974, or
before, are credited as Mixed mode.
*d) Digital*: Contacts can include QSOs using any/all digital modes, in any
combination (except CW) since November 15, 1945. Digital modes include FT4,
FT8, RTTY, PSK-31, JT65, etc. and any modes that are only machine-readable,
and any that use computer sound card technology, with the exception of
digital voice, which counts for Phone.
Dave KH6AQ
(only works 160 meters portable for the ARRL 160, Stew Perry and the CQ
160 CW). We try to add one night of FT8 a year..
On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 5:17 PM Karel via Topband <[email protected]>
wrote:
> The technical advantages of FT8/FT4 operation are indisputable, and it is
> not the intention here to deny them.
> The problem that needs to be pointed out, however, is not a technical one
> but a systemic one—and its core is DXCC.
> Devaluation of DXCC – blurring the differences between fundamentally
> different types of contacts
> FT8 is capable of decoding signals deep below the noise floor, in a region
> where the human ear is physiologically unable to distinguish CW or SSB
> signals.
> No matter how hard I try, I simply cannot hear a CW signal at the same
> level that FT8 can still decode without difficulty.
> This leads to a fundamental consequence:
> DX contacts on FT8 are significantly easier to achieve than on CW or
> SSB,often without any audible signal.In order to be able to use an equally
> weak signal on CW or SSB, I must at a minimum:
> build special receiving antennas,use low-noise preamplifiers,deal with
> directivity, interference, and phasing,and have a brain trained by many
> years of DX operation to perceive and decode such weak signals.Yet such a
> CW/SSB contact has the same DXCC value as an FT8 contact that was achieved
> solely thanks to an algorithm capable of working below the noise level.
> As a result, two fundamentally different categories of how a QSO was made
> are being mixed together:
> human audibility, technical preparation, and operator skill,
> versus
> machine decoding of a signal below the noise floor.DXCC has thus thrown
> pears and apples into the same bag.
> Impact on DXpeditions and marginal bands
> Practice in recent years shows that many DXpeditions:
> start operating exclusively on FT8, often with provisional antennas,while
> final antenna systems are still being built,postpone CW/SSB until the very
> end of the expedition—or never get to it at all.On the 160 m and 6 m bands,
> this leads to situations where some new or rare entities are available only
> on FT modes,
> which effectively excludes CW/SSB operators from the chance to “fight for”
> the contact.
> Automation instead of the operator
> It also cannot be overlooked that FT8 allows:
> long-term unattended operation,sometimes even controlled by scripts,where
> the operator merely downloads the log afterward.Such a contact nevertheless
> has the same DXCC value as a contact that is based on:
> antenna construction,working with propagation,the active presence and
> decision-making of the operator.Conclusion
> The problem with FT8/FT4 is not their existence, but the fact that:
> DXCC does not distinguish fundamentally different principles of making a
> contact,there is no separate category for FT8/FT4,which devalues the
> technical and operational demands of classic modes.
> This is not a fight against progress, nor nostalgia.
> It is an effort to preserve fairness, motivation, and the meaning of
> amateur radio DX operation, especially on the marginal bands.
> Karel OK1CF
> ____________________________________________________________
> > Od: "Mike Fatchett W0MU"
> > Komu: [email protected]
> > Datum: 2. 6. 2026 2:16
> > Předmět: Re: Topband: 160m Today - Some additional musings....about the
> old days
> >
> How would you know how much skill is required if you don't work the
> mode. There is plenty of skill involved. You just don't turn on the
> rig and work like it was nothing. The FT bashing is kinda like the hate
> for Trump. Tons of people use it and enjoy it and it has allowed many
> to work dx or even work ham radio when they could not before. Can we
> please stop the bashing? It does not help the hobby and FT modes
> arguably might actually save the hobby.
>
> W0MU
>
> On 6/1/2026 4:16 PM, Mike Smith VE9AA via Topband wrote:
> > I "probably" won't work any more new ones on 160m, nor 6m.
> >
> >
> >
> > At one time I was neck and neck (or trailing slightly behind) with guys
> like
> > VE1YX and VE1ZZ(sk) on 6m DXCC totals in VE.
> >
> > I think I was #3 or #4 to get 100 DXCC's on 6m here in VE, but never
> > applied. I would literally leave my 6m rig on for weeks on end, endlessly
> > scanning or keyer calling CQ, sometimes for hours. I picked up a
> handful of
> > super rare DX's this way. I had rigs in all my cars, cottage, work QTH's,
> > parents place so when visiting, could put the rig on, motorcycle,
> > you-name-it. I even have worked or heard a few rare stns mobile. Very
> > exciting~! Those days are dust. Gone forever. Only memories remain.
> >
> >
> >
> > I know what I have (148 now on 6m but when FT8 hit the scene all those
> > rare DX stns went away. I won't "cheapen" my 6/160 DXCC totals with
> > computer modes that take little in the way of real skill. (I hear that
> there
> > are actually guys employing robot programs so they can leave their rigs
> on
> > all night and check in the morning to see what they've worked on 6/160)
> > Yawn! Where's the pride in that?
> >
> >
> >
> > The story is very much the same here on 160m. I never ran huge antennas
> nor
> > power, but was very active in the 1990's into the 2000's and managed to
> > scrape together 200 DXCC's with what I have and other than to pick up a
> few
> > mults in CQWW CW (etc. ) I don't ever get on Topband anymore. Why would
> I ?
> > 99% of everyone is parked on FT8. Like watching paint dry.
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh, and I put on several rare DXCC's in the area so OTHERS would be able
> to
> > work a new one. I will never be a FT8 op.
> >
> >
> >
> > I hope things change, but I don't see it.
> >
> >
> >
> > dit dit guys
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike VE9AA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike - Keswick Ridge, NB, Canada
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________
> > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband <
> http://www.contesting.com/_topband> - Topband Reflector
>
> _________________
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband <
> 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
