And what if it was a POTS connection instead of the dread Internet??? Same
Same?? Or different again?
I vote for a new Reflector (Forum)...could we call it "BAC-Contest"
W1MD
---- Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com> wrote:
> On 12/04/2013 13:10, Bob Naumann wrote:
>
> > Your objection to any use of the Internet or commercial telecomm facilities
> > in any ham radio activity is well known. You've been grinding the same
> > flawed axe for years.
>
> Once again, Bob has misrepresented my objections.
>
> I am using the internet here and now, in a ham
> radio activity, to rebut his arguments. In this
> context, the internet is an accessory - it is not
> a communications medium replacing or displacing
> amateur-band RF in contest QSOs between people -
> as it most certainly is when used for remote
> control of contest stations.
>
>
> > I'm sure we would agree, however, that the use of a remote receiver would be
> > completely unsportsmanlike as defined by many contest and award program
> > rules - including the CQWW. But, that is not what we're discussing here.
>
> Then why bring it up? :-)
>
>
> > And, despite your persistence in continuing to grind that tired old axe,
> > none of what you're complaining about actually impacts the "RF" aspect of
> > the "amateur-band-RF-all-the-way contesting" you seek to protect.
>
> Yes, except that the difference between an internet-
> dependent contest QSO and an amateur-radio contest
> QSO is the internet! If you have to get on the
> internet before you get on the air, you're doing
> something very different from amateur radio.
> Sure, there's an amateur-radio component, but your
> total dependence on the internet to have any QSOs
> rules them out as as amateur-radio QSOs in any
> meaningful sense.
>
>
> > In your preferred configuration, we have the traditional "base" or "home"
> > station configuration:
>
> And in Bob's preferred configuration, there is a
> remote operator, totally dependent on the internet
> for any communication.
>
>
> > In this case, the Interface now includes long wires, UHF or microwave links,
> > some digital telecomm facilities, and other stuff. Again, none of this is
> > changing the "Amateur RF all the way" in any way.
>
> Reminds me of the sailboat racer who complained
> "I don't know what all the fuss is about, it's
> only a little engine. Of course I sailed across
> the Atlantic single-handed."
>
> We can't have it both ways. Remote-controlled,
> internet-dependent contesting is fundamentally
> different from what Bob describes as "traditional"
> contesting. I have no objection to internet-
> dependent contesting, so long as it is identified
> as such, but I do object to the pretense that it's
> no different from traditional contesting.
>
>
> > So, your premise is completely without merit.
>
> And Bob's premise is entirely without reason :-)
>
>
> > If you feel that using technologies such as the Internet and others in the
> > Operator to Radio interface portion of the configuration, then let's discuss
> > that - but let's be honest that it does not alter the RF at all.
>
> I'm happy to discuss this, subject to Bob's
> acknowledgement that remote-controlled
> contesting is generally at variance with the
> 500m-radius rule for station equipment and
> antennas.
>
>
> > I don't see any tangible difference in using a 6' piece of wire between the
> > operator and the front of a radio or a 600 mile connection via a network.
>
> The tangible difference, apart from 599 miles
> and 5274 feet, is that the remote QSOs are
> internet-dependent. How many times does this
> have to be repeated?
>
>
> > Nothing on the front of the radio impacts what goes on at the back of the
> > radio. Again, all of the "RF all the way" stuff is not changed and certainly
> > not enhanced in any way.
>
> And if I shoot big game, by remote control from
> 600 miles away, the animal is every bit as dead.
> From its point of view, nothing has changed and
> nothing has been enhanced. So, what exactly is
> Bob's point?
>
>
> > Propagation does not change, noise does not get reduced, and frankly,
> > someone using an extended interface to their radio puts themselves at a
> > disadvantage to anyone not choosing to do so.
>
> This is the old "Poor Me" argument once again.
> By the application of inappropriate technology
> I've made things harder for myself - and now I'm
> looking for sympathy, or extra points :-)
>
> This thread has had the subject "Remote contest
> operation". In reality, the subject discussed
> has been internet propagation issues. That needs
> to be repeated - "Internet Propagation Issues".
> In an amateur-radio contesting forum!
>
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
>
> ps - and now I'm off to watch the Masters, live and
> free on masters.com via a VPN gateway in Dallas.
> It's exactly the same as being there and, for me, it's
> just another amateur radio activity? :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|