[CQ-Contest] You gotta let me know, should M/M Distributed stay or go.
ab7echo at gmail.com
Wed Jun 2 17:43:39 EDT 2021
The same argument could be made for ANY remote operation, and you are
most definitely swimming upstream (and mostly alone) on that.
And in spite of the countless times you have mercilessly flogged this
horse, what you perpetually are either unable to understand or unwilling
to accept is that remote operations like this do not supplant any
portion of the traditional amateur radio RF link. The internet portion
is spliced in series with every bit of the usual RF chain. The RF isn't
being replaced or bypassed (if anything, it is being burdened by the
extra links). The requirement for a full RF portion makes it completely
different than other internet communications, and every contest I'm
aware of declares the relevant QTH to be at the source of the RF ... not
the operating position.
Even the ability for someone living on the west coast to operate from
the east coast via a remote link is no different than if that person
paid a bunch of money for a plane ticket to guest op at that same
station ... except that the remote link makes it potentially cheaper and
more accessible to more people.
On 6/2/2021 10:36 AM, Paul O'Kane wrote:
> On 02/06/2021 17:36, Igor Sokolov wrote:
>> It involves co-operation, tactics, strategy planning and amplifies
>> the pleasure of contesting by the number of participating operators.
> This ignores the elephant in the room. M/M Distributed is dependent
> on, and cannot exist without, non ham-radio means of communication.
> Many say this doesn't matter. However, if how we choose to contact
> one another doesn't matter, then we are no different to other internet
> Call it what you like, but don't call it what it's not. I say M/M
> Distributed should go.
> Paul EI5DI
More information about the CQ-Contest