[CQ-Contest] You gotta let me know, should M/M Distributed stay or go.

[Paul O'Kane]

On 02/06/2021 22:43, David Gilbert wrote:

> The same argument could be made for ANY remote operation,

Yes, that's my point.


> and you are most definitely swimming upstream (and mostly alone) on that.

It's definitely a struggle :-)


> And in spite of the countless times you have mercilessly flogged this 
> horse, 

The horse is alive and kicking.


> 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.

That argument cuts both ways.  What you perpetually are either unable or 
unwilling to accept is that internet users are always internet users, 
regardless of what "magic" happens at the far end of the internet 
communications link.


> The internet portion is spliced in series with every bit of the usual 
> RF chain.

Yes, that is hybrid communications, with interdependent internet and 
ham-band RF communications.


 > The RF isn't being replaced or bypassed

I've not suggested that.


 > (if anything, it is being burdened by the extra links).

If dependence on the extra links makes things harder, then the solution 
is obvious.


 >  The requirement for a full RF portion makes it completely different 
than other internet communications,

It doesn't.  Ask anyone who doesn't have an axe to grind to describe 
what's happening.  They'll say "you're on the internet".


 > and every contest I'm aware of declares the relevant QTH to be at the 
source of the RF ... not the operating position.

And for every QSO we have, I'm in contact with you.  People communicate 
with one another.  To argue that QSOs take place between stations is 
plain wrong (autonomous data modes excepted).   Again, it is HOW we 
choose to contact one another that identifies us as hams.  When you're 
on the internet, you're an internet user - no different to other 
internet users with worldwide communications at their fingertips.


> 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.

Remote stations are restricted-access repeaters with the necessary 
internet gateways for both control and communications. To accept 
repeater QSOs on exactly the same terms as RF-all-the-way QSOs for 
contesting and DX awards makes no sense.

M/M Distributed should go.  If, however, MMD is seen as "progress", let 
them compete only with one another - and similarly for repeater entries.

It can take time, money, commitment, and restraint to keep the internet 
out of ham radio.

73,
Paul EI5DI

__________________________

On 02/06/2021 22:43, David Gilbert wrote:

Paul,

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.

Dave   AB7E

>
>
>
> On 6/2/2021 10:36 AM, Paul O'Kane wrote:
>> On 02/06/2021 17:36, Igor Sokolov wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> 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 users.
>>
>> Call it what you like, but don't call it what it's not.  I say M/M 
>> Distributed should go.
>>
>> 73,
>> Paul EI5DI