CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Operations in Contest

To: vo1he@rac.ca
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Operations in Contest
From: "Gerry Hull" <gerry.hull@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:42:10 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Paul,

This is a purely emotional argument, and I can agree with your sentiment.
No one is trying to make you change
your beliefs.    However, think of the forum you are discussing this
argument in.   This is a reflector about
ham radio contesting.   There is often debate here on contesting rules and
policy.    Current rules have been clearly stated, and I don't see much
sentiment for reversing them.

In the context of contesting, it seems that the majority of respondents
believe that remoting is an OK activity, even a good thing.  They believe it
will stimulate activity (always good for contesting).   It helps people with
antenna restrictions.   For those who can set up a remote QTH in another
country, it will allow them to experience operation from a far-away
location.   It's certainly your right to not like it, but it is becoming
more and more a fact of life.

Oh yes -- I am the guy who said I do not care if it's man or machine I work
in a contest.   I said that in the context of participating in a contest.
There have been specific examples of hams using computers to completely
control a station during a contest.   This was done as an experiment.   (Ops
do a much better job).   My point was: as long as the other station sends
the correct exchange and is following the rules, I am a happy camper.   It's
still ham radio -- still communicating on rf, still dealing with QRM &
propagation, and still competition.    In today's CW contests, you are
speaking to a computer 99% of the time... Oh, an op pressed a function key
to send an exchange, but the CW was generated by a computer.   Does this
make it any less an amateur radio QSO?

Contesters are a group who continually push the envelope, and will continue
to do so... If you want QSOs with a 100% guarantee that the operator will
be  physically at the radio transmitter, I think you are living in the past.

73,

-- 
Gerry, W1VE/VE1RM
Explore real-time competition in ham radio - post your score to
http://www.getscores.org!



On 3/21/07, Paul J. Piercey <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> > sawyered@earthlink.net
> > Sent: March 20, 2007 21:57
> > To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Operations in Contest
> >
> > Personally, I think this is a great idea to mitigate the HOA
> > problem and contester/DXer needs in ham radio.  More power to
> > everyone doing it and hopefully, in years to come, there will
> > not be a delay problem to hamper world class operations with
> > this method.
> >
> > To me, KC1J's explanation was the key.  Control it from
> > where-ever you want.  Just do it legally (with both countries
> > respected if its cross border), keep the "station" within the
> > rules just as it would be if the operator was on site, and
> > have lots of fun.
> >
> > Should people using wireless headphones and keyboards be
> > outlawed from contesting because the peripherals are not
> > wired?  I don't think so.  Remote operating is just more of this.
> >
> > What makes it different from echolink, skype, and cell phones
> > is that there is still an RF transmition happening on
> > recognized amateur frequencies, in both directions, from
> > point to point of "site QTH" and the "site QTH" represents
> > the callsigns used.  If you can't see the difference between
> > that and echolink, skype, and cell phones, it is seriously
> > time to find another hobby.
> >
> > See you this weekend on WPX SSB as NV1N.  Comfortably nestled
> > into my 500m circle and operating direct but admiring those
> > attempting it remote.
> >
> > Ed  N1UR
>
>
> Hi Ed,
>
> I believe I do see the difference which is why I am speaking out against
> it.
> So far, no one has given me a sufficient reason to cause me to change my
> thinking on the subject. Saying that progress is inevitable and we should
> all just bow down to it is not 'remotely' good enough.
>
> I am not looking at this as a purely technological issue but that seems to
> be the thinking out there so I have to argue those points while my main
> point gets overwhelmed.
>
> I am not against remote operation because of the technology. Actually, I
> am
> not against remote operation in principle. I just don't like where it's
> headed because it just isn't what I believed the true focus of amateur
> radio
> was. My view, and what I was led to believe when I first got interested in
> it, is that we use our skills to invent, improve and use methods that will
> enable us to talk directly to other people in other countries around the
> world. I want to work "people in foreign lands". I want to know that when
> I
> work a VU7, he's in the Laccadives or when I work a YB1, he's in
> Indonesia.
> I sometimes want to work a N1 in Vermont and if you are in Vermont using a
> remote radio that is in Vermont, then I have accomplished my goal. I DO
> NOT
> want to work an N1 in Vermont who is operating a remote radio in, and
> claiming to be a, KH7. I DO NOT want to work a VE7 who claims to be a VK7
> while sitting in beautiful, downtown Kamloops. To me, that's just not in
> keeping with the spirit of the hobby.
>
> I had a reply from one amateur (I'm sure you must have seen it) who
> indicated that humans were unnecessary to the operation of amateur radio
> and
> that he didn't care if he worked a human at all. If that's you're idea of
> amateur radio, then I suggest it is you who needs a new hobby.
>
> 73 -- Paul VO1HE
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>