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

[Paul J. Piercey]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Gerry Hull
> Sent: March 20, 2007 12:57
> To: Paul O'Kane
> Cc: CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] When is a QSO not a QSO?
> 
> On 3/20/07, Paul O'Kane <pokane at ei5di.com> 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
> 
> The problem is all contests CURRENTLY allow this type of QSO!
> 
> If you are so opposed to the concept, and you found out 
> post-contest that your KH6 QSO was from a remotely-controlled 
> station, would you remove the
> KH6 QSO/multiplier from your log?
> 
> I think not.
> 
> 73,
> --
> Gerry, W1VE/VE1RM
> Explore real-time competition in ham radio - post/see scores 
> at http://www.getscores.org!

So you are saying that, if I had a station in Mongolia and a good (perhaps
even dedicated, should I have the necessary monetary resources to provide
such) Internet link, I could fire it up this weekend in the WPX and say I'm
a JT1 while sitting here in my shack at home? Why didn't anyone tell me? I
could save myself a lot of grief having to put up with the noise and NA/EU
QRM and be a big wheel with all my peers.

Thanks Gerry.

73 -- Paul VO1HE

PS: I work that few KH6s that I'd probably keep it. Call me a hypocrit if
you want. :)