[CQ-Contest] Antw: Re: Antw: Re: Remote contest operation

Mon Apr 15 08:02:42 EDT 2013

Hi Gerry,

I have great respect for any serious remote station setup. 
In fact, I do own one together with a friend.
However, during a contest I expect the operator to be physically on site. 
Take the boat,plane,car etc. and put his but in the seat and operate. Like any other station in a contest.
That's the extra mile or effort.

And although it might look like 'paper spent here', where I prefer discussing other radio/contest related topics, it is time that people understand this vision is not voiced by one ham only.
Like others here, I do respect people have different opinions.

73 Mark, PA5MW

Op 04/15/13, Gerry Hull  <gerry at yccc.org> schreef:
> Mark,
> 
> What the heck does remote operation have to do with "showing putting effort in the True Game"?
> 
> 
> Ask any of the stations who have put in a REAL contest operation using a remote station, and they will tell you, it takes tremendous effort.
>  
> 
> 73, Gerry W1VE
> 
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 6:24 AM, M. WIJK <pa5mw at home.nl> wrote:
> 
> >  Paul ,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I could not have put this any better.
> > 
> > Having followed your many messages on this subject, I believe (and hope) that most readers must have understood your message by now.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I dislike doing a 'me too' reaction, but I very much care for the "Radio Amateur True QSO by RF"
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > IF there's ever gonna be a new group promoting true HAM Radio vs/against the current X-Box/Wii/mouse-generation with the spirit of "I-want-it-all-at-no-cost-and-no-effort-and-I-want-it-today", put me up for it.
> >  I enjoy contesting either at home (7x6mtrs city backyard) or at our PI4TUE clubstation, where in both cases there are motivated but much different goal settings.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > It's not about the abuse of rules, that will always be with us.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > It's about the lack of showing putting effort in the True Game.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 73 Mark, PA5MW
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Op 04/15/13, Paul O'Kane <pokane at ei5di.com> schreef:
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > On 12/04/2013 19:46, w5ov at w5ov.com wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > >First thing, email on a contest-related reflector is
> > 
> > > >not a "ham radio activity".
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > Could this be a denial of reality? Email to cq-contest
> > 
> > > is indeed ham radio activity, as is reading QST, going
> > 
> > > to Dayton, or watching a DXpedition DVD.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > > There is no amateur RF involved at all.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > RF is a prerequisite for ham radio QSOs, but not for
> > 
> > > ham radio activity.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > It is clear that W5OV, in common with other remote
> > 
> > > control enthusiasts, considers that ham radio QSOs
> > 
> > > require nothing more than inter-station communication.
> > 
> > > As such, any amateur RF, anywhere in the signal path,
> > 
> > > confers the status of an amateur radio QSO on the
> > 
> > > activity.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > There's just one minor flaw with that point of view.
> > 
> > > Stations don't communicate, we (people) do. Whether
> > 
> > > it's by the internet, by telephone, by radio, by mail
> > 
> > > or by however means available, we communicate - using
> > 
> > > the appropriate tools to facilitate the communications.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > Regardless of whether W5OV concedes this point, let's
> > 
> > > press on.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > We all agree that when there is no RF involved, there
> > 
> > > is no amateur-radio QSO. A CQ100 QSO is not a ham
> > 
> > > radio QSO, though it does represent ham radio activity.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > On the other hand, the claim that any amateur RF,
> > 
> > > anywhere in the signal path between two people
> > 
> > > concerned, qualifies the activity as a ham radio
> > 
> > > QSO is clearly wishful thinking.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > Often, none of this matters. In competition, however,
> > 
> > > how things are done matters. Rules are introduced to
> > 
> > > regulate activities and keep the competitors honest.
> > 
> > > And W5OV will immediately say that there are no rules
> > 
> > > regulating remote control in contesting. And he is
> > 
> > > right, it is unregulated. As things stand, in most
> > 
> > > contests, we can use any communications system or
> > 
> > > utility we choose so long as there as some RF, any
> > 
> > > RF, anywhere.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > >You say (paraphrasing) that the Internet is replacing or displacing
> > 
> > > >amateur-band RF in contest QSOS. Please explain how this is so?
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > W5OV has misquoted me. Here is what I actually said.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > "Whatever relevance the internet has to contesting
> > 
> > > in general, in remote contest operation it serves
> > 
> > > only to replace or displace amateur-band RF
> > 
> > > between contesters."
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > I choose my words carefully when posting to this
> > 
> > > mailing list. No further explanation is necessary.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > >There is no alteration or displacement of the RF path in remote contesting
> > 
