[CQ-Contest] Remote contest operation

Thu Apr 18 01:58:53 EDT 2013

Thanks for the rules quotation, Bob. I should point out that ARRL rules
regarding remote operating are almost identical to those of CQ WW.

The ARRL Contest Advisory Committee took up the question of remote operating
back in 2008. We concluded that existing ARRL rules allowed remote
operating. Specifically, it's allowed by the 500m rule, which states:

3.7. All transmitters and receivers must be located within a 500-meter
diameter circle, excluding antennas.

In addition, a subsection of this rule points makes it clear that the use of
remote receivers outside the 500m circle is prohibited:

3.7.1. This prohibits the use of remote receiving installations.

Further, the CAC decided not to recommend any changes to these rules. We
specifically discussed the issue of whether the operator's location relative
to the station equipment alters the competitive landscape, and decided that
it does not. We also discussed whether remote receivers (or transmitters for
that matter) alter the competitive landscape, and concluded that they most
certainly do.

I'm late to this discussion (if you want to call it that), but I'm somewhat
bewildered by it. No contest rules that I'm aware of require physical
presence of the operator within the 500m circle. But more important, I can't
think of any reason why anyone would deem remote operation inconsistent with
the spirit of contesting. Even further, I believe it has the potential to
enhance contesting and generate more interest and participation.

Yes, it could be something of a competitive advantage for an operator to
"phone in" to a remote station at a great location (say, the Canary Islands)
rather than having to go through the expense and hassle of travelling to
that spot and perhaps erecting temporary antennas and equipment for the
operation. But "ease of access" to the station has never been a
consideration for assessing the competitive factors or fairness of a
contest. The effort to physically appear at the remote station varies
greatly. Some stations are easily-accessed permanent installations, some are
permanent stations that are hard to access or require a lot of work to setup
prior to each contest. Some are extremely difficult and expensive to reach,
and have no infrastructure at all. We don't distinguish between the
different levels of effort to operate at these locations, though we
certainly admire those who undertake to operate from the more difficult
locations. Remote operation over the Internet or phone lines is simply
another way to access a station, and in that sense we should treat it the
same as all the other ways to access a station.

Remote contesting offers the benefit of being able to operate as if you had
traveled to the remote location. How cool is that for ops who can't afford
such trips or ops with disabilities that prevent them from traveling at all?
Do we really want to deprive these ops of the pleasure of operating a
station in a great location? I would hope not.

The issue of payment for use of a remote station is a bit more
controversial, but it's not prohibited by the rules. On the one hand, we're
all uncomfortable with the idea of someone making a business of renting out
a remote station, perhaps because it sounds a little like "pecuniary
interest". On the other hand, what's wrong with someone offsetting the
substantial cost of building and maintaining a competitive station? How
different is that from any other business in the Amateur radio field, like
building and selling transceivers, antennas, etc.? In point of fact, such
rental stations have been around for a long time and many contest operators
have paid the fees. The only difference we're talking about here is whether
you travel to the station to operate it or access it over the Internet, not
whether you pay for the privilege.

73, Dick WC1M

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Naumann [mailto:W5OV at W5OV.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 7:42 AM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote contest operation
> 
> 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
> 