[CQ-Contest] Antw: Re: Remote contest operation

[M. WIJK]

Paul ,

I could not have put this any better.
Having followed your many messages on this subject, I believe (and hope) that most readers must have understood your message by now.

I dislike doing a 'me too' reaction, but I very much care for the "Radio Amateur True QSO by RF" 

IF there's ever gonna be a new group promoting true HAM Radio vs/against the current X-Box/Wii/mouse-generation with the spirit of "I-want-it-all-at-no-cost-and-no-effort-and-I-want-it-today", put me up for it.
I enjoy contesting either at home (7x6mtrs city backyard) or at our PI4TUE clubstation, where in both cases there are motivated but much different goal settings.

It's not about the abuse of rules, that will always be with us.

It's about the lack of showing putting effort in the True Game.

73 Mark, PA5MW





Op 04/15/13, Paul O'Kane  <pokane at ei5di.com> schreef:
> 
> On 12/04/2013 19:46, w5ov at w5ov.com wrote:
> 
> >First thing, email on a contest-related reflector is
> >not a "ham radio activity".
> 
> Could this be a denial of reality? Email to cq-contest
> is indeed ham radio activity, as is reading QST, going
> to Dayton, or watching a DXpedition DVD.
> 
> 
> > There is no amateur RF involved at all.
> 
> RF is a prerequisite for ham radio QSOs, but not for
> ham radio activity.
> 
> It is clear that W5OV, in common with other remote
> control enthusiasts, considers that ham radio QSOs
> require nothing more than inter-station communication.
> As such, any amateur RF, anywhere in the signal path,
> confers the status of an amateur radio QSO on the
> activity.
> 
> There's just one minor flaw with that point of view.
> Stations don't communicate, we (people) do. Whether
> it's by the internet, by telephone, by radio, by mail
> or by however means available, we communicate - using
> the appropriate tools to facilitate the communications.
> 
> Regardless of whether W5OV concedes this point, let's
> press on.
> 
> We all agree that when there is no RF involved, there
> is no amateur-radio QSO. A CQ100 QSO is not a ham
> radio QSO, though it does represent ham radio activity.
> 
> On the other hand, the claim that any amateur RF,
> anywhere in the signal path between two people
> concerned, qualifies the activity as a ham radio
> QSO is clearly wishful thinking.
> 
> Often, none of this matters. In competition, however,
> how things are done matters. Rules are introduced to
> regulate activities and keep the competitors honest.
> And W5OV will immediately say that there are no rules
> regulating remote control in contesting. And he is
> right, it is unregulated. As things stand, in most
> contests, we can use any communications system or
> utility we choose so long as there as some RF, any
> RF, anywhere.
> 
> 
> >You say (paraphrasing) that the Internet is replacing or displacing
> >amateur-band RF in contest QSOS. Please explain how this is so?
> 
> W5OV has misquoted me. Here is what I actually said.
> 
>  "Whatever relevance the internet has to contesting
>  in general, in remote contest operation it serves
>  only to replace or displace amateur-band RF
>  between contesters."
> 
> I choose my words carefully when posting to this
> mailing list. No further explanation is necessary.
> 
> 
> >There is no alteration or displacement of the RF path in remote contesting
> >whatsoever and I pointed that out earlier.
> 
> That's correct, however it's not the full story.
> With remote operation, no QSO is possible without
> first connecting, and staying connected, to the
> internet. It can not be an amateur-radio QSO, as
> otherwise there would be no need to connect to the
> internet. The difference is the internet.
> 
> Neither is it an internet QSO, because otherwise
> there would be no need for amateur RF. The
> difference is amateur radio.
> 
> However you look at it, it is undeniable there is a
> difference between an internet-dependent QSO and
> an amateur-radio QSO. The difference is the internet.
> W5OV may say it doesn't matter, which I counter by
> saying it does matter because, without full dependence
> on a public communications utility, no QSOs can take
> place. On the internet, everyone has the world at
> their fingertips.
> 
> If it's not an amateur radio QSO and it's not an
> internet QSO, then what is it? The answer directly
> describes the true nature of the activity - it's an
> amateur hybrid-communications QSO.
> 
> 
> >Let's say I'm operating at my station in Dallas and you and I have a QSO.
> 
> >The RF path begins at the back of my radio, goes to my antenna, through
> >the ionosphere to Ireland and you receive it. That is the complete
> >amateur band RF path.
> 
> Can't argue with that.
> 
> >For argument sake, let's pretend that I make my Dallas station a remotely
> >controlled station. Also pretend that I'm sitting in a hotel room in San
> >Francisco remotely controlling my station in Dallas.
> 
> >What happens in this case?
> 
> >The RF path begins at the back of my radio (in Dallas), goes to my
> >antenna(in Dallas), through the ionosphere to Ireland and you receive it.
> 
> >That is precisely the same RF path. There is no RF difference whatsoever.
> 
> Can't argue with that.
> 
> However, once again, it's not the full story. W5OV
> is in San Francisco and there's no RF between him
> and his station in Dallas. The internet has replaced
> RF along this path. W5OV will say this is irrelevant,
> and I will agree with him until he claims he has had
> an amateur-radio QSO with me when, in fact, it has
> been an amateur hybrid-communications QSO. As for
> me, the unsuspecting victim, I have had the modern
> equivalent of a phone-patch QSO.
> 
> In competition, how things are done matters.
> 
> 
> >Please tell me how I am wrong.
> 
> I've done it, repeatedly!
> 
> 
> >This last paragraph is the only possible logical explanation of why you
> >continue to insist that the Internet changes the RF path when it does not.
> 
> Yet again, W5OV has misquoted me. It is probably
> due to carelessness. However, it becomes tedious
> for all of us when I am forced to continually repeat
> what I actually said.
> 
>  "Whatever relevance the internet has to contesting
>  in general, in remote contest operation it serves
>  only to replace or displace amateur-band RF
>  between contesters."
> 
> Why are there no rules regulating the use of remote
> control - with the notable exception of the IOTA
> contest?
> 
> One reason offered is that remote control confers
> no particular competitive advantage. That's true
> at present, but it's a cop-out. Compare this to
> remote control hunting, where "hunters" hunt without
> leaving their armchairs - universally regarded as
> unsporting, and already banned in many states.
> 
> In contesting, in DXing and in hunting, "being there"
> matters. Would anyone want to work North Korea if
> the operator was in Finland? Some might, but not
> me :-) Wouldn't WRTC be simpler if the competitors
> could operate from home? Perhaps, but "control"
> could be a minor issue.
> 
> Come on, contest sponsors - do something. Give
> the remote operators a class of their own, or put
> a stop to it. Many of us prefer not to compete
> with the hybrid-communications contesters.
> 
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> 
>