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

[ve4xt at mts.net]

> 
> 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.

So anyone who can't be physically located at their transmitter/receiver 
should just go jump in a lake? At a time when more and more amateurs 
are shutting down because of noisy environments, noisy HOAs and 
restrictive zoning, and some are exploring alternatives to quitting the 
hobby (such as a remote link), as long as no unfair advantage is obtained 
(such as using a KH6 remote to boost ability to work Asia but still claiming 
to be, say, a VE3), I see the remote link as a total non-issue.

Sorry, but the goal of Amateur Radio is not, nor has ever been, 
preservation of the status quo. I agree that contesting via EchoLink would 
be meaningless.  But as long as the QSO is point to point over the 
specified frequencies (I work a KH6 station bouncing over the Pacific into 
Hawaii), I have trouble arguing that the length of the control wires should 
make a difference.

Currently, no competitve advantage can be gained by remoting. Who 
reboots the remote computer if it crashes? How much delay is likely 
between input and result?

Yes, using remote link as the whole link is unacceptable. Yes, remote 
links must claim the geographic location of the transmitter/receiver as 
their location. As long as that is maintained, the only difference between a 
KH6 in KH6 and a KH6 in VE3 is the amount of competitive DISadvantage 
imposed by the linking technology.

73, kelly
ve4xt