[CQ-Contest] When is a QSO not a QSO?

[Zack Widup]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the idea being put forth is that when you 
have a remote station located far away, you are working the operator at 
HIS QTH, not the remote station's location.

In the paragraph below where it says "Paul is right. Amateur radio, and 
contesting in particular, is a point-to-point (single-point to 
single-point), person-to-person, solely-RF-based technology" it is perhaps 
assuming that the "point" is in the same location as the "person".  This 
is usually the case.  But with a remote station, it ISN'T the case. 

If I am in Illinois but the remote station is in New York and I operate 
Sweepstakes, I will go with the appropriate New York section in my 
exchange, not Illinois, for that is where the transmitter is actually 
located.

It gets even worse if the transmitter is located overseas.  It is going to 
have to be licensed in the country where it is located and that is the 
country/zone that must be used. Do you think the government of Guatemala 
is going to allow a station set up there to sign a W callsign when it 
transmits?

But what would be the purpose of setting up a station in another country 
to operate remotely if you won't use a callsign for that country?

These are questions no one asked 20 years ago.  It's all very interesting.

73, Zack W9SZ


On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Paul O'Kane wrote:

> Was "Remote Site Contesting Rules - Getting out of hand".
> 
> > --- "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey at nl.rogers.com> wrote:
>  
> > My point is that when I make contact with a station,
> > even in a contest, it's the operator that I am working,
> > not the equipment.
> 
> Paul is right. Amateur radio, and contesting in particular,
> is a point-to-point (single-point to single-point), person-
> to-person, solely-RF-based technology.
> 
> Any deviation from this, regardless of how much fun or
> how convenient or how technically advanced it may be,
> serves only to dilute the achievement of completing the
> QSO.  Repeater QSOs are an example of "dilution".
> 
> With sufficient dilution we are eventually reduced to the
> level of EchoLink, Skype and cellphones - all great fun,
> all highly technically advanced, but not amateur radio.
> 
> > --- "Ken Alexander" <k.alexander at rogers.com> wrote:
> 
> > Sorry, no sale Paul.  If I had a ham friend in KH6 who
> > let me operate his station remotely . . . At the end of
> > the contest, if you'd worked me you would have worked KH6,
> > not VE3.
> 
> Ken is right in that Paul would have worked KH6.  But,
> ultimately, he is wrong because it's not a valid amateur
> radio QSO - it's a step towards EchoLink or Skype. 
> 
> There's a fundamental issue here - at what stage does a
> "QSO" become something else?  I suggest, for contesting
> purposes, it's when the operator(s), and all equipment
> and antennas, are not physically located within a circle
> of 500 metres diameter.
> 
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI