What am I missing?
RF is still being transmitted and received at the place where the antennas
and transceiver are. Do you really care if the operator is sitting right in
front of the rig? If I had a cordless headset are you telling me that I
would not be able to use it or is there something magical about actually
being physically located in some circle created by a rules committee?
Kenwood also has a program that allows you to use a HT and control your
Kenwood rig and make contacts.
To me remote operation is indeed the wave of the now and future. A group of
hams/club go in together and buy a piece of land where they can erect towers
and put up whatever their hearts desire. Using remote control they go back
to their city homes and operate, have fun, not cause rfi, tvi, neighbors
grumbling at the unsightly tower in the backyard etc.
I am not sure what all the push back is about here. Right now remote
stations have very little change to compete at a high level in a contest. I
would sure love to work a bunch or remote stations during a contest than no
stations.
It was not all that long ago that computer logging was looked at as
something that would never fly.
Mike W0MU
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Paul O'Kane
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:52 AM
To: CQ-Contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Contesting
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Taormina" <tom@k5rc.cc>
.
.
> Part of the future of our hobby is symbiosis with computers and the
> Internet.
That is correct - except when they are used as a substitute for RF when
contesting or chasing awards.
.
.
> Think of how inventive we could get if we made it a wide-open
> category, i.e., no geographic boundaries on the remote locations!
> What a hoot that might be.
It might be an even bigger hoot if we could minimise our dependence on
location and RF and propagation, and do most of our contesting on Skype (or
a version of Skype optimised for contesting).
.
> Maybe it's just me, but I always look at what is and think about what
> is possible.
I like to imagine the consequences of what is possible.
.
.
> The status quo is for old fogies with no vision.
I'm an old fogey with no vision who still thinks an amateur radio QSO is a
personal thing. If it's not person-to-person, with RF everywhere
in-between, then it's not a QSO. Anything else, and we're on the way to
EchoLink.
There's an article in the latest QST promoting Skype as a remote-control
mechanism. Nothing wrong with that - Skype, and EchoLink and remote-control
are perfectly valid, but not in the context of award-chasing or contesting.
.
.
> We had best look forward to a new set of categories to accommodate SO,
> MS, M2, MM remote operating.
If it has to be, then the sooner the better.
73,
Paul EI5DI
"If it's not RF, it's probably the internet"
_______________________________________________
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
|