[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC updated FAQ - Remote operation

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RDXC updated FAQ - Remote operation
From: Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:52:49 +0000
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
On 28/02/2011 15:36, Paul Mackanos - K2DB wrote:
> Answers to Paul EI5DI's comments:

> 1) No it doesn't, if the remote station is set up and all antennas, etc. are
> within the 500-meter rule, then it  is OK.

In my experience, it's normal to use a mike, or key,
or keyboard, or computer when transmitting, and phones
or a speaker when receiving.  If others think these
are non-essential components of a contest station,
I'd like to know why.  If you claim to be an amateur
radio contester, then these components must be part
of the station. If they are located remotely from the
remainder of the station, then it's likely you're
breaking the 500m rule.  If, nevertheless, contest
organisers are happy to accept remote control entries,
I'd suggest there is no point in having a 500m rule
in the first place.

) No it doesn't, all RF is "ON THE AIR" using real RF and radio spectrum
> between the two communicating stations.

Stations do not communicate with one another.
Contesters communicate with one another - using
stations.  When contesters choose to use something
other than amateur-band RF, or are dependent
on another communications technology to make
contact, chances are what they're doing is
something not quite the same as an amateur-radio

> 3) It is nice to see your definition of amateur radio,

I didn't give a definition of amateur radio in the
sense that you have.  I'm happy to accept yours,
which clearly states that hams use radio equipment
to communicate with other hams.  In my limted
experience, I have found amateur radio to be
independent of all other communications modes and
communications technologies.  When, by choice, you
build in a dependence on these other modes and
technologies, it's no longer amateur radio in the
sense that might reasonably be expected.  It's
partly amateur radio and partly something else.

I can't help thinking that if CBers were to use
the internet to communicate, we would laugh at
them.  There must be something special about
radio amateurs that lets them use other
technologies to communicate, and still claim
it's amateur radio.

>   Amateur radio, often called ham radio, is both a hobby and a service in
> which participants, called "hams," use various types of radio communications
> equipment to communicate with other radio amateurs

Would this definition include hams communicating,
using wireless, via CQ100?  If not, why not?  What
is the difference?  At what stage does amateur
radio become something else, because CQ100 is
undoubtedly something else.  What about something
in-between, such as EchoLink or remote control.
Are there degrees of amateur radio, or is it all
or nothing.

It would be good to get some constructive replies.

> Paul K2DB (99.9%) remote operation. If you work K2DB, you most likely worked
> a "remote" station, and you never even knew it.

I have no way of knowing I'm working a remote operator
unless I'm told.

> and you don't believe it is a valid QSO,

I didn't say that - it's a perfectly valid QSO for me.
However, I would feel cheated were you to tell me.

> as I am antenna restricted here,
> severely restricted.

We have that much in common.  However, when I want to
be competitive while contesting, I go to where I can
be competitive. When I want to experience a DXpedition,
I go on a DXpedition.

Paul EI5DI
CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>