I did not misquote you.
My use of the words "changed" and "different" are not quoted as from you -
those are my words used in refuting your false assertion.
To be even more clear: The Internet does not "replace" (your word), alter,
change, or make the RF path between the two stations communicating different
in any way. (All non-quoted descriptive words are mine).
I'm still waiting to understand why remote operation (using the location of
the "radio" as the QTH of record - not where the operator may be sitting)
should be considered different.
I am *NOT* in support of using remote receiving sites while claiming to be
operating from elsewhere in order to gain an unfair advantage. That is not
what remote operation is about.
Remote operation (as we're discussing here) is simply operating a station
(physically confined to that station as defined by existing rules) and
located somewhere other than where the operator may be sitting.
Again, aside from the fact that the operator is not sitting at the station,
to me, there is no tangible difference on which to base any change of rules
or reclassification of such remote station operations.
To the contrary, because of the technical issues previously mentioned of
latency and other extreme technological challenges, perhaps remote
operations should earn some sort of bonus instead of being restricted or
[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Paul O'Kane
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 2:00 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Control in Contests
W5OV quoted EI5DI
>> What's different about remote control is that it uses
>> the internet (typically) to replace RF in the signal path
>> between the operators concerned.
W5OV then said
> No, it does not.
> The RF is not changed at all.
Since many people are getting tired of this thread, I'll
keep this short.
However, it's mildly amusing to me that, having first
quoted my actual words, W5OV goes on to misquote them
twice. He implies I referred to RF being "changed",
and later, to being "different". I used neither of
Lets accept the argument that remote control is just
the same as having extended signal (or audio and key,
if you prefer) leads.
The extended leads are typically hosted on the internet.
Should the internet fail, whether it's via phone, cable,
wireless, or satellite, then you're not just off the
internet, you're off the air and no QSOs are possible.
You're now "Remote, No Control".
Therefore, however you describe your activity, it must
be something different because, had it been amateur
radio you would still be on the air.
When operating remote, you are dependent on both the
internet and amateur-band RF. If either fails, you're
finished. That's why I call it hybrid communications.
The name accurately and fully describes the activity.
I've said the following in another thread, but it's
relevant here. If we saw a CBer talking over the
internet, while claiming it was CB radio, we would
all have a good laugh. Licensed radio amateurs are
not sprinkled with magic pixie dust that somehow
transforms an internet-dependent contact into an
I don't mind if others cannot accept this point of
view, but what is undeniable is that the RDXC and IOTA
contests, both major events, prohibit remote control.
Accepting that remote control isn't about to go away, it seems to me
that the organisers of other major
contests have three options to consider.
1. Prohibit remote control.
2. Permit it, but as a separate entry category.
3. Do nothing.
I'm not optimistic about anything other than the
"do nothing" option - what I would see as a vote
for expediency over integrity. I hope I will be
And for now, I have nothing more to say :-)
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list