[CQ-Contest] RULES CLARIFICATION FOR UNIQUE REMOTE CONTESTING OPERATIONS

[Hogerty, Tom KC1J]

Hi Eric,
>From what I understand, the TS-480 can be operated as a stand alone base
by either using the control head (a provided accessory that comes with
the tranceiver. Useful but not required to operate the tranceiver.) or
by using control software (available from Kenwood, or others). That
being the case, My response is the same as I recently made to Paul,
K2DB:
 
"The only requirement is that the station from which the contacts are
made be contained within the 500-meter limit.  There is NO requirement
that the operator (or more appropriately, the transmitter control point)
be within the 500-meter limit.  Remote operation on that basis is fine.
The station is operating under remote control according to FCC rules and
that's completely legitimate.
 
What is NOT allowed is the use of transmitting or receiving equipment
separated by more than the 500-meter limit, regardless of the location
of the control point for the transmitter.
 
So - if the entire station is contained within the 500-meter limit, it
can be operated under local control (operator on-site) or by remote
control (operator outside the 500-meter limit and connected by any means
that allows control of the transmitter)."
 
 
73, 
Tom Hogerty, KC1J
Contest Manager 
ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio
860-594-0232
thogerty at arrl.org

 

________________________________

From: Eric Hilding [mailto:dx35 at hilding.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 11:01 PM
To: Contest
Cc: k6aw at cqww.com; k3est at cq-amateur-radio.com;
k4jrb at cq-amateur-radio.com; cwnaqpmgr at ncjweb.com; ssbnaqpmgr at ncjweb.com;
rttynaqpmgr at ncjweb.com; Tyree, Larry; k4ma at nc.rr.com; w0yk at msn.com;
cq-contest at contesting.com; nccc at contesting.com
Subject: RE: RULES CLARIFICATION FOR UNIQUE REMOTE CONTESTING OPERATIONS


Dear Contest Sponsors & Managers:
 
I would greatly appreciate an "Offical Ruling" in this specific matter
(below), and permission to publish the Decision(s) to the CQ-Contest &
NCCC Reflectors.
 
Part of the objective of advocating more Remote and SO2R REMOTE
Contesting is to yield more QSOs for everyone participating in the
events.  And, to enable more "Little Pistol Contest Stations" to put out
more competitive signals.  As we go into a new Sunspot Cycle, the QRP
ops *could* set up inexpensive remote stations with battery or cheap
solar power and get their antennas somewhere decent.  The issue of the
TS-480 Control Head needs resolving with concrete clarity now.
 
Please reply ONLY to: p5 at k6vva.com (in order to bypass my heavy
filtering).
 
Tnx very much & 73...
 
Rick, K6VVA
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Eric Hilding <mailto:dx35 at hilding.com>  
To: cq-contest at contesting.com 
Cc: nccc at contesting.com ; w4tv at subich.com 
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 6:28 PM
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" :-)