In the telephony world, there are various ITU standards regarding latency
on voice calls. The most commonly cited sets a goal of 150 ms or less for
"satisfactory" delay, under 400 ms for "tolerating" delay, and anything over
400 ms is "frustrating". Some VoIP providers are capable of getting sub 150
ms latencies most of the time, even on transcontinental calls, but often
have access to managed backhaul network connections that provide the VoIP
packets with higher routing priority.
A half second of delay would be considered very, very bad in the VoIP
phone world.
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 10:57:45PM -0400, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
> Denis has a point about the latency issue.
>
> Of those concerned about the issue, let me ask... how many have actually
> operated a remote station?
>
> KQ3DX set up one of his rigs (I believe his Omni VI) via remote control (an
> Internet link) about, oh, not quite a year back. Came over here to
> demonstrate it. It was interesting to work him, or his rig if you will,
> when he was actually sitting next to me in the shack with a laptop and a
> headset.
>
> But an advantage? There was a small but noticeable delay between the time I
> said something and he heard it, and vice-versa. I'd guess a touch under a
> half a second... just enough to be annoying on phone, but quite noticeable
> on CW. And that was in a casual QSO. In a high-speed contest situation?
> I'd want to actually try it to say for certain, but I'd strongly suspect
> that it would be difficult on phone and near impossible on CW -- the
> operator of the remote station just couldn't come back fast enough.
>
> Oh, I'm sure there are ways... a two way RF link for audio with control via
> the Internet comes to mind, and I'm sure there are many others... but an
> advantage? With current off the shelf technology? Hardly.
>
> 73, ron w3wn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Dennis McAlpine
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 2:44 PM
> To: 'Michael Coslo'; 'cq-contest reflector'
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations
>
>
> If one reads the definition from the CQ WW rules that you so kindly
> provided, I see nothing that disqualifies a remotely operated station. Just
> because one has a control wire that is outside the 500 meter does not seem
> to fall outside the definition since the receivers and transmitters and
> antennas are all within that circle. Perhaps the ambiguity results because
> the rules were not designed to encompass remotely operated stations.
> Perhaps, that is also the reason that the CAC is studying this question.
>
> As to "advantages" and "disadvantages" of remotely operated stations, do not
> forget the latency, or lag, effect from the use of the internet or other
> controlling medium. That delay can cause numerous problems in a contest.
> Ask some of the guys who have done remotely operated contests. In addition,
> ever wonder if your antenna was really pointed where the rotor indicator
> says it is? If you are on site, just look out the window. But, it is tough
> to do that from 20 miles, or whatever, away. I do ponder the possibility
> of having switching between remotely operated receivers all over the
> country but I think that might be stretching it a bit. But, maybe N6TR or
> someone else will come up with a way of effectively doing just that.
>
> As to why do we allow such travesties to develop? I recently moved to a
> gated plantation in SC because that is where my wife and I decided to retire
> and enjoy life. I did so knowing that it would be unlikely that I could put
> up a tower and against the advice of my longtime friend, K1VR. In practice,
> I have managed to put a vertical antenna in the woods behind our house, so
> far without problem. It is not a beam but it does allow me to operate to
> some extent. But, the big guns need not fear me and my monster signal - not
> that they would anyway. My goal is to find a location, hopefully by the
> ocean in a commercially zoned area and put up a tower or two. I could
> access the station remotely for everyday operating and go to it to operate
> contests or such. As remotely operated systems become more commonplace and
> less of a curiosity, I think this will be a viable possibility. In the
> meantime, I have a home in a nice area that my family all enjoys and I still
> can dabble with the radio. Why, I even managed to work Ducie and Clipperton
> on all bands from 160-10 meters in between numerous rounds of golf, some
> acting and some walks on the beach. What more could I ask?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Michael Coslo
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 1:57 PM
> To: cq-contest reflector
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations
>
>
> On Mar 17, 2008, at 11:58 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>
> >
> >> Exactly what are the "unfair" advantages of a remote station? It
> >> seems to me that there might be some significant *disadvantages* to
> >> remote contest operation.
> >
> > The "unfair" advantages are: 1) the ability to build antennas that
> > that would not be available in normal residential areas, 2) the
> > ability to operate from geographically advantaged locations (e.g.,
> > rare zone, country, section) without being a resident or travel,
> > 3) the ability (although not legally) to use multiple receive
> > locations.
> >
> > Equipment without an operator is not a "station." Similarly, an
> > operator without equipment is not a "station" When the rules say
> > that all parts of the station must be within a 500 meter circle,
> > that should include the operator.
>
> Quote from CQWW rules:
>
> Transmitters and receivers must be
> located within a 500 meter diameter circle
> or within the property limits of the station
> licensee's address, whichever is
> greater. All antennas used by the entrant
> must be physically connected by wires to
> the transmitters and receivers used by the
> entrant.
>
> End quote.
>
> Well, that certainly does disqualify remote stations, doesn't it!
> ;^)
>
> I'd question whether or not there is any serious advantage at all to
> a remote station. Certainly it might be a "better" location than the
> Op's home QTH, but then anyone who has a good location should be
> penalized. There just isn't enough real advantage to the concept,
> after all, the Op can just go to the remote station, and almost
> certainly operate more efficiently while there.
>
> I think I'll allow them in PAQSO. It seems like a good technology
> enticement.
>
>
> -73 de Mike N3LI -
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
--
Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
kenharker@kenharker.com
http://www.kenharker.com/
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|