[CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations

Tue Mar 18 13:47:02 EDT 2008

Hi Joe,

I appreciate your very thoughtful response.   I can see where your worry
comes from.  I just think it is misplaced.
In the ham radio world, I guess I'm a relatively young pup -- I've been a
ham for only 33 years now.   In my time, I've seen
a lot of technology come and go.   What I believe is this:   Without forward
progress, I will virtually guarantee that our hobby will cease to exist.
We will loose spectrum and become irrelevant.     As the current ham
population dies off, we need new and innovative ways to bring new members
into the hobby, and to the contesting community.

Where we (and lots of others) probably differ is in what the definition of
"forward progress" is.

Remote operation is a means to an end:  Someone wishes to provide RF
communications from a point on the earth where they cannot possibly be
physically.   Is the RF diminished because it happens to be connected
remotely by a non-rf path?   Are the people involved more interested in the
tcp/ip transport links rather than the radio experience?    If you get a
thrill by sending your audio around the world on the Internet, why in the
heck would you connect a radio at the other end and deal with qrm/qrn, etc?

Are ham-radio "emulators" a band thing??   Not in my opinion.   Do you
remember DoctorDX on the Commodor64 back in the 80s?   That was CQWW inside
a computer!  And it was a blast to play contest when we were at the bottom
of a cycle.  However, it was CW only -- so was only accessible to a people
who were already hams.   Currently, www.hamsphere.com is an online
experiment -- an interesting technical test project that "simulates" RF QSOs
over an Internet connection.   I've told the author that I believe that if
this project was enhanced, it could be a very interesting learning tool.
Would it not be great for people to experience the concept of ham radio (and
perhaps radio contesting) without having to get a license?   They would get
bored with an online service very quickly (a la "Second Life"), but it just
might spark an interest in ham radio, the real hobby.

I want Microham to be in the market 10, 20 and 30 years from now.   The
products are great ... and if you have remote support in the pipeline, even
for the distant future, I do believe you and your team have the right
vision.

The only level-playing-field option I would like to have in contesting and
DXing is the ability for many more of us to experience the other side of the
pileup.. without having to travel to to remote location.   Is that such a
bad thing?

73,

Gerry, W1VE
Ex/Also: VE1RM, VO1WIN, CY0SAB, CY9SPI, /KH6, /VP2M, 6Y6C
www.getscores.org
w1ve at getscores.org

On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV <w4tv at subich.com> wrote:

>
> Gerry,
>
> Allow me to use your post to explain my reasons for arguing that
> the operator must be within the 500 meter circle ...
>
> It would probably be to my financial advantage to be one of the
> biggest supporters of remote operation and remote contesting.
> microHAM hardware (with software in LONG TERM development) is
> ideally suited to remote operation.  microKEYER II (for single
> radio applications) and MK2R+ (two radio applications) along
> with Station Master (to be released at Dayton) and a remote PC
> can provide the core of a complete remote station.  "microHAM
> Router/Remote" will be able to integrate station controls,
> antenna switching, plus VoIP, remote CW, digital operations, etc.
>
> However, I am firmly convinced that widespread remote operation -
> particularly TCP/IP linked stations - will only provide a tool
> for those interests who would like increased access to HF
> spectrum to argue that the operations and modes traditionally
> associated with HF can be accommodated using on-line servers and
> the internet (as evidenced by echolink, IRLP, remote operation,
> etc.) that the spectrum should be withdrawn from amateur use and
> turned over to more "economically productive" uses.
>
> I first became interested in amateur radio nearly 50 years ago when
> I discovered some books on radio in my father's library.  It took
> several years to learn Morse but I've been licensed for almost 40
> years and I would like to be able to enjoy MF/HF based amateur
> operation for another three or four solar cycles.  Unfortunately,
> I'm afraid amateur radio as we have known if for the last 40 - 50
> years will not survive if we continue to blur the line between
> ionospheric propagation and other communication channels.
>
> "Remote contesting" may be great solution for a few individuals who
> can't build "competitive" stations due to HOA or other restrictions.
> However, that very technology has the potential to destroy amateur
> radio for the everyone else.
>
> I'm not against technology that enhances amateur radio, nor am I
> a Luddite;  I am very concerned about a fundamental change that can
> potentially destroy the MF/HF character of DXing/contesting and
> make it nothing more than an on-line multiplayer game.
>
> 73,
>
>   ... Joe Subich, W4TV
>       microHAM America
>       http://www.microHAM-USA.com <http://www.microham-usa.com/>
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/microHAM
>       support at microham.com
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Gerry Hull
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 9:43 AM
> > To: cq-contest reflector
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations
> >
> >
>  > These are very interesting discussions!
> >
> > On the (technical) possibility of  Sable and St. Paul remoting:
> >
> > (I've operated from both)
> >
> > St Paul:  No (useful) infrastructure at all.   If one was to
> > build a remote
> > site there, it would have to be solar or wind powered. However,
> > broadband links to the NS coast are very practical.
> >
> > Sable:  Sable has permanent infrastructure.   Their is a
> > weather station on
> > the island that does high-altitude balloon
> > measurements almost every day.    There is power and a telecom
> > infrastructure.   The Bedford Institute of Oceanography has a
> > house on the
> > island, and this is where several DXPeditions have operated
> > from.  (I was part of an operation the mid 80s, where we both
> > DX'd and contested (CY0SAB; The QSL with the seal on the card)).
> >
> > Getting around the technical issues is certainly possible --
> > however, there are lots of other challenges, not the least of
> > which is ensuring the DX community would ratify such remote
> > activity for DXCC credit.
> >
> > Imagine -- you've been an avid DXer or contester for years,
> > but never had the opportunity to operate from a remote
> > location.  What a blast to do such an operation from your shack chair!
> >
> > On latency:
> >
> > I use VOIP every day.   I find the IP latency is less than
> > 150ms (worst
> > case), and often less than 25-30ms.  (My end is Verizon DSL).
> >   Most of the
> > overall latency is introduced by codecs.   There are some pretty good
> > low-latency codecs around, and even a (freeware) tool to
> > interface them to
> > ham radio (IPSOUND).   Yes, over VOIP circuits using standard
> > codecs, you
> > are going to have latencies approaching 100-400ms, not acceptable for
> > contest CW.   However, there are ways around these issues.
> >
> > I know of a bunch of major initiatives going on for remote
> > stations @ DX
> > locations.   Lets hope that contest and (hopefully) DXCC
> > rules will keep
> > pace.    DXpeditions will never stop, but I think you will
> > start to see a
> > trend towards remote operation across country boundries.
> >
> > 73, Gerry W1VE _______________________________________________
>  > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>