[UK-CONTEST] New CQ WW Category

[Bob Henderson]

Sorry for the delay but I lit the blue touch paper and retired to a safe
distance as instructed on the box.

Well....in reality I had to run as we had a dinner engagement in London on
Friday night and flights don´t wait for late passengers.  I´ve been
travelling ever since.

I think your distinction between enabling and replacement technology is a
bit blinkered.

I think you might find an amateur whose home-based contesting aspirations
have been crippled by restrictive covenants and who therefore establishes a
remote station, would consider access and control via the telephone system
or internet, somewhat enabling.

Amateur radio is a technical hobby.  Radio amateurs have been resposible for
many technological innovations. The outright exclusion of experimentation
with new technology is undesirable in my opinion.  Legitimate accommodation
encourages fairplay.  Outright exclusion encourages the opposite.

Extreme category entrants will compete against other extreme category
entrants not against entrants in other categories.

Personally, I have no interest whatsoever in activity within the Extreme
category but I would rather those intent on use of such technology did so in
that category rather than in mine.  Many of the types of technology
contemplated have already been used in contests.  Let´s have them used
legitimately.

The use of internet in amateur radio has already been endorsed by all who
have used the DX spotting network.

Sorry no time for further input just now.  I´ll be travelling until the
month end.  Perhaps see you at FN?

73  Bob, 5B4AGN

2009/6/12 Paul O'Kane <pokane at ei5di.com>

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Henderson" <bob at 5b4agn.net>
>
> > Let me avoid any doubt by stating clearly that I hold an
> > entirely different view of what constitutes amateur radio
> > to your own.
>
> Radio amateurs can do anything they like, subject only
> to the usual rules and regulations - and describe what
> they are doing however they choose.
>
> In contesting, there are a few extra constraints.  In
> any competitive human activity or interest, there are
> specific rules to regulate the use of technology, if
> only to ensure it is proportionate and does not change
> the fundamental nature of the activity - the thing
> that gives it its name.
>
> For example, we already have "extreme yachting", with
> transatlantic and round-the-world races.  Those boats
> are stuffed to the gunwales with high-technology,
> including labour-saving remote-controlled devices.
> However, this is high-technology with a purpose.  Its
> use does not compromise the nature of sailing - to use
> only natural elements for propulsion.  It is enabling
> technology rather than replacement technology.
>
> In the same way, computers, keyers, logging software,
> SDRs and over-the-counter equipment represent enabling
> technology in contesting.  On the other hand, it is
> beyond argument that the internet is a replacement
> technology when it replaces RF anywhere in the signal
> path between the individuals at each end of a QSO.
>
> As an aside, it has always intrigued me why there was
> little or no pressure to permit the plain old telephone
> system in contesting.  What is so different about the
> internet?  I suggest the answer is that, as radio
> amateurs, we were once the sole group of people to
> enjoy "free" worldwide communications, at a time when
> the telephone was very expensive.  Now, thanks to the
> internet, every man and his dog has "free"
> communications, and some of us radio amateurs are
> feeling a bit miffed about it - we're not special any
> more.  Hence the rush to promote, or hijack, the
> internet as an integral part of amateur radio - when
> any schoolchild could tell you it's nothing of the
> sort.  Of course, I could be wrong :-)
>
> > You have described well what amateur radio means to you
> > but any implication that this definition is or should be
> > universal is just plain daft.
>
> The only "daft" thing is the refusal to distinguish
> between enabling and replacement technology.  Here's
> a few examples of daft uses of replacement technology
> that would change the fundamental nature of the
> competitive activity.
>
>  Springboards for high-jumpers.
>  Helicopters for mountaineers.
>  Bicycles for runners.
>  Motorcycles for cyclists.
>  Wings for ski-jumpers.
>  Calculators for mental arithmetic.
>  Electronic dictionaries for Spelling Bees.
>  Computers for chess players.
>  Telephones for radio amateurs.
>  The internet for radio amateurs.
>
> If you consider any of these to be anything other than
> daft, please explain why - and, by comparison, why the
> remaining examples are still daft.
>
> > I applaud CQ for introduction of the Extreme category.
>
> I deride CQ for the same reason.  It appears "they're
> not just clueless, they're oblivious" (thanks VR2BG).
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>