WSPR DXCC: Strange Arguments

WSPR is, at its root, a beacon-type mode that, for some, is an entirely automated, unsupervised system of gathering information on propagation.

This can extend to path propagation studies, antenna performance assessments, and just a simple 'where's my tiny signal going to?' fascination.

Is there any real, valid reason why 2-way WSPR contacts aren't actually contacts?  I don't think so.

I think WSPR is great.  It instantly made all those decades of arguments about antenna performance, using little more than ear-assessed guesswork, look very dated indeed.

But one question that keeps coming up is: should 2-way WSPR contacts qualify as QSOs, and thus for awards?

To my mind - and I have no real interest in awards - the answer ought to be a resounding 'yes!'

The argument against is that WSPR is, to a greater or lesser degree, entirely automated.  That is perfectly true.  But, does the fact of automation make a 2-way contact any less valid than, say, JT65, where the human involvement is reduced to simply clicking on the appropriate responses?

Clearly, it does not.  JT65 could be just as easily made to be as fully automatic as WSPR.  On the PSK side, SIM-31, very infrequently used, nevertheless has tweaked PSK-31 to become a fully automated mode; no human necessary!

You can also make the same kind of argument for using any digital mode where the signal cannot readily - or at all - be interpreted by a human without the use of a machine.  Modes such as RTTY, OLIVIA and countless others, cannot be used without machine decoding.  Yet, nobody makes the argument that these are invalid QSOs.

In the digital age, the human could be made to be entirely redundant in forming a 2-way QSO.  In some cases, the human is already redundant.  It's simply a matter of preference and, frankly, mindless prejudice that prevents some folk accepting new modes and that direct human involvement in QSOs is not always necessary.  Sure, it insults our sense of pride and importance to be cast aside.  But, this should not detract from the motivation to make and operate efficient, low power stations that modes like WSPR engender.

Amateur radio, in the end, to most people, is about "how far can I get with my set up?"  For an awful lot of people, WSPR and modes like it offer a very enjoyable way to 'work the world' on very low powers - often milliWatts - with extremely modest or compromise antennas.  I don't think anyone should deny folk that satisfaction by saying that, for some nebulous and improperly-formed reason, WSPR QSOs are in some way invalid and may not count for recognition.


Long live WSPR!