We are all entitled to our own opinion, but not all opinions are equal. Some are backed by fact, others are not. Those that are not backed by fact are worth considerably less than those that are. The alternative to fact is fiction.
It's not enough for anyone to assert things without evidence, and then attempt to justify their assertions by adding "Well, that's my opinion" - as though that in itself is some kind of justification. It isn't.
Nevertheless, facts, on their own, may be selective or insufficient. A bit of context is usually required to produce the truth.
Here are two facts about remote operation that serve to describe the context.
Remote operating represents deception on a world-wide industrial scale. The unsuspecting "hands-on" operators usually have no idea, and generally have no way of knowing in advance, that they are having anything other than RF-all-the-way QSOs. They will be unaware that their transmissions are being relayed over public communications utilities to the remote operator, and that, in general, their QSOs would not be otherwise be possible.
In effect, remote QSOs are devalued - even though, to the unsuspecting operators contacted, they may be indistinguishable from the real thing.
Remote operation, no matter how impressive the technology, how pressing the operator's personal circumstances or how altruistic his/her motives, is neither clever nor progressive. On the contrary, it is selfish, and serves to undermine ham radio by suggesting that it is perfectly acceptable to communicate over public networks rather than face up to local or personal difficulties.
If you're a remote operator, then however you choose to describe your activities, they are unlikely to be anything other than amateur hybrid-communications. In turn, remote operators are amateur hybrid-communications operators They refuse to accept that QSOs take place between people.
Here is something that anyone can understand.
A QSO between two operators on CQ100 or HamSphere? Well, that is 100% internet.
A QSO between a remote operator and a hands-on operator? Well, that is simultaneously less than 100% ham radio, and less than 100% internet.
They take comfort in their denials by relying on compliant contesting and award sponsors, and on the IARU and its member societies (including ARRL, DARC and RSGB) who validate their activities. Strangely enough, those same bodies reject other forms of hybrid communications, including EchoLink and IRLP, in the pursuit of DXCC and contesting awards.
An appropriate riposte to remote operators who are competing for contesting or operating awards is to look them in the eye and ask "Which part of 'You're on the internet' do you not understand or not accept?"
The remote operators don't like this - they have nothing to say because they are exposed. They may protest, "Yes, but it's exactly the same as if I had long mic and speaker leads". That is fiction - it is not the same; they are dependent on, and communicating over, public communications utilities. Let them compete among themselves.
Paul O'Kane EI5DI
Hunting in Africa
Return to ei5di.com