CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Site Contesting Rules

To: Eric Hilding <dx35@hilding.com>, cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Site Contesting Rules
From: Dennis McAlpine <dbmcalpine@earthlink.net>
Reply-to: Dennis McAlpine <dbmcalpine@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:40:57 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
The question of remote contesting or, to go a step further, distributed 
contesting,is becoming much more of a possibility as new equipment is being 
offered with that capability, e.g. the TS480, the Omni VII, etc.  Add to that 
the restrictions on antennas placed on many locations and this will soon become 
a more complex question.

In reality, we already have a contest that condones, and even encourages, 
distributed contesting.  Just look at the HQ stations in the IARU Contest.  One 
glance at the GB5HQ QSL shows that those stations are more than 500 meters 
apart.  Even the W1AW/NU1AW stations are usually multiple stations operating 
under the same call.  True, this is not quite the same as five stations using 
the call KC1XX loocated in different parts of the US operating in CQ WW but 
it's close.

With the Internet and some of the new equipment, it is already possible to 
operate a contest using multiple transmitters located across the country.  
Imagine running JAs using a station in CA and, at the same time, running EU on 
another band using a station in PEI.  If the op is adept enough he could also 
have a multiple multiiplier station chasing mults using 3-5 multiplexed 
stations scattered around the country.  And, if the cost of that is too much, 
maybe people could get together and share stations.  For example, I would make 
my station in SC (this assumes I have one that anyone would want to use) for 
East Coast Eu runs in turn for using K6VVA's station in CA for JA runs.  With 
some decent switching, we could both operate at the same time.  Let's add in a 
station in New England to extend that EU run.  One can get carried away with 
this but it is soon coming to be a possibliity.

W4PA says he has already used the Omni VII in SS from a remote location.  W2AX 
has long had phone control of his station in VT from his home in NY, although 
it is not really contest capable.  With today's equipment and more deployment 
of high speed broadband connections, distributed contesting cannot be far 
behind.  Instead of building a station in PEI, maybe K1ZM will rent out space 
in his shack for those who want to increase their 160 m scores in CQ WW.  How 
about going to a per QSO charge, e.g. 1 cent per Q, 10 cents for a mult?

It is time to seriously begin the discussion of remote/distributed contesting 
and lay out some ground rules.  They will probably be changed as things evolve 
but at least they will be a start.  

73,

Dennis, K2SX/4

-----Original Message-----
>From: Eric Hilding <dx35@hilding.com>
>Sent: Mar 13, 2007 4:46 AM
>To: cq-contest@contesting.com
>Subject: [CQ-Contest] Remote Site Contesting Rules
>
>(RE-Threaded from Packet debate)
>
>Tree, N6TR, wrote:
>
>> 3.7. All transmitters and receivers must be located within a 500-meter
>> diameter circle, excluding antennas.
>
>In a discussion with a fellow NCCC member after our Annual Awards meeting last 
>night, a mini-debate about "remote site" operations and "rules" necessitates a 
>question with regard to this "500-meter diameter circle" stuff (a reference 
>was made to Tree's Packet debate post content).
>
>What about remote-site Contesting where all the "transmitters  and receivers" 
>are located within the area as described, but the Contest op is sitting next 
>to his home QTH fireplace on a snowy winter evening "operating" via a notebook 
>computer in his rocking chair?  Umh, assumably there will be more "rocking 
>chairs" in future use as Contesters continue to age :-)
>
>If point-to-point gear is used for the home QTH to remote site connectivity, 
>should these be construed as "transmitters and receivers" in the food chain, 
>thus squelching any such Contest participation for Awards purposes???  Don't 
>many forms of "landline" connections use some form of "transmitters and 
>receivers" in places?
>
>If there is no problem (on the surface), what may happen when others like 
>myself now pursuing remote locations to mitigate pee-poor home QTH's invest 
>tens of thousands of dollars (collectively, more like Millions) over the next 
>5 years,  only to get nuked by somebody's "new interpretation" of the rules 
>that would ban such venues?
>
>IMHO, the current rules **SHOULD*** be amended to clarify "All HF or UHF/VHF 
>Amateur transmitters and receivers specifically used on the bands of operation 
>involved in the Contest must be located within a 500-meter diameter circle, 
>excluding antennas.", and remain cast-in-stone for perpetuity.
>
>Personally, I think antennas deserve to be included in the entire 500-meter 
>diameter circle mix.  
>
>This is a real potential can of worms that needs to get ironed out now.
>
>Inquiring minds would like to know (especially before writing out a bunch of 
>checks).
>
>Tnx & 73...
>
>Rick, K6VVA
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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

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