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