[CQ-Contest] Remote contest operation

[Bob Naumann]

EI5DI said: "W5OV will immediately say that there are no rules regulating
remote control in contesting."

Sorry - that accusation is also completely false:

>From the CQWW Rules:   (http://www.cqww.com/rules.htm)

III. 7. An entrant's remote station is determined by the physical location
of the transmitters, receivers, and antennas. A remote station must obey all
station and category limitations of Rule III.
And:
III. 3. Operating location: All transmitters and receivers used by the
entrant must be located within a single 500-meter diameter circle or within
the property limits of the station licensee's address, whichever is greater.
III. 4. All antennas used by the entrant must be physically connected by
wires to the transmitters and receivers used by the entrant.
And:
III. 11. Remote receivers outside the limitations of Rule III.3 are not
allowed. The only exception is public remote skimmers which are allowed for
the Multi-Operator, Assisted and Xtreme categories.

de W5OV


-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Paul O'Kane
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 2:40 PM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
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