[CQ-Contest] Remote contest operation

[Paul O'Kane]

On 17/04/2013 12:42, Bob Naumann wrote:

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

> Sorry - that accusation is also completely false:

Is "completely false" even more false than "false"?

I should have said that there are few, if any, rules
distinguishing remote entries from fixed entries
in the same categories in major contests - with the
exception of the IOTA contest, which does not permit
remote operation.

 From the IOTA Contest Rules:
http://www.rsgbcc.org/hf/rules/2013/riota.shtml

    "All equipment (transmitters, receivers and antennas)
    plus all operators must be located within a 1km diameter
    circle . . ."

Simple, effective, unambiguous.

73,
Paul EI5DI





>>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
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>