What's wonderful about this world, Paul, is that you are free to express
your ideas... no matter how long you beat the concept to death. If you
follow what is happening with the CQ Contest committee, you'll see that
things are not going your way.
My question to you is this: Would you continue to participate (and
compete) in contests if some rich guy buys a big station in Ireland and
operates it remotely from another continent? (Yes, I know that the
regulations would have to change, etc, etc, etc) I'm just asking you this
theoretical question. I'm trying to figure out what your motivation is
for your campaign to prevent remote operation in contests -- is is really
"purity" of the hobby, or are you concerned for personal reasons?
73, Gerry W1VE
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com> wrote:
>
> Felipe NP4Z said, on 23 June,
>
> "And talking about not using cliches, I just cant avoid it...
> everywhere you go particularly in business school everyone
> says, "Those who don't adopt technology dissapear."
>
>
> Here's my response to a similar statement in March 2010 -
>
> "In any activity we have to be careful not to adapt
> ourselves out of business, or into an entirely different
> business. That is the main reason competitive activities
> are subject to self-imposed limits on technology."
>
> http://lists.contesting.com/**archives//html/CQ-Contest/**
> 2010-03/msg00037.html<http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2010-03/msg00037.html>
>
>
> In May 2009, Brett, ex-VR2PG/p noted
>
> "I believe that as long as the core activity on which we
> compete is so inconsistently defined & the participants
> have their own ideas on what that activity is, we fail to see
> the line already drawn. There's not much point in drawing
> new lines until all can see & respect the existing one -
> just like we do in sailboat racing."
>
> http://lists.contesting.com/**archives//html/CQ-Contest/**
> 2009-05/msg00257.html<http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2009-05/msg00257.html>
>
>
> So - what is our core activity? Could it be anything
> other than contesting using ham-radio RF as our sole
> communications medium?
>
>
> On 28 May ZL2HAM said
>
> "Pitching radio just as a way to talk to others, which
> puts it in competition with cell phones, Skype and the
> Internet, is a mistake."
>
> To which, Ward N0AX gave eloquent support -
>
> http://lists.contesting.com/**pipermail/cq-contest/2013-May/**102983.html<http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/cq-contest/2013-May/102983.html>
>
> "What is it that ham radio has which is not available
> to any other citizen communication service anywhere?
> (Citizens Band and freebanders notwithstanding) The
> answer is a completely novel way to interact with an
> unseen and rarely experienced aspect of the world
> around us."
>
> <snip>
>
> "The point being not that our communications are easier
> than commercial stuff but that it's HARDER for cool reasons!
> That's why hiking and backpacking and bicycling and fly
> fishing are all still so popular - it's not the common,
> ordinary, everyday stuff. That you can build and experiment
> and fool around with radio stuff is icing on the cake.
>
>
> After all this, are we any closer to a common
> understanding of what contesting is - and how
> does remote control change it, if at all?
>
> There are four main arguments in favour of remote
> contesting.
>
> 1. It's exactly the same as if the operator was
> in front of the radio. There is no difference
> whatsoever in the RF transmitted or received.
> And, anyway, the person at the far end can't
> tell the difference
>
> Yes, the RF is unchanged, but it no longer goes
> all the way between the people concerned. The
> fact remains that without the internet there can
> be no communications whatsoever.
>
> As for the person at the far end, they're unlikely
> to be grateful once they know they've been duped
> (in the traditional sense). That's the way many
> of us feel. When I want to contact someone on the
> internet, I use the internet.
>
>
> 2. It increases activity on the bands. That can
> only be good.
>
> More is not necessarily better. We could increase
> activity by using technology to its full, and
> integrating with cell phones, tablets, Skype,
> Facebook and Twitter - hams only, of course. How
> things are done matters.
>
>
> 3. It's exactly the same as if we had long mic,
> speaker and control leads.
>
> Well, that's not true, because we're replacing
> direct connections with a public communications
> utility. In either case, we're beyond the usual
> 500-meter radius limit for stations. I don't buy
> the argument that mic, speaker and other signal
> and control leads are not integral parts of any
> station.
>
>
> 4. It's pushing the boundaries of technology.
>
> As already noted, all competitive activities have
> self-imposed constraints on technology. Why do
> we still have fencing as an Olympic sport when
> they could simply shoot one another? :-)
>
>
> Here's my summary.
>
> If what you're doing can't be done without an
> engine, then what you're doing can't be sailing,
> or gliding or cycling.
>
> If you can't have a QSO without the internet,
> then it's not a ham-radio QSO.
>
> On the internet, distance has no significance -
> there is no DX.
>
> Or did I get all these wrong?
>
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> 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
|