[CQ-Contest] SO2R REMOTE CONTESTING

[Robert Naumann]

Paul, 

I think you are choosing to ignore some facts.

"> The RF is still there,

There's not as much of it and, to the extent that it has been replaced
(distance is significant) in the signal path between the operators
concerned, the QSO is devalued."

Can you explain what the difference in RF is? How are you measuring the
devaluation of the QSO? By what criteria?

Let's use the Dublin station / Galway control point scenario I suggested.

If your station is in Dublin, and you are seated in Dublin, the RF path to
me in Texas is a certain length over a certain path - agreed? Then, move the
operator to Galway, and the RF path remains precisely the same - so how do
you claim that "there's not much of it"(RF)? 

It is the same - no difference.

"Yes, contests are different.  They're not all about having fun."

Another point on which I totally disagree with you. Contests are ONLY about
having fun. Let's face it, if it wasn't fun, there isn't much justification
for it aside from insanity is there? If someone is not having fun, or at
least seeking to have fun in a contest, I suggest that they find something
else to do.

"It couldn't be simpler. For it to be an amateur radio QSO, and not partly
an internet or wired QSO, I must be co-located with my station equipment."

Why? On what rule or law do you base this opinion? If you choose to abide by
this, no one else cares, but your criticism of remote operations as being
somehow illegitimate based on your opinion only is not valid.

"> I want to sit about 25 miles back from my radio. Why is that a problem?

It's not a problem for me.  What you're doing is perfectly legal and you're
having fun. However, distance is significant and, to the extent that
you personally are using something other than RF to communicate with another
person, the event (an amateur radio QSO) is devalued.  Why is that a
problem?"

I fail to see how it is devalued and by what measure you are assessing the
RF communication that is taking place? As I said before, the RF path is the
same no matter where the operator sits so what's the difference?

"> The radio is still  where I am saying it is, my antennas are still there,
and whoever  I have a QSO with will interact with me in much the same way as
if I was sitting 25 inches from the radio instead of 25 miles.
> What is the difference that gets you so wound up about this?

The difference is that, in the signal path between me and you, there's
something other than RF. It's no longer an amateur radio QSO. Of course,
stations are not point sources - that's we have the 500 meters rule for
station dimensions in contests."

To take this logic to the extreme, I should not be able to use a microphone
or key, a cable to connect it to my radio, or a radio for that matter -
heck, I shouldn't use a feedline or an antenna. After all, there would be
something in the signal path other than RF wouldn't there?

"Outside of contesting and award chasing, anyone can do what they like,
subject to licence restrictions. Otherwise, there has to be limits or rules
in the interests of fair play.

For wired circuit limits in contests - 
Is 500 meters OK?  - Yes
Is 25 miles OK?    - Perhaps
Is 250 miles OK?   - Perhaps not
Is 2500 miles OK?  - Probably not"

Again, why? If the location of the remotely controlled station is where the
operator claims he is operating from (in other words, not claiming he is
operating from Galway when his transmitter and receiver are in Dublin),
there is no difference if the operator is 25 inches from the radio or 2500
miles from the radio. The only difference is the operator dealing with the
latency across whatever network the operator is using to connect to the
remote station.

"The bottom line is that remote-control QSOs are not the same as ordinary
QSOs."

By what measure? When we have a QSO you will copy 59 04 and I will copy 59
14 from you - what's the difference?

" However, they are not going to go away any more than packet will go away.
Isn't it time to think about updating contest rules?"

Well, perhaps, but I think that all that needs be said is that the RF
portion of the remote station must comply with the 500m rule. If the entire
RF portion of the station is within a 500m circle, there is no on-the-air
advantage for the operator to be sitting elsewhere when operating that
station. What should not be allowed is the operator to have a local receive
setup and a remote transmit setup. This would clearly violate the 500m rule.

As has been plainly discussed here, it is actually a disadvantage to
remotely operate a station. Sure, there are some personal convenience
benefits, but aside from some misguided envy, I see no valid criticism of a
legitimate remote operation.

So, the real bottom line is that there is no difference between locally
controlled stations and remotely controlled stations that impacts the RF
path or anything that can be measured in on-air behavior that could possibly
be construed as positive, or in any way gaining an advantage.

I fail to see any reason to denigrate remote operations as being less of an
amateur radio contact than one where the operator is within inches of the
front panel of a radio.

73,

Bob W5OV