VHFcontesting
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [VHFcontesting] "CQ On The Internet", Spin Doctors, and fair debate

To: George Fremin III <geoiii@kkn.net>
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] "CQ On The Internet", Spin Doctors, and fair debate
From: Les Rayburn <les@highnoonfilm.com>
Reply-to: les@highnoonfilm.com
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:01:27 -0500
List-post: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com">mailto:vhfcontesting@contesting.com>

George,

My point is that being active in one VHF contest per year, or even fewer hardly compares to the contributions of some on the other side of this debate. The opposition to some form of an assisted category is passionate and vocal, but most of that seems to come from people who are not otherwise active.

If you study the history of the VHF bands, you'll find that prearranged schedules during both contests and everyday operation are nothing new. The U.S. Mail, telephone, HF nets, and other means have all been used with success to coordinate contacts. Some of the most competitive stations invest a good deal of time in arranging skeds prior to contests, and trying to drum up activity. Without that coordination most of the accomplishments on these bands would not have even been possible.

The point that really seems to drive the contention is the use of computers and the Internet. It's almost always from operators who are not active on digital modes. My experience is that this technology can greatly enrich and improve the experience of any VHF operator. My browser contains multiple tabs that are almost always open when I'm operating that display real-time propagation maps, VHF related chat rooms, QRZ.com lookup pages, meteor radar, and other operating aids.

Digital modes like WSJT have greatly extended the range of my station, and made it possible for me to attempt to earn VUCC on 2M with indoor antennas. I can't imagine how that would have been possible without those tools.

I can understand why some choose not to use them. But I don't understand why those who oppose this technology continue to spread falsehoods and half-truths concerning them. Among those I've frequently heard:

A) WSJT is too easy. Every contact contact attempt is successful and easily done.

B.) People are exchanging all or part of the required information via reflectors and not on the air.

C.) No operator skill is involved. The computer does all the work.

Now we're debating if an announcement is the same thing as a CQ. And why can't those digital guys just call CQ like the rest of us.

Is it possible to call CQ using digital modes to solicit for contacts? Yes, it is. It's done regularly on 50.260 and 144.140. The problem is that you cannot hear these CQ's simply by ear. If you don't happen to have your beam pointed in the right direction, you'll miss each other without ever knowing the other station was even on. Not so for analog modes like SSB and CW, where you may hear a weak signal and be able to turn the beam.

There is also a limit to how many stations in close proximity can call CQ on the same frequency. That's true of other modes, but a much pronounced handicap for digital modes.

George, I strongly agree that we should consider the implication of any proposed rule change. If a little more thought had been given to the "Unlimited Rover" category and it's desired outcome of requiring pack rovers to compete in that category, it might have been more successful. My issue is the way the debate is conducted. Look again at those false statements labeled A-B-C above. How many times have you heard them repeated here?

The problem with repeating a falsehood over and over is that it becomes accepted as truth. Especially if it comes from someone who is respected. The same can be said when we manipulate the language. Marshall's proposal deals with the creation of ASSISTED classes, and the desire to post announcements of digital operation. It is not to allow someone to "call CQ" on the Intenet. That is a distortion of the proposal, designed to encite an emotiional response.

We have practical experience with Marshall's proposal in both the CQ VHF and SVHFS Sprints. In both cases, nothing horrible happened. Crisis averted. Earth saved. Debating "what if" is fine, but unlike the establishment of a Unlimited Rover category, or FM Only Category, we have practical experience to draw on now. If there were huge drawbacks, they would have been revealed by now.



_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>