[CQ-Contest] Remote Control in Contests

Fri Apr 13 07:27:04 PDT 2012

EI5DI wrote
> Accepting that remote control isn't about to go away, it seems to me
> that the organisers of other major
> contests have three options to consider.
>
>   1. Prohibit remote control.
>   2. Permit it, but as a separate entry category.
>   3. Do nothing.

what about 4. allow it

with all respect to your person Paul, you cann have your opinion
but dont force others to agree with you!

EI5DI wrote
> When operating remote, you are dependent on both the
> internet and amateur-band RF.  If either fails, you're
> finished.  That's why I call it hybrid communications.
> The name accurately and fully describes the activity.

what if i remote controll my station over high speed data link on amateur 
radio band
for example 23cm or 13cm?

i years when internet was not so "good" i have used such links for first 
remote trys!
if this link was broken or doesnot work (belive me it happend many times bcs 
of  lot of
different things) you are finishend as well.....cann we call this hybird 
communication?

i cann even remebers that friend of my was using 2 70cm radios to remote his 
stations
one was with dtmf tones  to send commands for tuning up or down and PTT
other one was for audio! he was walking around his top hill location with 
house and was
working stations on 80m on the LP!

today i dont see a problemm using "cheap"internet instade of very expensive 
and unflexible "hamradio link"....
anyway this was more or less not allowed to use bcs of to much bandwith on 
empty ham radio bands!
today i cann remote my station from any place of the world where i have 
"good" internet access!
More or less its even possible to remote controll the station with good 
smart phone with RF from it
using high speed mobile internet :)

I dont see any problemm to be part of any contest as well if other rules are 
not broken!

I logged over the last years more as 40 000 QSOs over remote including 
participation in many contest
as well. I have a big station far a way from place where i live, why not to 
use it if i have free time!
I need in best case 5 hours to get there.....and to cross 3 country 
borders.....

Other possiblity was to use "relative" small antenna in urban part of the 
city, having the problemms with
RFI and RX, etc etc......or even whorse to be not on the air! no way......

So there is nothing wrong about remote control and there is nothing wrong to 
participate in contest
using remote control, of course if you playing by the rules! Today operating 
remotly is still disadvantage
over the real place operating (internet is still to "slow" and there is not 
easy to build right interfce to controll
all you need to be competitive in contest). But this gonna change soon and 
it will be equal.....for example
i playing now with remote SO2R......still not good enough but it will be!

Of course i enjoying more to be on the station, but unfortunatly family, 
work and other duties are not
allows me to spend more times there.Future for me will be to operate more 
remotly!

Even if such stupid idea gets to heads of contest organizers to prohibit 
remote operation,
(in case of IOTA and RDXC i dont think they want to prohibit remote work 
they want more to
prohibit using parallel with own radio, where ever it is remote RX and TX on 
other places)
i will still operate remotly. Its better to be remotly on the air as not to 
be on the air!
There are much more remote controlled station on the air as you cann 
imagine!

On the end my congratulation to Tony OH2UA or better to say CQ8X/CR2X and 
OH8X team for
they effort and looking  fwd to compete again! (remotly or not 
remotly....who cares)!

73s
Braco
OE1EMS/E77DX

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane at ei5di.com>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Control in Contests

> W5OV quoted EI5DI
>
>>> What's different about remote control is that it uses
>>> the internet (typically) to replace RF in the signal path
>>> between the operators concerned.
>
> W5OV then said
>
>> No, it does not.
>>
>> The RF is not changed at all.
>
> Since many people are getting tired of this thread, I'll
> keep this short.
>
> However, it's mildly amusing to me that, having first
> quoted my actual words, W5OV goes on to misquote them
> twice.  He implies I referred to RF being "changed",
> and later, to being "different".  I used neither of
> those words.
>
> Lets accept the argument that remote control is just
> the same as having extended signal (or audio and key,
> if you prefer) leads.
>
> The extended leads are typically hosted on the internet.
> Should the internet fail, whether it's via phone, cable,
> wireless, or satellite, then you're not just off the
> internet, you're off the air and no QSOs are possible.
>
> You're now "Remote, No Control".
>
> Therefore, however you describe your activity, it must
> be something different because, had it been amateur
> radio you would still be on the air.
>
> When operating remote, you are dependent on both the
> internet and amateur-band RF.  If either fails, you're
> finished.  That's why I call it hybrid communications.
> The name accurately and fully describes the activity.
>
> I've said the following in another thread, but it's
> relevant here.  If we saw a CBer talking over the
> internet, while claiming it was CB radio, we would
> all have a good laugh.  Licensed radio amateurs are
> not sprinkled with magic pixie dust that somehow
> transforms an internet-dependent contact into an
> amateur-radio QSO.
>
> I don't mind if others cannot accept this point of
> view, but what is undeniable is that the RDXC and IOTA
> contests, both major events, prohibit remote control.
>
> Accepting that remote control isn't about to go away, it seems to me
> that the organisers of other major
> contests have three options to consider.
>
>   1. Prohibit remote control.
>   2. Permit it, but as a separate entry category.
>   3. Do nothing.
>
> I'm not optimistic about anything other than the
> "do nothing" option - what I would see as a vote
> for expediency over integrity.  I hope I will be
> proved wrong.
>
> And for now, I have nothing more to say :-)
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest 