[UK-CONTEST] CQ-100 et al

[Paul O'Kane]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Don Field" <don.field at gmail.com>

> Amateur radio is a house of many rooms.

I see things a bit differently. I see communications technologies
as a house of many rooms - with radio amateurs in one of those
rooms.  The radio-amateur room is still quite big, with lots of
corners for special-interest groups and for experimenting and
training with accessories - usually new electronic and software
goodies.

The fundamental thing that sets the radio-amateur room apart from
the others is that the occupants use amateur-band RF to contact
one another.

Radio amateurs have always had effectively "free" communications,
but now there are many other options where cost is of little or
no concern for world-wide person-to-person communications.  We
used to have a kind of monopoly in that respect, and we felt a
bit "special".  I have the impression that now that we're not so
special, many of us are trying to compensate by becoming expert
in other comms technologies - or expert in their integration.

Why do radio amateurs still use RF when there are several
alternatives, freely available to most of us, that are much
more convenient and reliable?  We (well, most of us) still
communicate the hard way, and put up with the uncertainty, the
inconvenience and the wasted time because we are enthusiasts.
We rely on our skills and use amateur-band RF for its own sake,
just as sailors rely on their skills and use the wind and the
waves, and fly-fishermen rely on their skills and use rod, line
and artificial lures.  There are more convenient ways to
communicate, to travel on water, or to fish, but that's not the
point.  In effect, the name of name of each activity defines
that activity.  Change that activity and its name must change.

Of course, people are generally do what they like, and radio
amateurs are free to use, and mix, other communications modes
and applications.  I use the PSTN, mobile phones, Skype (and
the internet generally) on a daily basis, but I don't pretend
any of these are amateur-radio activities, even when I'm
communicating with other radio amateurs.

I also use many amateur-radio software packages including
simulators and trainers such as Morse Runner and RUFZ.  I
consider these to be accessories, rather than replacements
for the core activity of using only amateur-band RF to
contact other radio amateurs.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that amateur-band-RF
QSOs score 100 on a scale of integrity, goodness, or core
activity.  On that basis a 2-way CQ100 QSO would score
zero (no RF) - just as my Morse Runner QSOs score zero.
An EchoLink QSO would score something in-between, perhaps
based on the proportion of RF to wired (non amateur-band RF)
in the signal path between the individuals concerned.
Clearly, the same criterion would apply to remote-controlled
stations.

I suggest that, for contesting and award-chasing purposes
including DXCC and IOTA, no QSOs should be considered valid
unless the entire signal path between the individuals
concerned consists of amateur-band RF - subject to the
500-metre rule for equipment, antennas and operators.

You don't agree?  Then what would you say to a yachtsman
who claims "Of course I'm still sailing, it's only a
little engine"?

> And how do RSGB or ARRL define their “marketplace”?

I'd like to see both of them respect the "Radio" in their
society initials, and not promote replacements for amateur-
band RF.  In this context, CQ100 is a replacement whereas
Morse Runner is an accessory.

73,
Paul EI5DI