[CQ-Contest] Remote Contest Operation

[Robert Chudek - K0RC]

Well now we're getting somewhere! I think this "up a hill" scenario is a 
great foundation to help reveal the root in the different viewpoints. 
But I am having difficulty understanding where to draw the dividing line 
between "true amateur QSOs" and "pseudo amateur QSOs".

Correct me if I'm wrong Paul, but in the scenario detailed in the 
message below, where the ham operator is using an amateur-band RF link 
between his house and the equipment up on the top of the hill, he will 
be logging true Amateur to Amateur QSOs.

I also assume that if the equipment "control head" could be disconnected 
from the RX/TX module (like the remote in a car with the VHF/UHF radio 
installed in the trunk), this would also meet your definition. Do you 
have any objection if that interconnecting cable were 1,000 feet long? 
It would make it to the top of the hill with 20 feet to spare.

I am under the understanding that we flip over to a "Non Amateur to 
Amateur QSO", when I replace the amateur UHF/Microwave link between the 
house and shack with a commercial unit. Installing a typical commercial 
RF system that performs the link would create this "problem" because it 
would be operating outside amateur radio bands. Even though it is 
performing an identical function, it's not an "Amateur to Amateur QSO" 
in your view?

What if the ham operator registered and licensed this commercial link as 
required by the FCC (in the US)? Does that change anything?

We know the house and shack are in line-of-sight of each other so let's 
substitute a laser based link system. Will contacts be Amateur based 
QSOs or not? Are laser or light-based paths considered commercial or 
Amateur links? Even though I'm using a laser, it's getting fuzzy trying 
to determine whether I'm actually making legitimate Amateur-to-Amateur 
QSOs or not.

If you say the laser is okay, then the next question is regarding 
indirect links. For example, maybe the house and shack are not 
line-of-sight. However, a quarter mile away we find a 15 story 
commercial building with very shiny metal walls. It can be used as a 
passive reflector to get around our line-of-sight obstruction. But! You 
have now introduced a "non-amateur" device within the data path. Would 
using this reflector yield "Non-Amateur" QSOs, even if all the equipment 
was amateur band based?

I really am curious where you would draw the line in these scenarios.

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 4/15/2013 11:43 AM, Chris Plumblee wrote:
> I would posit, regarding ei5di's lengthy treatise on his objection to
> remote contest operation, that he is leaving a rather large hole in his
> argument.
>
> Suppose I own a home near the bottom of a large hill, as well as a plot of
> land sufficient for towers and a station at the top of the hill.
> Logistically I'm able to extend mains power to the top of the hill, but not
> plumbing and not wired internet access. Suppose further that the distance
> to the hilltop would preclude a quick walk home when nature calls.
>
> If I want to take advantage of my good fortune I have a few options.
>
> I could run impractically-large coax from the tower on top of the hill to
> my home at the bottom.
>
>   I could rent a portable bathroom for use during contest weekends.
>
> Or, I could operate my equipment remotely using an amateur band microwave
> link between the shack at the top of the hill and my home at the bottom.
>
> The entire path of a qso between me and ei5di, then, would be amateur-band
> rf. I don't think anyone would argue that this scenario is not remote
> operation, but there is no Internet relay in the path. It would seem that
> my hypothetical would satisfy ei5di's prohibition against calling any qsos
> I make with this arrangement "amateur radio qsos." It's also undeniably
> remote operation.
>
> If Internet-assisted remote operation is indistinguishable from traditional
> non-remote operation or a hypothetical rf-based remote operation, then I
> fail to see how you can discriminate among them in practice. At the very
> least you must concede that not *all* remote operation is illegitimate.
>
> 73, Chris WF3C
>