CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

Joe,
 
If we put remote stations, available 24/7/365, at rare DX locations, that
will INCREASE HF activity, not dimish it.
 
That said, I believe both our points have validity and should be considered.
 
73, Gerry W1VE
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV <w4tv@subich.com> wrote:
 
>
> Gerry,
>
> > In my time, I've seen
> > a lot of technology come and go.   What I believe is this:
> > Without forward progress, I will virtually guarantee that our
> > hobby will cease to exist.   We will loose spectrum and
> > become irrelevant.     As the current ham population dies
> > off, we need new and innovative ways to bring new members
> > into the hobby, and to the contesting community.
> >
> > Where we (and lots of others) probably differ is in what the
> > definition of "forward progress" is.
>
> I don't disagree with anything you have said.  I would even
> agree that remote technology is "forward progress" but I do
> not believe that it is "amateur radio" or that it belongs in
> either contesting of DXing.
>
> > Remote operation is a means to an end:  Someone wishes to
> > provide RF communications from a point on the earth where
> > they cannot possibly be physically.   Is the RF diminished
> > because it happens to be connected remotely by a non-rf path?
>
> Someone has to be at the remote end to build the facilities.
> There is no reason that they should not be there to operate
> them.
>
> > Are ham-radio "emulators" a band thing??   Not in my opinion.
> >   Do you remember DoctorDX on the Commodor64 back in the 80s?
> >   That was CQWW inside a computer!  And it was a blast to
> > play contest when we were at the bottom of a cycle.
>
> DoctorDX or Morse Runner is not a "bad thing."  However, when
> they are put on-line and opened to multiple "players" so they
> eliminate the ionosphere, transmitters, receivers and licensing,
> they are no longer amateur radio.
>
> > Currently, www.hamsphere.com is an online experiment -- an
> > interesting technical test project that "simulates" RF QSOs
> > over an Internet connection.
>
> It is exactly that kind of "experiment" that, in conjunction
> with TCP/IP and VoIP that scare me about the future of Amateur
> radio.  It would be a huge bargain for a major company to
> provide enhanced Hamsphere software and agree to operate 10
> global "ham bands" on line in return for 500 KHz of exclusive
> HF spectrum.  That's a no-brainer business decision. They payoff
> is so massive and I could raise the capital to fund such deal in
> less than 90 days.
>
> > They would get bored with an online service very
> > quickly (a la "Second Life"), but it just might spark an
> > interest in ham radio, the real hobby.
>
> I don't believe the majority of "appliance operators" will care
> about the differences between an online simulator and the "real
> thing."  I believe most of them would prefer not to deal with
> the variability of the ionosphere, the reliability/cost involved
> in maintaining equipment, towers and antennas, or the hassles of
> building permits, HOA approvals and zoning/variance hearings.
>
> > The only level-playing-field option I would like to have in
> > contesting and DXing is the ability for many more of us to
> > experience the other side of the pileup.. without having to
> > travel to to remote location.   Is that such a bad thing?
>
> Yes - it devalues being on the other side of the pile-up if
> anyone can operate a remote station on Sable, St. Paul,
> Myanmar or North Korea without ever being there.  It also makes
> less likely that anyone will bother to travel to Bouvet, Peter I,
> Scarborough Reef, S. Georgia, or Juan Felix when they can operate
> a similarly "rare" and less dangerous location from the comfort
> of their easy chair.
>
> I believe these incremental steps that devalue amateur radio as
> we have known it (person to person, home station to home station,
> via the ionosphere) significantly increase the odds that the
> individual will lose the right to what we have known for more
> than 50 years.  If we don't value and protect the "traditional"
> amateur paradigm, we will find ourselves left with nothing except
> an "emulation" of amateur radio.
>
> 73,
>
>   ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gerry.hull@gmail.com [mailto:gerry.hull@gmail.com] On
> > Behalf Of Gerry Hull
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 1:47 PM
> > To: Joe Subich, W4TV
> > Cc: cq-contest reflector
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations
> >
> >
>  > Hi Joe,
> >
> > I appreciate your very thoughtful response.   I can see where
> > your worry comes from.  I just think it is misplaced.
> > In the ham radio world, I guess I'm a relatively young pup --
> > I've been a ham for only 33 years now.   In my time, I've seen
> > a lot of technology come and go.   What I believe is this:
> > Without forward progress, I will virtually guarantee that our
> > hobby will cease to exist.   We will loose spectrum and
> > become irrelevant.     As the current ham population dies
> > off, we need new and innovative ways to bring new members
> > into the hobby, and to the contesting community.
> >
> > Where we (and lots of others) probably differ is in what the
> > definition of "forward progress" is.
> >
> > Remote operation is a means to an end:  Someone wishes to
> > provide RF communications from a point on the earth where
> > they cannot possibly be physically.   Is the RF diminished
> > because it happens to be connected remotely by a non-rf path?
> >   Are the people involved more interested in the tcp/ip
> > transport links rather than the radio experience?    If you
> > get a thrill by sending your audio around the world on the
> > Internet, why in the heck would you connect a radio at the
> > other end and deal with qrm/qrn, etc?
> >
> > Are ham-radio "emulators" a band thing??   Not in my opinion.
> >   Do you remember DoctorDX on the Commodor64 back in the 80s?
> >   That was CQWW inside a computer!  And it was a blast to
> > play contest when we were at the bottom of a cycle.  However,
> > it was CW only -- so was only accessible to a people who were
> > already hams.   Currently, www.hamsphere.com is an online
> > experiment -- an interesting technical test project that
> > "simulates" RF QSOs over an Internet connection.   I've told
> > the author that I believe that if this project was enhanced,
> > it could be a very interesting learning tool.     Would it
> > not be great for people to experience the concept of ham
> > radio (and perhaps radio contesting) without having to get a
> > license?   They would get bored with an online service very
> > quickly (a la "Second Life"), but it just might spark an
> > interest in ham radio, the real hobby.
> >
> > I want Microham to be in the market 10, 20 and 30 years from
> > now.   The products are great ... and if you have remote
> > support in the pipeline, even for the distant future, I do
> > believe you and your team have the right vision.
> >
> > The only level-playing-field option I would like to have in
> > contesting and DXing is the ability for many more of us to
> > experience the other side of the pileup.. without having to
> > travel to to remote location.   Is that such a bad thing?
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Gerry, W1VE
> > Ex/Also: VE1RM, VO1WIN, CY0SAB, CY9SPI, /KH6, /VP2M, 6Y6C
> > www.getscores.org
> > w1ve@getscores.org