And if my power source fails, or my radio fails, I am also off the air.
Anything can fail and take us off the air so I am not sure how that makes
any sense to argue that if the internet goes out, we are off the air so
that isn't amatuer radio.
Can we not just accept advancements in radio and have fun? After all, it
is a HOBBY!
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 3:00 AM, Paul O'Kane <email@example.com> wrote:
> W5OV quoted EI5DI
> >> What's different about remote control is that it uses
> >> the internet (typically) to replace RF in the signal path
> >> between the operators concerned.
> W5OV then said
> > No, it does not.
> > The RF is not changed at all.
> Since many people are getting tired of this thread, I'll
> keep this short.
> However, it's mildly amusing to me that, having first
> quoted my actual words, W5OV goes on to misquote them
> twice. He implies I referred to RF being "changed",
> and later, to being "different". I used neither of
> those words.
> Lets accept the argument that remote control is just
> the same as having extended signal (or audio and key,
> if you prefer) leads.
> The extended leads are typically hosted on the internet.
> Should the internet fail, whether it's via phone, cable,
> wireless, or satellite, then you're not just off the
> internet, you're off the air and no QSOs are possible.
> You're now "Remote, No Control".
> Therefore, however you describe your activity, it must
> be something different because, had it been amateur
> radio you would still be on the air.
> When operating remote, you are dependent on both the
> internet and amateur-band RF. If either fails, you're
> finished. That's why I call it hybrid communications.
> The name accurately and fully describes the activity.
> I've said the following in another thread, but it's
> relevant here. If we saw a CBer talking over the
> internet, while claiming it was CB radio, we would
> all have a good laugh. Licensed radio amateurs are
> not sprinkled with magic pixie dust that somehow
> transforms an internet-dependent contact into an
> amateur-radio QSO.
> I don't mind if others cannot accept this point of
> view, but what is undeniable is that the RDXC and IOTA
> contests, both major events, prohibit remote control.
> Accepting that remote control isn't about to go away, it seems to me
> that the organisers of other major
> contests have three options to consider.
> 1. Prohibit remote control.
> 2. Permit it, but as a separate entry category.
> 3. Do nothing.
> I'm not optimistic about anything other than the
> "do nothing" option - what I would see as a vote
> for expediency over integrity. I hope I will be
> proved wrong.
> And for now, I have nothing more to say :-)
> Paul EI5DI
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list