I noticed that the RDXC organizers have made a good effort to update the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ): http://www.rdxc.org/asp/pages/faq.asp Many questions regarding rule changes have been explai
It's simple. Without the internet, you could not have a single "QSO". You are 100% dependent on the internet, a commercial wired communications technology - how could it be anything other than a kind
Mats, maybe I'm being naive, but this read to me much more like a language issue than some specific intent to say that no remote stations are allowed. Hopefully, our Russian friends will clarify this
Paul, As long as all his transmitters, receivers, and antenna are inside the 500-meter circle, why do we care how long his mike cord is? Remote control is perfectly legal, at least under FCC jurisdic
Hello all and thanks for different opinions! As we can see from the replies, obviously the question needs to be further clarified by RDXC Committee :) And to you Paul... The topic was written with th
They need to clarify what Web technology means. The first rule sounds to me more like an attempt to prohibit the use of remote receiving sites. With the aging ham population, more and more areas havi
This clearly is addressing remote receiving sites as being forbidden. There's no language barrier. Look at what it says - not what it doesn't say. They're talking about the numerous web-accessible re
Believe me, there is, not intentionally. Some contests has so tighty rules that many casual contesters just don't care to fit in or even bother to participate. My view is RDXC decided to treat differ
Microphone/key and phones are necessary parts of station equipment, and they all belong within the 500-metre circle. There are other things that are perfectly legal, and yet have no place in amateur
As I read Paul's comments it appears to me that he mistakes Mats' intent. Mats wants to use the internet as the vehicle to remotely connect to his radios. The comment "We're talking about amateur rad
Perhaps we should also ban logging software as " something other than amateur radio contesting"? 73 John N5CQ Paul, As long as all his transmitters, receivers, and antenna are inside the 500-meter ci
Paul, My last comment was not meant to say that contesting should not be taken seriously for those who really have the ambitions to win. However, open debate requires a bit of flexibility in admittin
Paul: Whats your opinion on remote control operation? Rich - N5ZC _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman
It has no place in amateur radio contesting because !. It makes a mockery of the 500-metre rule for equipment and antennas. 2. It tends to involve the replacement, by the internet, of amateur-band RF
If two equivalently equipped stations exist "side-by-side" (just far enough apart to avoid mutual interference), one controlled remotely and the other conventionally controlled, explain the competiti
I have a non-amateur 802.11(n) wireless network in my home. Is it permissible for me to run a RTTY contest from a laptop in my favorite recliner while watching a football game over this network? 73,
Advantages?? When Murphy comes to visit, the remote station is SOL. And there are many more things to go wrong with the remote station. Remote HF stations are popular in Florida because most communit
Hans, You're stretching it to the point of ridiculous. Please stick to the "boy and his hobby" as you've always greatly mastered in the past. 73, Mark PA5MW __________________________________________
Actually I think Hans' point makes the distinction crystal clear, and is far from ridiculous. If the "amateur radio link" must be persistent between the two operators, as Paul suggests, then you must
Actually I'm 'shrinking' the point, not stretching it. If a 'non-amateur' communications link is 'cheating' then the length of that link is immaterial, isn't it? Paul, in a direct email, makes an app