If remote is going to be included in the rules, then make sure whatever you
do does not impact those that have built a remote station for their own
personal use and that is how they operate HF100% of the time.
There needs to be a very clear distinction.
I live in the city and I operate HF remotely and I am the only user on it.
For me, it is a long mic cord and there are no rules against long mic
cords. :)
Mike va3mw
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 2:01 PM Randy Thompson <k5zd@outlook.com> wrote:
> You ask for the contest sponsors to seek a solution to this issue. What
> issue? The problem seems to be with how the SQP handles scoring - not with
> the individual contests themselves.
>
> I don't think this is something that WWROF can assist with.
>
> Randy K5ZD
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces+k5zd=outlook.com@contesting.com> On
> Behalf Of Stan Zawrotny
> Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 6:04 PM
> To: Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com>
> Cc: CQ Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Distributed Contesting
>
> This is a topic that is currently being discussed by the State QSO Party
> Group. We are seeing stations operating remotely as in-state operators in
> several different state QSO parties so that they can make more contacts for
> the State QSO Party Challenge. Some stations are teaming up - "I will let
> you use my station for in-house in my state's QSO party if you will let me
> use yours during your state's QSO party." Some are piling up the points by
> operating in-state in 5-6 different QSO parties.
>
> The SQP Group would prefer that the contest sponsors seek a solution to
> this issue. It is obviously too late to prohibit the practice, but the
> sponsors need to address the inequity that remote stations have in scoring.
>
> I think the WWROF should take the lead and act promptly.
>
> This is my personal opinion and should not be considered a position of the
> SQP Group.
>
> Stan Zawrotny, K4SBZ
> Administrator, State QSO Party Group
> __________
> Stan, K4SBZ
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 3:21 PM Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com> wrote:
>
> > Last month, W3LPL and K3LR announced that they had decided not to
> > compete in any multi-op category in the 2020 CQ WW contests.
> >
> > http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-09/msg00036
> > .html
> >
> > They went on to say they "remain hopeful that science will allow our
> > teams to resume Multi Multi operations in 2021"
> >
> > There are at least two ways in which science will permit this. The
> > first depends on the availability, and uptake, of effective vaccines
> > within the next 12 months. Right now, that's uncertain. The second
> > is that science, or rather technology, will help remote multi-op
> > entries to be competitive.
> >
> > There are many positive aspects to remote contesting, including -
> >
> > It gets more people on the air - meaning more QSOs and more contest
> > entries.
> > It saves the ops time and money - they don't have to travel to the
> > station.
> > It's safer - no close contact between operators, whether day or
> > night, over several days.
> > The RF is exactly the same, no matter where the operators are - so
> > what's not to like?
> >
> > There are some disadvantages -
> >
> > It's expensive, and technically challenging, to configure a station
> > for competitive remote entries, and particularly so for multi-op.
> > Latency can be a problem, especially for CW - though 5G may provide
> > a solution.
> > As those who work remotely know, team spirit can be affected - it's
> > "just not the same".
> >
> > Regardless of these disadvantages, it's likely that multi-op contest
> > stations/owners generally are gearing up for remote operation - if
> > only to have the option in future.
> >
> > So, it's all good then - or is it?
> >
> > Not quite. We're in the early stages of what I call Distributed
> > Contesting, of which remote operation is an example. Until a few
> > years ago, it was a requirement in contest rules that all station
> > equipment had to be located within a given area. With the increasing
> > take-up of remote, "equipment" was changed, typically, to "all
> > transmitters, receivers, and antennas" - meaning, in practice, that
> > not all station equipment had to be located within a given area. In
> > other words, stations are becoming distributed.
> >
> > Further, CQ WW 160 permits the use, for SO Assisted, of one "remote
> > receiver located within 100km of the main transmitter site". For a
> > good reason, of course - the rule is "designed to accommodate new
> > technology, and for those who experience high noise levels at the
> > transmitting site". This is an example of the increasing distribution
> > of stations, whether remote or otherwise. If follows that, since "high
> noise levels"
> > can apply to any band, and we all aware of increasing noise levels in
> > urban areas, there will be pressure to permit this concession more
> > generally.
> >
> > There is, simultaneously, an inexorable trend towards SDRs - Software
> > Defined Radios. With faster communications technology and utilities,
> > there is less need for all software components of an SDR to be
> > available in one discrete location. If there's better processing
> > power in "the cloud", in terms of modes supported (especially new
> digital modes), or
> > filtering, or noise reduction - why not use it? This represents
> > distributed receivers, and they're on their way.
> >
> > Remote operators are quick to point out the disadvantages, outlined
> > above, they have to live with. What they prefer not to be reminded
> > about is the opportunity value of remote capability. They can compete
> > in circumstances where others cannot even enter.
> >
> > Neither do they like to be reminded that, at all times, they are
> > dependent on public utilities (internet, 4G, whatever) for their QSOs.
> > Further, they are simultaneously communicating over those same public
> > utilities - they require more than RF alone to have their QSOs. This
> > is easily demonstrated by asking them to disconnect from the utility,
> > and then see how many QSOs they have.
> >
> > My point is that distributed-station operators, in order to realize
> > their not-insignificant opportunity to compete, are obliged to abandon
> > the communications-independence that until recently has been the
> > hallmark, the defining characteristic, of ham radio.
> >
> > There's nothing wrong with distributed contesting - it's the preferred
> > option for many operators. But it is different from RF-all-the-way,
> > and evolving rapidly - driven partly by the constraints imposed upon
> > us all due to the pandemic. Could we have reached a tipping point?
> > It seems to me that this evolution is largely unregulated, with
> > individual contest sponsors doing their best to keep up with evolving
> > technology as it affects their particular events.
> >
> > My question is - will WWROF (the World Wide Radio Operators
> > Foundation) help to regulate Distributed Contesting in terms of a
> > general set of recommendations, including categories, for contest
> > rules - with particular emphasis on the major events? The WWROF was
> > created "by a group of radio operators who saw a need for an
> > independent organization devoted to the skill and art of radio
> > operating." Surely this is within their remit, and isn't "now" the
> right time for them to act?
> >
> > https://wwrof.org/
> >
> > 73,
> > Paul EI5DI
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|