> > > >whatsoever and I pointed that out earlier.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > That's correct, however it's not the full story.
> > 
> > > With remote operation, no QSO is possible without
> > 
> > > first connecting, and staying connected, to the
> > 
> > > internet. It can not be an amateur-radio QSO, as
> > 
> > > otherwise there would be no need to connect to the
> > 
> > > internet. The difference is the internet.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > Neither is it an internet QSO, because otherwise
> > 
> > > there would be no need for amateur RF. The
> > 
> > > difference is amateur radio.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > However you look at it, it is undeniable there is a
> > 
> > > difference between an internet-dependent QSO and
> > 
> > > an amateur-radio QSO. The difference is the internet.
> > 
> > > W5OV may say it doesn't matter, which I counter by
> > 
> > > saying it does matter because, without full dependence
> > 
> > > on a public communications utility, no QSOs can take
> > 
> > > place. On the internet, everyone has the world at
> > 
> > > their fingertips.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > If it's not an amateur radio QSO and it's not an
> > 
> > > internet QSO, then what is it? The answer directly
> > 
> > > describes the true nature of the activity - it's an
> > 
> > > amateur hybrid-communications QSO.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > >Let's say I'm operating at my station in Dallas and you and I have a QSO.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > >The RF path begins at the back of my radio, goes to my antenna, through
> > 
> > > >the ionosphere to Ireland and you receive it. That is the complete
> > 
> > > >amateur band RF path.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > Can't argue with that.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > >For argument sake, let's pretend that I make my Dallas station a remotely
> > 
> > > >controlled station. Also pretend that I'm sitting in a hotel room in San
> > 
> > > >Francisco remotely controlling my station in Dallas.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > >What happens in this case?
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > >The RF path begins at the back of my radio (in Dallas), goes to my
> > 
> > > >antenna(in Dallas), through the ionosphere to Ireland and you receive it.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > >That is precisely the same RF path. There is no RF difference whatsoever.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > Can't argue with that.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > However, once again, it's not the full story. W5OV
> > 
> > > is in San Francisco and there's no RF between him
> > 
> > > and his station in Dallas. The internet has replaced
> > 
> > > RF along this path. W5OV will say this is irrelevant,
> > 
> > > and I will agree with him until he claims he has had
> > 
> > > an amateur-radio QSO with me when, in fact, it has
> > 
> > > been an amateur hybrid-communications QSO. As for
> > 
> > > me, the unsuspecting victim, I have had the modern
> > 
> > > equivalent of a phone-patch QSO.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > In competition, how things are done matters.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > >Please tell me how I am wrong.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > I've done it, repeatedly!
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > >This last paragraph is the only possible logical explanation of why you
> > 
> > > >continue to insist that the Internet changes the RF path when it does not.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > Yet again, W5OV has misquoted me. It is probably
> > 
> > > due to carelessness. However, it becomes tedious
> > 
> > > for all of us when I am forced to continually repeat
> > 
> > > what I actually said.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > "Whatever relevance the internet has to contesting
> > 
> > > in general, in remote contest operation it serves
> > 
> > > only to replace or displace amateur-band RF
> > 
> > > between contesters."
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > Why are there no rules regulating the use of remote
> > 
> > > control - with the notable exception of the IOTA
> > 
> > > contest?
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > One reason offered is that remote control confers
> > 
> > > no particular competitive advantage. That's true
> > 
> > > at present, but it's a cop-out. Compare this to
> > 
> > > remote control hunting, where "hunters" hunt without
> > 
> > > leaving their armchairs - universally regarded as
> > 
> > > unsporting, and already banned in many states.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > In contesting, in DXing and in hunting, "being there"
> > 
> > > matters. Would anyone want to work North Korea if
> > 
> > > the operator was in Finland? Some might, but not
> > 
> > > me :-) Wouldn't WRTC be simpler if the competitors
> > 
> > > could operate from home? Perhaps, but "control"
> > 
> > > could be a minor issue.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > Come on, contest sponsors - do something. Give
> > 
> > > the remote operators a class of their own, or put
> > 
> > > a stop to it. Many of us prefer not to compete
> > 
> > > with the hybrid-communications contesters.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > 73,
> > 
> > > Paul EI5DI
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > 
> > > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > 
> > > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > 
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > 
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > 
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >  
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 