[CQ-Contest] Remote contest operation

[Hal Offutt]

Paul is correct that the Internet is involved in remote contesting.  The
main question to ask about this is:  "Does this give the remote station any
advantage?"  For the reasons that W5OV and many others have explained in
this forum, the answer to this question is clearly "No."   This is why most
people who have thought this through believe that it does not matter a whit
where the operator sits.  Remote contesting is not some stretch of the
envelope to obtain a competitive advantage over others.  It is mostly just a
way for people who otherwise might not be able to, to get on the air.

In the example of W5OV sitting in San Francisco operating his station in
Dallas, EI5DI objects saying "there's no RF between him and his station in
Dallas.  The Internet has replaced RF along this path."

Paul is wrong.  Unquestionably, the Internet is connecting W5OV to his
station from San Francisco.  But the contest contact is between W5OV's
station in Dallas and, say, EI5DI in Ireland.  There is no need for RF along
the path between San Francisco and Dallas (or the path between San Francisco
and Ireland) because there is no intention or pretention to make the contact
from San Francisco.

EI5DI writes:

>   "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."

This is just plain wrong.  The Internet is merely connecting the operator to
the station, not replacing RF.  I operate my station in Ohio remotely from
Tokyo.  The contest contacts I make are between my station in Ohio and other
stations.  I am not trying to make contacts between Tokyo and those
stations.  No RF is being replaced or displaced.

EI5DI asks contest sponsors "to give the remote operators a class of their
own, or put a stop to it."

As a contester who frequently operates remote, I have no objection to having
a separate class, but I think most contesters would object to creating a
separate class for a handful of ops who are essentially one-legged men
trying to participate in a footrace with two-legged men.  It does not make
sense.  But if EI5DI wants to sponsor a trophy for remote contesting in
CQWWDX CW, I'll be in there trying to win it.

Put a stop to it?  Why?  What possible harm are we doing?  We're just trying
to enjoy our hobby and pass out some QSOs.  With the ageing of the ham
population and more of us moving into apartments and assisted living
facilities, remote operating holds out the possibility that more of us will
be able to continue contest operating as we age.  Isn't this a good thing?

EI5DI asks if we would like to work a station in P5 if we knew the operator
was in Finland.  Why on Earth not?  It doesn't matter where the operator is
as long as the station is in P5,the RF is coming from P5 and the reception
is being done in P5.  If I'm in Ohio trying to work that P5 with my dipole,
I'd have just as much trouble getting through the pileup (whether I'm trying
via my remote in Tokyo or sitting in front of my radio in Ohio) if the P5 op
was in NK as I would if the P5 op was in Finland.  It simply doesn't matter
where the op is.

EI5DI concludes: "Many of us prefer not to compete with the
hybrid-communications contesters."  I wonder if he can cite a contest where
he has had to compete with, or has been defeated by, a
"hybrid-communications contester."   And judging from the comments I have
seen here, I think his use of the word "many" is very questionable.

73, Hal W1NN







----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane at ei5di.com>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 4:40 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote contest operation


>
> 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