I thought I was out....... but they pull me back in!!
My thoughts on the subject are this.
1. I like technology. I use it every day. I'm using it now to talk to
you.
2. The "radio apparatus" must be defined as per contests and general
awards rules. For example, considering the 500m rule, does the thing you
talk into or manipulate in your home in order to remotely control a distant
station count as part of the station equipment? I think it should as the
remote station is pretty well useless with out it unless.... see #3.
3. The operator MUST (and I can't stress this enough) MUST be included
in the definition of "station" or it all becomes moot. Otherwise is to
concede that amateur radio equipment can be operated in a totally self
reliant manner to the exclusion of the human operator. That is not to say
that an operator has to be in the exact location of the transmitting
equipment (see #4) but must be physically in control at all times. In other
words... no robots. I think the contest sponsors dropped the ball big time
on this one by not including the operator in the definition of "station".
Must have been a good lobby group who pushed for that.
4. There must be a definition of "relativity" when it comes to the
distance one can use remote stations. I don't want to hamstring the guys who
have restrictions place on them for the setting up of in-home stations but
there's a difference between the guy who has neighbours who dictate how he
utilizes his own property and the guy who just wants to do it out of
boredom. Setting up a station a few miles down the road, at least in the
same "multiplier" area of the address on your licence, is fine. Setting up a
station in Ulaan Baatar and operating it from sunny SoCal is not.
I would like to see these contest sponsors define these things in a way that
can leave no doubt as to what is meant. Perhaps I wish for too much.
That's it.
73 -- Paul VO1HE
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Eric Hilding
> Sent: March 27, 2007 02:28
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Cc: nccc@contesting.com; w4tv@subich.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R REMOTE CONTESTING
>
> Joe, W4TV, posted a very interesting quite salient "little
> legal" question:
>
> > When one starts to split the transceiver (one part at the
> remote site
> > another part at the control point) as is being proposed with the
> > TS-480 control heads how does that impact the rules that all
> > transmitters, receivers and antennas must be located within the 500
> > foot circle?
>
> Some remote control software options I've evaluated reside on
> the HOST (remote station QTH), and some on the CLIENT
> (operator point QTH) end.
>
> I would say the Control Head is similar to a piece of remote
> control software (except that it has buttons and knobs on it
> :-) The main (rig body) transmitter/receiver unit itself
> would be still within the overall "remote" station boundaries
> which I think is a 500 meter vs. 500 foot circle, and can
> actually be operated remotely *without* the Control Head in
> the food chain at all (and is not essential to
> "transmitting/receiving" if one chooses to use software
> control). In fact, the return audio from the remote site
> will come via the computer and NOT the Control Head if the
> latter is used on the CLIENT end.
>
> However, "in an abundance of caution" I personally want to
> get a firm, iron-clad answer to this from the Contest Sponsors.
>
> Tnx for posting, Joe.
>
> 73...
>
> Rick, K6VVA
>
> P.S. I can hardly wait to hear what Paul, VO1HE, will have
> to say about this (as you know, Paul, I have discovered via
> our recent emails, that you do have a sense of "humour" :-)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|