Finally!
Yes, Gerry, it is an emotional argument; not technical.
Yes, the new technology is wonderous and can do so many things these days
but I feel that it is not at the core of amateur radio's being that the
technology be the main component. It is the human interaction. How would you
have met all the people you have met over the years if all these contest
stations you worked were robots? In a few years you can send your PC to
Dayton to have web-cam QSOs with all it's robot buddies.
Yes, I enjoy contesting and frankly, when in battle, I am primarily
concerned with the mults and the points and getting new counters for such
awards as DXCC, USCH and IOTA. But not if there is no one at the station I
have worked. I want to know I worked a real, live person in each of these
entities. In CW, even if the computer is sending the exchange, you're right;
the operator had to have entered my call and hit the right key to provide me
my response. That's good enough for me, as long as he's at or relatively
close to the radio. I don't want a 100% guarantee that he's at the radio
site, just in the same multiplier area. I think this is a reasonable wish.
I've stated my case as best I can so I won't be addressing each and every
response I get in the future but yours did strike me the hardest as being
the most devoid of emotion. To regard the operator as non-essential, to me,
contradicts everything that amateur radio is.
73 -- Paul VO1HE
_____
From: Gerry Hull [mailto:gerry.hull@gmail.com]
Sent: March 21, 2007 14:42
To: vo1he@rac.ca
Cc: sawyered@earthlink.net; cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Operations in Contest
Paul,
This is a purely emotional argument, and I can agree with your sentiment.
No one is trying to make you change
your beliefs. However, think of the forum you are discussing this
argument in. This is a reflector about
ham radio contesting. There is often debate here on contesting rules and
policy. Current rules have been clearly stated, and I don't see much
sentiment for reversing them.
In the context of contesting, it seems that the majority of respondents
believe that remoting is an OK activity, even a good thing. They believe it
will stimulate activity (always good for contesting). It helps people with
antenna restrictions. For those who can set up a remote QTH in another
country, it will allow them to experience operation from a far-away
location. It's certainly your right to not like it, but it is becoming
more and more a fact of life.
Oh yes -- I am the guy who said I do not care if it's man or machine I work
in a contest. I said that in the context of participating in a contest.
There have been specific examples of hams using computers to completely
control a station during a contest. This was done as an experiment. (Ops
do a much better job). My point was: as long as the other station sends
the correct exchange and is following the rules, I am a happy camper. It's
still ham radio -- still communicating on rf, still dealing with QRM &
propagation, and still competition. In today's CW contests, you are
speaking to a computer 99% of the time... Oh, an op pressed a function key
to send an exchange, but the CW was generated by a computer. Does this
make it any less an amateur radio QSO?
Contesters are a group who continually push the envelope, and will continue
to do so... If you want QSOs with a 100% guarantee that the operator will be
physically at the radio transmitter, I think you are living in the past.
73,
--
Gerry, W1VE/VE1RM
Explore real-time competition in ham radio - post your score to
http://www.getscores.org!
On 3/21/07, 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
> sawyered@earthlink.net
> Sent: March 20, 2007 21:57
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Operations in Contest
>
> Personally, I think this is a great idea to mitigate the HOA
> problem and contester/DXer needs in ham radio. More power to
> everyone doing it and hopefully, in years to come, there will
> not be a delay problem to hamper world class operations with
> this method.
>
> To me, KC1J's explanation was the key. Control it from
> where-ever you want. Just do it legally (with both countries
> respected if its cross border), keep the "station" within the
> rules just as it would be if the operator was on site, and
> have lots of fun.
>
> Should people using wireless headphones and keyboards be
> outlawed from contesting because the peripherals are not
> wired? I don't think so. Remote operating is just more of this.
>
> What makes it different from echolink, skype, and cell phones
> is that there is still an RF transmition happening on
> recognized amateur frequencies, in both directions, from
> point to point of "site QTH" and the "site QTH" represents
> the callsigns used. If you can't see the difference between
> that and echolink, skype, and cell phones, it is seriously
> time to find another hobby.
>
> See you this weekend on WPX SSB as NV1N. Comfortably nestled
> into my 500m circle and operating direct but admiring those
> attempting it remote.
>
> Ed N1UR
Hi Ed,
I believe I do see the difference which is why I am speaking out against it.
So far, no one has given me a sufficient reason to cause me to change my
thinking on the subject. Saying that progress is inevitable and we should
all just bow down to it is not 'remotely' good enough.
I am not looking at this as a purely technological issue but that seems to
be the thinking out there so I have to argue those points while my main
point gets overwhelmed.
I am not against remote operation because of the technology. Actually, I am
not against remote operation in principle. I just don't like where it's
headed because it just isn't what I believed the true focus of amateur radio
was. My view, and what I was led to believe when I first got interested in
it, is that we use our skills to invent, improve and use methods that will
enable us to talk directly to other people in other countries around the
world. I want to work "people in foreign lands". I want to know that when I
work a VU7, he's in the Laccadives or when I work a YB1, he's in Indonesia.
I sometimes want to work a N1 in Vermont and if you are in Vermont using a
remote radio that is in Vermont, then I have accomplished my goal. I DO NOT
want to work an N1 in Vermont who is operating a remote radio in, and
claiming to be a, KH7. I DO NOT want to work a VE7 who claims to be a VK7
while sitting in beautiful, downtown Kamloops. To me, that's just not in
keeping with the spirit of the hobby.
I had a reply from one amateur (I'm sure you must have seen it) who
indicated that humans were unnecessary to the operation of amateur radio and
that he didn't care if he worked a human at all. If that's you're idea of
amateur radio, then I suggest it is you who needs a new hobby.
73 -- Paul VO1HE
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|