[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote operation

To: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>, "CQ-Contest" <CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote operation
From: <kzerohb@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 14:19:49 -0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I don't "miss" your point, Paul.  I simply do not accept it as valid.

A strict implementation of your requirement to be "independent of all other 
communications modes and communications technologies" would prohibit, for 
example, computer controlled transceivers and computer generated CW or RTTY, 
since those methods commonly depend on non-amateur modes such as 
ANSI/EIA-232 or "Universal Serial Bus (USB)" for their communications link 
between the operator and the amateur radio equipment.

73, de Hans, K0HB/K7

-----Original Message----- 
From: Paul O'Kane
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 1:59 PM
To: kzerohb@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Remote operation


> If two equivalently equipped stations exist "side-by-side" (just far
> enough apart to avoid mutual interference), one controlled remotely and
> the other conventionally controlled, explain the competitive advantage
> enjoyed by the remotely controlled station.

Whether deliberately or otherwise, once again
you've missed the point.

Amateur radio is, by definition, independent of
all other communications modes and communications

When "QSOs" are not possible without the continued
availability of other such modes or technologies,
they are no longer amateur radio QSOs.

Paul EI5DI

"Just a boy and his amateur radio"

CQ-Contest mailing list

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