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

[Bill Parry]

As I suspected when I first saw this topic appear, there is a lot more going
on "out there" than most of us realize. We apparently have many contesters
experimenting with computer controlled and/or remote stations. We may have
been working them all along and didn't even know it. And after all, one of
the main objectives we have in ham radio is experimenting. Which
antenna/rigs work the best, what software gives us the best information
about propagation? What gives us the best methods of keeping our records
accurate? It is very difficult to argue against progress.

I think that some of the debate centers around why the new technologies are
being used and not around what it is being used for. For example, I think
most everyone would agree that a remote station for experimentation or
regular qso's is an interesting idea. A difficulty might arise if I had a
remote station about 20 miles south of here in Mexico but if it was kept
inside the USA, my license should do the trick.

When we apply this same idea to DXing, we would have to comply with the
rules of the organization offering the certificate. Is it OK for me to use a
remote station, say something like W7RM to work stations in Asia, and
something like KC1XX to work EU DX? Probably not, mainly because we perceive
that there is something unfair about this. (and the rules, too). I always
felt bad about working a DX station at someone else's station.

When we apply this same idea to contesting, we run into the rules for the
contest. I would have never thought of the idea that if the station and
antennas are located within a specified circle, that this might not include
the operator. I guess that I wasn't looking closely enough. Frankly, with
the present technology, no one should be very concerned that remote stations
are going to effectively compete anyway.

I am certainly sympathetic to the guys who have found themselves in
situations where they can't hear because of locally generated noise. I have
two new hospitals, plus the associated Dr.s offices within half a mile of my
QTH and they generate lots of junk. 

I believe that packet has unleashed the "genie from the bottle". How will
the ARRL/CQ monitor any of this activity? Maybe the Office of Homeland
Security might, or maybe Star Fleet Command but there are not sufficient
resources to catch a multi station using two or three multiplier stations or
receiving antennas in different areas of the U.S./world. We already have
multiple stations networked together over the internet in at least one
contest. If two kids in a garage can break into the Pentagons computers, how
can we be sure that equally smart hams aren't finding ways to circumvent any
rules we might come up with.

Contesting has always been fun for me. I am sure that it always will. I hope
that all of us feel the same way. Tonight I will sleep well, just like I did
last night.

Bill W5VX   

>-----Original Message-----
>From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:cq-contest-
>bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Yuri VE3DZ
>Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 7:52 PM
>To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] When is a QSO not a QSO?
>
>Why? Mostly because the level of cheaters would double, if not triple.
>Who's going to monitor / supervise all this stuff and HOW?
>
>I heard people now using remote RX's for pulling out weak DX signals.
>I know other people using WSJT in Contests to improve reception...
>How are you going to catch them?
>"Contesting is becoming the war of the machines". :-)
>
>73 Yuri  VE3DZ
>
>
>
>
>> Yuri,
>>
>> Why? When you contact a station in Aruba in WW, you say to him 59 05 and
>he
>> says 59 09.
>>
>> That's the extent of your conversation. As long as your signal is
>actually
>> travelling directly from your antennas to Aruba, and his signal is
>actually
>> travelling directly from Aruba to your antennas, why does the fact he's
>> remote change anything? And, how would you know? And once you did know,
>are
>> you then going to disrupt your run to lament the fact?
>>
>
>
>>
>> 73, kelly
>> ve4xt
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest