[CQ-Contest] New Contesting Classification
w9sz.zack at gmail.com
Mon Oct 3 22:38:02 EDT 2016
I have been trying to say that these "irrefutable facts" are indeed
refutable. I know of quite a few instances where a station was controlled
remotely by other means than internet. Some of them are, have been, or
could be by microwave link, laser link, VHF/UHF radio link, landline
telephone, direct wiring, and even in one case in my distant past by
greatly modified CB walkie-talkies. That was a fun project. We couldn't
change frequency of the station but we could talk over the HF station from
a couple blocks away with the walkie-talkies. Internet wasn't even a dream
in someone's head at that time.
And I'll bet that if you worked someone using a remote station, you'd never
even know it unless you were told. So maybe we should all just keep it a
secret from here on out.
73, Zack W9SZ
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Paul O'Kane <pokane at ei5di.com> wrote:
> On 03/10/2016 21:03, Zack Widup wrote:
> Exactly! I don't know why it is so hard for some people to grasp this. If
>> the path between the transmitters/receivers of both stations is via the
>> aether, ionosphere, free space or whatever you want to call it, then the
>> QSO is entirely by radio.
> Conversations take place between people.
> Telephone calls take place between people.
> QSOs take place between people.
> Here are two irrefutable facts about (almost) all remote
> 1. Remote operators are at all times communicating over
> the internet.
> 2. Without the internet, there would be no communications
> whatsoever with other operators.
> Those who claim that remote operation is exactly the same
> as "hands-on" operation are in denial of those two facts.
> Please refer to
> www.ei5di.com/sdremote.html and
> There's no more to be said :-)
> Paul EI5DI
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest