Kenneth E. Harker kenharker at kenharker.com
Tue Jun 26 15:43:13 EDT 2007

On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 04:25:24PM +0100, Paul O'Kane wrote:
> I hold it to be self-evident that not all QSOs are
> created equal, and that they are devalued to the
> extent that there is a substitute for RF in the
> path between the operators.
> For example:
>  1. Skype QSOs have zero value.
>  2. EchoLink QSOs have almost zero value.
>  3. Remote Control QSOs will sometimes, but not
>     always, have more value than EchoLink QSOs.
>  4. "Ordinary" QSOs have full value.
> If a QSO depends upon wired circuits, outside
> the 500 meters permitted for contest entries,
> then it is a wired QSO rather than an RF QSO.
> If you argue that an RF QSO is taking place
> between the equipment concerned, then, to be
> consistent, any corresponding QSLs or awards
> should be addressed to the equipment rather
> than the operator.
> I suggest that anyone who believes otherwise
> is deluded.  Of course, I could be wrong.

I often use a voice keyer that is implemented as an ISA card installed 
in the logging computer.  Because of where the computer is located in the 
shack, my effective microphone cable length can be 30' or more.  Should
my phone QSOs be discounted at some fraction of those made by another 
station that has a microphone cable length of three feet?  I'm
electrically an order of magnitude further away from the RF than that
other station, am I not?

As long as the operator is in command of the station and making the QSOs
her/himself, and the results of those QSOs are categorized by the station
location, I don't see why you'd care if the microphone line is 3' long, 30'
long, or 3000 km long.

Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
kenharker at kenharker.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list