[VHFcontesting] Re: Is this a QSO?

[Duane Grotophorst]

> -------Original Message-------
> From: John Geiger <johngeig at yahoo.com>
>  
> Since people refer to contacts via Echolink or
> IRLP as
> "QSO", and I think that the ARRL will count them for
> the first contact award, the rag chewers club, and
> the
> friendship award, I am wondering if the following
> would also count.
> 
> I have a cordless phone that operates on 904.7 MHZ
> FM,
> which is in the 33cm band.  If I work another ham
> who
> is also using a cordless phone in the 33cm band, (or
> a
> 2.4G model) and we both give callsigns-is it a
> "QSO".
> Propagation was involved in getting the signal from
> the handset to the base unit-with wires in between
> each base unit.  Seems very similar to how IRPL is
> set
> up.
> 
> 73s JOhn NE0P

Interesting topic and a number of equally interesting
comments. The key guidelines that I would go by are
(theses are primarily in the context of the existing
VHF awards and contesting):

1. All elements of the station both RX and TX are
operated entirely within an Amateur band.  To not make
this a hair splitting exercise, it is reasonable to
allow things like wireless mics and other part 15
devices contained entirely within the confines of the
station since they do not represent a significant part
of the communications path.

2. Whatever "community" infrastructure there is that
it be predominately amateur radio built, or be
exclusive in purpose by its nature for ham radio use,
such as the OSCAR program and the typical FM repeater
for example. None of this allowed for contesting or
most existing awards already.

3. Exclude the use of common carrier or public
communications infrastructure. Internet
interconnecting of stations like EchoLink and IRLP et
al. are therefore not "QSO's" in the tradition sense.
However that should not preclude using the entire
range of technologies that make those modes work on
*exclusive* amateur infrastructure (part 97 802.11b
for example). This is not meant to discourage any of
the experimenting and further development of these
types of technologies using the Internet. It is
instead intended to be a point of definition for what
constitutes an amateur *radio* QSO or not.

4. All demodulation and decoding is done real or near
real-time, this would still accommodate the WSJT modes
and any others similar to it. The key distinction is
that the current QSO (2way direct TX to RX) must be
completed and logged before the next can commence.
Essentially this means no post processing. But there
is no limit to what equipment is used to build the
station, be it computers, spectrum analyzers, scanners
and so on.

So what does this mean from a purely practical stand
point?

1. If a group of ops round up a few 902 or 2.4
cordless phones and find a way to *directly* talk to
each other over meaningful distances with them, have
at it. As long as they are operating properly within
the part 97 rules (no encryption etc.). Using the
phones' base stations wired together in the middle
would not qualify.

2. For typical VHF contesting purposes operations like
IRLP, EchoLink, etc. (even if entirely confined to ham
frequencies) be treated the same as FM repeaters or
OSCAR satellites.

3. There is no limitation to the amount of computing
horsepower that you may apply *within* your station.
The restriction is that the computing power that you
do use is all confined to your station's location and
is not connected to others outside of it.

So there are the basic guidelines that I would go by.
The general re-purposing of consumer electronics and
part 15 devices is fine. Just don't allow any part of
the public communications networks to effectively
and/or directly replace the actual act of
communicating on ham frequencies with other ham
stations and their equipment.

Duane
N9DG
EN53bj


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com