On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Paul O'Kane <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> What difference does it make if it's being operated remotely? As long
>> as someone isn't trying to claim that the QSO took place from where
>> they're physically located, and are clear that where the transmitter
>> is is the actual source, what is the problem?
> The problem is (as I stated) that no contacts can take
> place without first conecting to the internet, and
> staying connected.
> Therefore, any subsequent contacts must be something
> other than amateur-radio QSOs.
(Apologies - I meant to reply to the list initially... oops.)
I still disagree. Although there does indeed need to be a wired
connection for this to work, I'll repeat my initial response which
essentially boils down to - so what? In your example, if Toni was
claiming that the QSOs were between Finland and the stations he
worked, that would be incorrect, and I would agree with you. But he's
not - he's claiming they're from the Azores. Since that's where the
transmitter(s) were located, that's entirely accurate.
The method in which the transmitter/receiver is operated is frankly
irrelevant. Whether Toni is in Finland or the Azores, the signal is
being transmitted from the Azores.
> Juat a reminder, QSOs take place between people. In
> the example quoted, there was a 4500 km wired link
> in the signal path for each and every contact.
Again, I have to disagree. QSOs take place between stations, not
people. For the majority of contacts you can argue that the station is
the person, but this obviously isn't the case for club or contest
stations, who may have multiple operators at the same time.
+44 7848 958821 : http://m0vkg.org.uk/ : http://andys.org.uk/
CQ-Contest mailing list