I believe I understand what you are saying ... if you can't control it then
legalize it.
Doug
-----Original Message-----
thrown out a hotel upper storey window. Question: can I link myself via the
internet to some remote "...rent-a-station" in, say, nearby Japan, and use
that station to QSO them, all the while using my callsign of VE3CUI...?
>
> Like I said earlier, it's an ignorant question, from an ignorant Ham---but
> I would like to know the answer, just the same...!
>
> Many thanks, &
Eddy,
It is always good to figure out how the something we complained about
actually works, and what the impact is. I see you still cling to the "rental
myth" that is used to stir people up.
The fact is, there are many dozens, if not hundreds, of completely free
unmonitored stations on line right now.
My opinion is, if someone wanted to do what you describe, they would likely
do it through one of the many free open access small stations all over the
world, of which there are probably hundreds. They would be invisible and
unrecorded.
It seems illogical to me that someone would join a club or group, become
identified, and pay a deposit they lose if caught breaking terms, and a fee
for a monitored and logged system when they can do it free and without
logging.
I'm not sure how that could be controlled, because anyone who can download
software and has the right equipment can connect.
This entire topic seems backwards to me, because the most vocal ranters
appear to be the very people who don't understand the system, and who have
not thought through the impact and how to solve or reduce problems.
For example, the ARRL is being blamed for profiting from DXCC, but they
probably have no idea if DXCC is a net loss or net profit for the ARRL. I
personally do not think it is a fund raiser for them, but that's my guess. I
would not publically rant about it one way or another without research.
We all know, factually, many years ago DXCC became a matter of the person
and not the station or station location (other than being within a
country). Some people would like to see this to go back to the station or at
least worked within reasonable bounds of distance (I am one of them). Unlike
some, I don't think this is an ethical thing. I think a rule is a rule, and
if we don't like the rule we carefully and thoughtfully change the rule.
(I've never even applied for DXCC, but I do enjoy working countries for my
own satisfaction. I do have RCC, but after the strange looks at show and
tell in eighth grade I have kept that hidden.)
After thinking about this for a few years, I think there should be a
requirement that no radio transmitter be openly accessible to the general
public. To me, that is no different than having a running unmonitored
transmitter on a table in a public shopping mall. I think anyone offering a
transmitter (or receiver in real time, without induced latency) to the
general population without reasonably secure user control is setting the
world up for problems.
The really odd thing about this thread is some people dislike controlled
systems and people who have or use controlled systems, but they have no
comment on what amounts to hundreds of radios openly accessible with no
controls, restrictions, and no monitoring. They have no problem with someone
driving to a station that isn't theirs and counting the country, but they
have a problem if it is via a link.
W6YY used a remote link in 160 contests way back around 1963. John was my
first or second California contact on 160. This has been going on quite a
while.
73 Tom
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|