[CQ-Contest] Remote contest operation

Wed Apr 17 12:04:20 EDT 2013

If i am not wrong i can run iota contest remotly from my house on island Krk
(EU-136) using antennas and radio on the beach max 999m away 
and control all station remotely over internet? Right?

73s
Braco

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] Im Auftrag von
Paul O'Kane
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. April 2013 15:45
An: cq-contest at contesting.com
Betreff: Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote contest operation

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
>
>

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