Hi Dave,
On 16 Mar 2007 17:30:49 -0000, dave@ka1n.cn <dave@ka1n.cn> wrote:
>
> This probably should be something for the contest committee to address.
>
> Due to politics and technology, contesting is changing. This is
> inevitable
I would say: "Due to politics, contesting is stagnant. Technology is
trying to evolve contesting. This is inevitable", but that is a matter of
opinion.
Nevertheless, there are more fundamental questions involved, which strike at
> the heart of amateur radio and contesting.
>
> Namely:
>
> 1) Must an operator have to contend with the same physical and legal
> conditions of the location that he represents that he is located?
It probably is physically possible to set up a remote station on CY9/0
> right now. Usually, these locations take considerable effort, risk, time,
> and expense to activate. This is why they are rare. But using such a
> remote station in a contest would mean that the presence of SOME person was
> on that island at one time is enough to allow any operator to "contest" from
> such an location.
Ah.. Now I understand... This is DXCC holy ground. Is operating a remote
station the same as being there?
I'd say that's for the DXCC boys to contend with. Let's hope that idea
goes the way of the physical QSL card.
(Not that I don't like cards -- it's the thought process).
When an operator is physically present in a location, he must contend with
> site-specific challenges. For example, they must 1) secure visas and travel
> to that location; 2) acclimate him/herself to the local cuisine; and 3)
> remain safe. The harder it is to do these things, the more rare the
> mult. Remote contesting will drastically change the equation. Not only can
> operators "instantly" travel to places that take a long time to travel to,
> but they can be assured that their "support" network of family and local
> business can supply them with provisions. Also, operators would not longer
> have to account for possible physical or political upheavals. If things get
> bad, they can just shut down their internet connection.
>
> Maybe a good analogy is the furor, some time ago, surrounding
> internet-controlled sport hunting. As I understand it, many hunters thought
> it was bad sportsmanship to have condemned animals released into a
> controlled area and shot by a gun that was positioned and "fired" by
> remote-control from anywhere in the world.
>
> 2) Maybe the 500-meter rule does inhibit some technological
> advancements. For example, a contester with two non-contiguous pieces of
> property (perhaps on opposite sides of a mountain or river within the same
> multiplier) might want to have a remote internet-connected receiver that
> provides a constant audio stream to the main shack. This probably does not
> drastically alter the spirit of contesting in any major way, and should be
> viewed in the same way that wireless ethernet or wireless keyboards might
> be.
I think the 500-meter rule is EXTREMELY clear.. no tx/rx outside of 500m...
the interconnection mechanism does not matter.
That should preclude all the worries about M/S or M/M stations around a city
or state, linked by the internet.
However, humans cheat. It's human nature. Yeah sure, nobody breaks the
500m rule right now. (Oh, and nobody runs gas on 160m). There will
always be ways to cheat. That is no reason to stop innovation.
I bet back in the day when everyone used a regenerative rx, and they got
their ass whipped by someone using a superhet, they felt they were
cheated. Amateur Radio is a technology hobby that is centered around radio
communication. We should not be afraid to mix other technology with the
radio.
Regarding my quote about $100K for a station on the east coast ... it was
just to make the point about envy. With a fast broadband connection on
both ends, a significant station could be built for little more than the
cost of the radio station itself.
Operating a station ANYWHERE in the world over the internet, as long as the
radio on the other end of the wire is an Amateur Radio approved for
operation in that entity (if required), and the remote operator is licensed
to operate in that entity, then the entity should count as a contest point
and/or multiplier. That's just my opinion, but I know it burns the ears of
the DXCC folks, and will probably never happen.
Those of us in the technical realm will continue to push the envelope, and
hopefully we will move forward. I'm encouraged by the number of people who
can "think outside the box".
73,
Gerry, W1VE/VE1RM
Examine contest competition in real-time - post and see scores at
http://www.getscores.org
!
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|