>From your comments below, I'd say I hit the point exactly.
"We don't care where the op is sitting! In fact, we don't even care if a
(human) operator is present. (Computer controlled contest stations HAVE been
tried!)."
That says it all. From that comment, it seems that amateur radio to you is
just a means to a technological end. In essence, you seem to desire to
eliminate the human element from the equation totally. If you care to expand
on that a tad, why don't you be a trendsetter and set up a robot station in
the WPX this weekend and let your radio do all the work while you do
whatever it is humans do now that progress has enriched our lives? That is
truly sad.
And you don't think it's "going to Hell in a hand cart"? If you look at the
end of your arms, you may find you're the one pushing. :)
73 -- Paul VO1HE
_____
From: gerry.hull@gmail.com [mailto:gerry.hull@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Gerry
Hull
Sent: March 20, 2007 20:58
To: vo1he@rac.ca
Cc: CQ-Contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] When is a QSO not a QSO?
Paul,
"But, like you say, if the object of the exercise is to just talk to people
regardless of where they are, then use Echolink, Skype, or the telephone. I
got involved with amateur radio to talk to people directly in distant lands
as opposed to neighbours who have radios in foreign lands. Point to point
communications is the key."
This shows you miss the point completely. We are not championing talking
to people regardless of where they are using whatever means. EchoLink and
Skype are technologies used by ham radio operators. They are NOT ham radio.
You are making the confusing comparison. (As a side note, Echolink has
introduced many new hams to HF via 2-to-10 meter links, etc. This is not a
bad thing. But Echolink-to-Echolink contacts are, of course, just a
telephone call.).
This is a reflector about contesting. In contesting, a qso/multiplier can
come from your next-door neighbor or around the world. We don't care where
the op is sitting! In fact, we don't even care if a (human) operator is
present. (Computer controlled contest stations HAVE been tried!).
A communications path established by a remotely controlled ham station is
RF, is on amateur frequencies, and will always be that way. The internet
is just a tool. Putting it another way, listening to Radio Canada
International on the Internet is not SWLing, but listening to Radio Canada
International on a remote receiver in China over the internet is.
If you are worried about protecting your VO1 turf from remote contesters, I
wouldn't worry -- nothing will happen soon... Unless Guss feels like a
vacation in Florida while SS is on... Maybe he can sip coladas in the sun
and had out mults at the same time :-).
Paul, EI5DI, asked "when is a QSO not a QSO?" The answer is obvious: when
the QSO is not completed over radio, on amateur radio frequencies. The
length of the mike cord/key/paddle/camera or tty unit does not matter.
Cheer up, Paul! Ham radio is not going to hell in a hand cart. It is
changing with the times.
BTW, this is a very timely topic. A feature article in this months QST
explains how to do remote station operation over the internet.
73,
Gerry, W1VE/VE1RM
Explore real-time competition in ham radio - post your score to
http://www.getscores.org!
On 3/20/07, Paul J. Piercey <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
<mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com> ] On Behalf Of Paul O'Kane
> Sent: March 20, 2007 08:35
> To: CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] When is a QSO not a QSO?
>
> Was "Remote Site Contesting Rules - Getting out of hand".
>
> > --- "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > My point is that when I make contact with a station, even in a
> > contest, it's the operator that I am working, not the equipment.
>
> Paul is right. Amateur radio, and contesting in particular,
> is a point-to-point (single-point to single-point), person-
> to-person, solely-RF-based technology.
>
> Any deviation from this, regardless of how much fun or how
> convenient or how technically advanced it may be, serves only
> to dilute the achievement of completing the QSO. Repeater
> QSOs are an example of "dilution".
>
> With sufficient dilution we are eventually reduced to the
> level of EchoLink, Skype and cellphones - all great fun, all
> highly technically advanced, but not amateur radio.
>
> > --- "Ken Alexander" <k.alexander@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, no sale Paul. If I had a ham friend in KH6 who let
> me operate
> > his station remotely . . . At the end of the contest, if
> you'd worked
> > me you would have worked KH6, not VE3.
>
> Ken is right in that Paul would have worked KH6. But,
> ultimately, he is wrong because it's not a valid amateur
> radio QSO - it's a step towards EchoLink or Skype.
>
> There's a fundamental issue here - at what stage does a "QSO"
> become something else? I suggest, for contesting purposes,
> it's when the operator(s), and all equipment and antennas,
> are not physically located within a circle of 500 metres diameter.
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
Thanks, Paul. I can live with that.
I would even be more lenient in allowing that any remote operation has to be
confined to a call area (for contests like SS, it would be confined to areas
used as multipliers). It's pretty broad but satisfies my concern that the
person (me, for example, as a VO1) is not misrepresenting him/herself as
being in another location when they are physically not. When you work me,
you work a VO1 in VO1. It satisfies the issues that ops with these insane
restrictions placed upon how they utilize their own property have. If I
lived in an apartment building but owned a property 100 miles away (still in
VO1) then I can set up a station there and go to it when I want to or
operate it remotely when I want to do that. No problem.
But, like you say, if the object of the exercise is to just talk to people
regardless of where they are, then use Echolink, Skype, or the telephone. I
got involved with amateur radio to talk to people directly in distant lands
as opposed to neighbours who have radios in foreign lands. Point to point
communications is the key.
As far as I'm concerned, the guys who are championing the DX remote stations
are simply looking for a problem to solve with their solution. Either that
or they are manufacturing a problem where none now exists.
73 -- Paul VO1HE
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|