Gerry,
Allow me to use your post to explain my reasons for arguing that
the operator must be within the 500 meter circle ...
It would probably be to my financial advantage to be one of the
biggest supporters of remote operation and remote contesting as
microHAM products (both present and those currently in development)
are likely to be significant tools for remote operation.
However, I am firmly convinced that widespread remote operation -
particularly stations based on TCP/IP and VoIP as opposed to
those facilities operated at short distances by RF links - only
provide another reason for those interests who seek increased
access to HF spectrum to argue that operations traditionally
associated with HF can be accommodated using on-line servers
and the internet (as evidenced by echolink, IRLP, VoIP, etc.).
By moving "amateur" activity to on-line venues, 3.7 MHz - more
than 10% of the spectrum below 30 MHz can be withdrawn from
amateur use and turned over to more "economically productive"
uses.
I first became interested in amateur radio nearly 50 years ago
when I discovered some books on radio theory in my father's
library. It took several years to learn Morse but I've been
licensed for almost 40 years and I would like to be able to
enjoy MF/HF based amateur operation for another three or four
solar cycles. Unfortunately, I'm afraid amateur radio as we
have known if for the last 40 - 50 years will not survive if
we continue to blur the line between ionospheric propagation
and other communication channels.
"Remote contesting" may be great solution for a few individuals
who can't build "competitive" stations due to HOA or other
restrictions. It would also be a blast to operate a killer
station on the northeast coast of Maine during ARRL DX.
However, the same technology that can enhance the enjoyment
of a limited number of stations has the potential to destroy
amateur radio for everyone.
I'm not against technology that enhances amateur radio, nor am
I a Luddite; I am very concerned that remote operation represents
a fundamental change that can lead to the destruction of MF/HF
DXing and contesting and will inevitably turn it into nothing
more than an on-line multiplayer game.
73,
... Joe Subich, W4TV
microHAM America
http://www.microHAM-USA.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/microHAM
support@microham.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Gerry Hull
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:43 AM
> To: cq-contest reflector
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations
>
>
> These are very interesting discussions!
>
> On the (technical) possibility of Sable and St. Paul remoting:
>
> (I've operated from both)
>
> St Paul: No (useful) infrastructure at all. If one was to
> build a remote
> site there, it would have to be solar or wind powered. However,
> broadband links to the NS coast are very practical.
>
> Sable: Sable has permanent infrastructure. Their is a
> weather station on
> the island that does high-altitude balloon
> measurements almost every day. There is power and a telecom
> infrastructure. The Bedford Institute of Oceanography has a
> house on the
> island, and this is where several DXPeditions have operated from. (I
> was part of an operation the mid 80s, where we both DX'd and contested
> (CY0SAB; The QSL with the seal on the card)).
>
> Getting around the technical issues is certainly possible -- however,
> there are lots of other challenges, not the least of which is ensuring
> the DX community would ratify such remote activity for DXCC credit.
>
> Imagine -- you've been an avid DXer or contester for years, but never
> had the opportunity to operate from a remote location. What a blast
> to do such an operation from your shack chair!
>
> On latency:
>
> I use VOIP every day. I find the IP latency is less than
> 150ms (worst
> case), and often less than 25-30ms. (My end is Verizon DSL).
> Most of the
> overall latency is introduced by codecs. There are some pretty good
> low-latency codecs around, and even a (freeware) tool to interface
> them to
> ham radio (IPSOUND). Yes, over VOIP circuits using standard
> codecs, you
> are going to have latencies approaching 100-400ms, not acceptable for
> contest CW. However, there are ways around these issues.
>
> I know of a bunch of major initiatives going on for remote stations @
> DX
> locations. Lets hope that contest and (hopefully) DXCC
> rules will keep
> pace. DXpeditions will never stop, but I think you will
> start to see a
> trend towards remote operation across country boundries.
>
> 73, Gerry W1VE _______________________________________________
> 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
|