> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Mark Beckwith
> Sent: March 21, 2007 10:13
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] When is a QSO not a QSO?
>
> This is a spirited conversation!
>
Yep, lively indeed.
> > If you feel that way then the operator in Ontario is superfluous.
>
> Paul, you're putting words in my mouth. Certainly the idea
> of a fully automated station capable of working contestants
> at a credible rate has been brought up before. However,
> today's conversation started because some real human beings
> are looking for a solution to their current home station blues.
> Therefore the conversation is centered very much on having
> live operators controlling these stations. Automation is
> getting off the subject.
>
Not really. See below.
> > A remote station set up to automatically reply to your callsign
> > interogation would suffice would it not?
>
> Since you've asked, I personally have no problem with this,
> but it's not what the conversation is about - it's about
> frustrated people looking for solutions. The question is
> "should the operator be required to be at the radio
> equipment?" and some are saying "no" and some are saying "yes."
>
See, it's part of the topic :) I have to disagree with you however. I'm not
thrilled by the thought of working a robot station. As far as your question,
the answer is definitely no; but there are caveats. See below.
> To state my position clearly:
>
> 1. I don't think the op has to be in the same location as the
> radio gear.
>
But the op should at least be in the same multiplier region if in a contest
and in the same call area region if not (notwithstanding all the guys who
have moved for various reasons and are no longer in the areas from which
their callsigns were assigned). Can we agree on this?
> 2. I don't care how far away the op is from the radio gear.
>
I guess we can't. (see above)
> 3. The QSO is with wherever the radio equipment is located,
> regardless of where the op is located.
>
Again I ask; couldn't that make the operator non-essential?
> 4. No rules changes or category additions are needed to allow
> any of this.
>
Unless their use creates unforseen problems. The cluster did.
> Mark, N5OT
This debate may have started with the CC&R people but it has gone beyond
that. It seems to have split into two distinct paths: the remotely operated
station and the remote robotic station. Remote receiving sites seem to have
fallen by the wayside.
The very nature of the technology allows anyone to set up a remote station
anywhere they can access. I have an s9 or better noise level on 80 and 160.
It's generally above s3 on the rest of the bands. I am a prime candidate for
remote operation. There is lots of land around my general vicinity that I
can buy for next to nothing and set all my gear up there and operate it
remotely, if it doesn't get blown down, stolen or smashed. The thing is, I'd
still be a VO1. I have no problem with this concept; for contesting or
otherwise. It's the proposed pushing of this concept beyond its intended
result that bothers me. In essence, we are no longer talking about a guy in
an apartment that can't put up a station where he lives due to restrictions
or conditions. We're now talking about guys who are either bored with
winning from where they are or sick of losing from where they are and want a
new challenge and/or easy solution by just "moving" (figuratively speaking)
to a better/different location to gain whatever advantage they can gain when
it suits them without having to make the trip. Not because they HAVE to but
because they WANT to.
There have been a certain number of responses indicating that automated
stations in contests, having been used already, would be OK so it is not
really off topic at all. You indicated above that this isn't a problem for
you but I find this the most distressing part of the debate overall. If I
HAD to make a choice, I could probably learn to live with remote operations
over robot operations just for the sake of keeping the huiman element
integral to the process. I would rather not have to make that choice though.
Anyway, I guess it's good to get all this out in the open for discussion.
Going to have to take a break Friday though :)
73 -- Paul VO1HE
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|