CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] No more Unassisted in ARRL VHF Contests?

To: Zack Widup <w9sz.zack@gmail.com>, CQ Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] No more Unassisted in ARRL VHF Contests?
From: <ve4xt@mymts.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 17:43:23 -0600
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Careful, Zach. Informed argument and proper reasoning have no place in this 
rant!
;=)
73, kellyve4xt

> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:45:02 -0600
> From: w9sz.zack@gmail.com
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] No more Unassisted in ARRL VHF Contests?
> 
> This rules change was recommended by a VHF-UHF advisory committee. It
> probably will have no bearing on HF contests.
> 
> VHF+ contesting is not anything like HF contesting. I'm a VHF+ contester.
> Beam patterns are very narrow (maybe 15-20 degrees on 432 MHz and 2 degrees
> for a typical 10 GHz antenna) and you very very rarely make random contacts
> on bands above 432 MHz. The higher bands require either working someone up
> the bands from a lower band like 144 MHz, or by making a sked somehow,
> either before or during the contest. Many times I've sat and waited for a
> station I could hear to swing his beam toward me so he could hear me.
> Sometimes it happens but more often it doesn't. An opening to a given area
> may only last a few minutes. Allowing assistance would at least let you
> tell someone you're hearing "Hey, I'm here!"
> 
> If you've never operated in a VHF+ contest on any other band but 50 MHz,
> you have no idea how frustrating it can be to miss out over and over, and
> yet so rewarding when you do make a contact.
> 
> 73, Zack W9SZ
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 17/11/2014 15:25, Kelly Taylor wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >  Yet, power levels never get anywhere near the level of hand-wringing ‹
> >> despite actually being an infraction of actual laws in most countries ‹
> >> compared to the overwhelming dread someone might be looking at an Internet
> >> site they're not supposed to?
> >>
> >
> > I started this thread to draw attention to the fact
> > that the ARRL is recommending the abolition of
> > "unassisted" categories in VHF/UHF contesting -
> > leading to the distinct possibility of this abolition
> > being imposed on HF contesting in due course.
> >
> > The thread has since been hijacked.  The point of
> > view expressed above by VE4XT is representative of
> > those who fail to understand the real issue.
> >
> > It has nothing to do with cheating, or the ability
> > to detect cheaters.  The issue is whether we, as
> > amateur-radio contesters, may continue to be
> > described as such in the context of routine (and
> > sometimes absolute) dependence on other, non-amateur,
> > communications technologies or communications
> > utilities while contesting.
> >
> > There's nothing wrong with using the internet while
> > contesting, and that's what the so-called "assisted"
> > categories cater for.  Nevertheless, it seems that
> > any dependence on the internet (to find, facilitate,
> > make or enable QSOs) undermines whatever right we
> > have to describe ourselves as "radio" amateurs -
> > rather than the hybrid-communications amateurs that
> > many of us have become.
> >
> > As always, the terms "assisted" and "unassisted"
> > are misnomers.  "Assisted", whatever it used to
> > imply, now largely means "connected to the internet",
> > with Unassisted meaning "not connected to the
> > internet".  Since all relevant technology assists,
> > the term "assisted" no longer adequately describes
> > the connected category.
> >
> > In recommending the abolition of unconnected
> > contesting categories the ARRL is, in effect,
> > forcing us all to become hybrid-communications
> > contesters (VHF/UHF initially) to remain competitive.
> >
> > I object to this because I'm an amateur-radio
> > contester.
> >
> > With regard to VE4XT's comment - "compared to the
> > overwhelming dread someone might be looking at an
> > Internet site they're not supposed to", I offer the
> > following analogies in the hope that they help
> > others to understand how fundamental this connected/
> > unconnected issue is in the context of contesting.
> >
> > What do you call a sailboat racer who uses an
> > engine when not supposed to?  A driver.
> >
> > What do you call a mountaineer who uses a ski-
> > lift?  A passenger.
> >
> > What do you call a high-jumper who uses a pole
> > when not supposed to?  A pole vaulter.
> >
> > What do you call a fly-fisherman who uses a net?
> > A fisherman.
> >
> > What do you call a fisherman who shoots fish in
> > a barrel?  Anything you like, but don't call him
> > what he's not.
> >
> > What do you call an amateur-radio contester who
> > uses the internet, whether supposed to or not?
> > Anything you like, but don't call him what he's not.
> >
> > Everyone with internet access has, in effect, free
> > worldwide person-to-person communications at their
> > fingertips.  Radio amateurs are different, or are
> > they?  Don't they do it the hard way, for its own
> > sake?
> >
> > In competition, how things are done matters.  That's
> > why I want no part of connected contesting, and will
> > oppose the ARRL's recommendations.
> >
> > 73,
> > Paul EI5DI
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
                                          
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>