[CQ-Contest] Hunting in Africa

[Paul J. Piercey]

Ron et al,

I've been holding back a bit in responding to this topic again this year as
I have changed my position on it somewhat. I have addressed your points
below.

With respect to the argument that latency will restrict the effectiveness of
any remote station, that might be currently true but it is improving so it
will be a non-issue at some point.

Concerning Paul EI5DI's comments about remote hunting, I can understand the
gist of what he's saying but, as long as there is no attempt to claim
something that is not true, I can separate the fundamentals of the two
issues. Remote hunting allows you to physically alter a remote environment
(ie. kill a creature in a far off land) and get a reward of sorts. As long
as remote stations are not valid to the operator for DXCC unless the
operator is physically present in the entity (meaning that the station would
count to anyone working it as a DXCC entity but the operator of it would not
be able to apply for DXCC using any contacts from it unless physically
present in the same entity), then I have no issue with it. Yes, I know
that'll be a contentious position. I feel that, at the very least, the
operator must physically be in the entity to claim DXCC from that entity.
You could, however, win a contest without physical presence in the entity
using a remote station. Of course, that's entirely up to the contest
sponsors. DXCC and contest awards are separate and should remain so.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ron 
> Notarius W3WN
> Sent: March 19, 2008 23:27
> To: CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Hunting in Africa
> 
> So what you're saying is that because it would be "unfair" to 
> let someone sit at home and operate a remote station in a DX 
> entity in a contest, when they have the means and ability to 
> actually travel to that DX entity...  and by implication, 
> unfair activities are bad and should be prohibited...
> 
> ...that those whose only choice is to operate a remote 
> station or not at all -- can't?  Is that what I'm reading 
> here in all these back and forth bogus hunting analogies?
> 
> Look... this should be something really simple.  I'll leave 
> it to the psuedo- and wannabe-lawyers to figure out the 
> precise, accurate, razor-thin wording, but why not just say 
> something like:
> 
> X.  Remote Operating
>
> X.1.  Remote operating of a receiver or transceiver is 
> permitted when the following circumstances apply:
>
> X.1.a.  The remote station is located within the same country 
> or DXCC entity.
>

Does this mean the 'transmitter and receiver' or the 'equipment and the
operator'? I also have no issue with foreign-soil remote stations as long as
the operator is required to have a valid licence and call in that DXCC
entity. You wuld not be able to use someone else's licence in a foreign
land. You could use someone else's station but you'd need your own licence
and callsign. This would also mean that you could use someone else's
callsign in a multi-op arrangement for a contest via a remote station as
long as all "attendant" operators had their own personal credentials as
well.

> X.1.b.  The remote station is the normal 
> operating station for the operator in question [this rules 
> out rent-a-shacks, and permits someone travelling to set up 
> his home station as a remote].
>

Many people have summer and vacation homes and have secondary stations in
those locations so limiting remote stations to the sole station of the
operator is a bit restrictive. I would even allow rent-a-stations as well.
K1TTT springs to mind as he offers his station to most anyone for various
contests and events. As long as the operator has a valid US licence, or
signs the station as /W1 if their call is not from the W1 call area, I have
no issue with it.

> X.1.c.  The remote station may 
> be operated by one or more operators, but only one 
> transmitter may be in use at any one time.
>

If you can set up a M/M station as a remote station, then go for it, as long
as the other criteria, operator licencing, equipment proximity and location
designation, have been satisfied.

> X.1.d.  The physical remote station shall conform to the same contest 
> rules for station configuration [ie, if the contest uses a 
> 500 meter circle, the entire remote station must also fall 
> within the same 500 meter circle].
>

Yes, all equipment used to transmit and receive signals (save the human
interface) should be co-located within a certain space. The 500M rule is OK
but, if the property is contiguously owned by the station licencee, then
that should prove sufficient as well. This means that if you have a huge
piece of land, more than 1KM across with no breaks, then as long as all the
equipment resides on that property, then it's fine. Basically, it restricts
using receivers outside your immediate area.

> X.1.e.  A remote station shall use only one callsign during the contest.  
>

Aren't there M/M stations being used by several ops now, as multiple SO
stations with different calls, during a particular contest? If so, then that
could be the case for remote stations as long as the two ops function
totally independent of one another.

> X.1.f.  Exceptions to any or all of these provisions will be 
> at the discretion of the contest committee, and must be 
> applied for in advance.  Failure to request these exceptions 
> ahead of time will automatically change the remote station's 
> log entry into a check log.
>
> X.2  Remote stations not adhering to the restrictions noted 
> in Point 1 above shall automatically have their log entry 
> changed into a check log.
> 

Not following any rule in a contest should result in penalties based upon
the severity of the infraction. Having said that, the rules should be clear
and concise and not open to interpretation. But that's another topic....

> (Don't like this version?  It's the best I can do on short 
> notice... if you've got something better in mind, let's hear it!)
> 
> 73
>    
> 

That's not a bad start.

A few other things should be addressed.

1.	There must be a human operator in control of the station at all
times during the contest. That means no robot stations.

2.	There can be no intent to deceive. For example, you can't use a
remote station in a foreign land with your regular callsign. You also cannot
use a remote station in another call area of your DXCC entity without the
proper portable designator. This should be required for all stations anyway.
How many W6s do I work, when trying to get CA sections, in SS that are in
MD? Too many. I have a VO2 call so should I be able to get everyone all
excited only to have them find that they've worked a VO1 in reality? No.

Fundamental principles should be maintained when considering the future of
amateur radio and contesting. The human should be the main component of any
station and all technology should be put in place to allow communications
between humans and not between humans and robot stations or robot stations
only.

My primary concern with all this is the dehumanizing of the hobby for the
sake of technology. I think Joe W4TV has a good point when he suggests that
if the human factor is reduced, gradually or otherwise, from the hobby, then
the spectrum will become the target of commercial ventures even moreso than
it is now. Don't get cought up in this rush for technology and forget what
the technology was supposed to accomplish. If you want to have robot
stations passing traffic, then get a commercial or experimenters licence,
apply for a portion of the spectrum and go for it. Don't take up any of the
Amateur spectrum for it.

Another concern I had was the opportunity for operators to be decptive as to
where they were operating from. There should be no way possible to use
remote equipment in one location and claim an operation from another. That
goes for remote stations or remote receivers. If I am in VO1 and am using a
receiver in VE7, that shouldn't count for anything. That's why DXCC should
require physical presence in the entity for the operator of the remote
station but shouldn't restrict anyone operating the station. I'm open to
discussion on this but that's how I see it right now.

It's a matter of tradition with me. I still would like to say I contacted a
person in each of these countries and entities but, as long as I can say I
contacted a person who was using equipment in each of those entities, then I
guess that will have to suffice as remote stations are and will continue to
be a part of the hobby.

73 -- Paul VO1HE