CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] You gotta let me know, should M/M Distributed stay or g

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] You gotta let me know, should M/M Distributed stay or go.
From: Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:56:07 +0100
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
On 02/06/2021 22:43, David Gilbert wrote:

The same argument could be made for ANY remote operation,

Yes, that's my point.


and you are most definitely swimming upstream (and mostly alone) on that.

It's definitely a struggle :-)


And in spite of the countless times you have mercilessly flogged this horse,

The horse is alive and kicking.


what you perpetually are either unable to understand or unwilling to accept is that remote operations like this do not supplant any portion of the traditional amateur radio RF link.

That argument cuts both ways.  What you perpetually are either unable or unwilling to accept is that internet users are always internet users, regardless of what "magic" happens at the far end of the internet communications link.


The internet portion is spliced in series with every bit of the usual RF chain.

Yes, that is hybrid communications, with interdependent internet and ham-band RF communications.


> The RF isn't being replaced or bypassed

I've not suggested that.


> (if anything, it is being burdened by the extra links).

If dependence on the extra links makes things harder, then the solution is obvious.


>  The requirement for a full RF portion makes it completely different than other internet communications,

It doesn't.  Ask anyone who doesn't have an axe to grind to describe what's happening.  They'll say "you're on the internet".


> and every contest I'm aware of declares the relevant QTH to be at the source of the RF ... not the operating position.

And for every QSO we have, I'm in contact with you.  People communicate with one another.  To argue that QSOs take place between stations is plain wrong (autonomous data modes excepted).   Again, it is HOW we choose to contact one another that identifies us as hams.  When you're on the internet, you're an internet user - no different to other internet users with worldwide communications at their fingertips.


Even the ability for someone living on the west coast to operate from the east coast via a remote link is no different than if that person paid a bunch of money for a plane ticket to guest op at that same station ... except that the remote link makes it potentially cheaper and more accessible to more people.

Remote stations are restricted-access repeaters with the necessary internet gateways for both control and communications. To accept repeater QSOs on exactly the same terms as RF-all-the-way QSOs for contesting and DX awards makes no sense.

M/M Distributed should go.  If, however, MMD is seen as "progress", let them compete only with one another - and similarly for repeater entries.

It can take time, money, commitment, and restraint to keep the internet out of ham radio.

73,
Paul EI5DI

__________________________

On 02/06/2021 22:43, David Gilbert wrote:

Paul,

The same argument could be made for ANY remote operation, and you are most definitely swimming upstream (and mostly alone) on that.

And in spite of the countless times you have mercilessly flogged this horse, what you perpetually are either unable to understand or unwilling to accept is that remote operations like this do not supplant any portion of the traditional amateur radio RF link. The internet portion is spliced in series with every bit of the usual RF chain.  The RF isn't being replaced or bypassed (if anything, it is being burdened by the extra links).  The requirement for a full RF portion makes it completely different than other internet communications, and every contest I'm aware of declares the relevant QTH to be at the source of the RF ... not the operating position.

Even the ability for someone living on the west coast to operate from the east coast via a remote link is no different than if that person paid a bunch of money for a plane ticket to guest op at that same station ... except that the remote link makes it potentially cheaper and more accessible to more people.

Dave   AB7E




On 6/2/2021 10:36 AM, Paul O'Kane wrote:
On 02/06/2021 17:36, Igor Sokolov wrote:

<snip>

It involves co-operation, tactics, strategy planning and amplifies the pleasure of contesting by the number of participating operators.

This ignores the elephant in the room.  M/M Distributed is dependent on, and cannot exist without, non ham-radio means of communication.  Many say this doesn't matter.  However, if how we choose to contact one another doesn't matter, then we are no different to other internet users.

Call it what you like, but don't call it what it's not.  I say M/M Distributed should go.

73,
Paul EI5DI

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>