[CQ-Contest] K4VV in ARRL DX CW

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

If it involves anything to do with the internet and contesting Paul will 
never be happy.  Come on over to Topband where we are having the same 
old tired conversation over there too..    Oh how great things were in 
the past.

Whoever created the term curmudgeon was brilliant.

Mike W0MU

On 2/26/2015 3:37 PM, Oliver Dröse wrote:
>
> Give us a seperate category for remote ops. Then Paul will finally be 
> happy and K4VV would have won their category, too. Seems like a 
> WIN-WIN situation for everybody, doesn't it? ;-)
>
> 73, Olli - DH8BQA
>
> Contest, DX & radio projects: http://www.dh8bqa.de
>
>
> Am 26.02.2015 um 22:08 schrieb Ron Notarius W3WN:
>> I could spend paragraphs pointing out where Paul's argument is 
>> twisting the meaning and intent of  the rules, as I'm sure many 
>> others can as well.
>>   And we will end up going down the same "slippery slope" that the 
>> term "Assisted" has gone down almost every year, for so many years.
>>   Let's not.
>>   That said, I agree that, now that it's proven that it CAN be done 
>> for a M/S or M/M station, a rational discussion of whether or not 
>> there is or will be a need for a separate "remote controlled station" 
>> (or similar term) category is or will be necessary.
>>   And THAT said, I don't think we should overlook the technical 
>> aspect that it could be done, and it was done.  I would be more than 
>> interested in reading about the challenges faced and how they were 
>> overcome, simply from the technical aspect of how one does it.
>>   So for now, I think of this effort as an experimental operation of 
>> sorts, or if you prefer, a proof-of-concept.  And I congratulate the 
>> people who designed and built this station for making it work, even 
>> it it didn't come close to "winning" any categories.
>>   73, ron w3wn
>>
>>
>> On 02/26/15, Paul O'Kane wrote:
>>
>>
>> The ARRL Contest Update for February 25 reports that
>>
>> A team of operators mounted the first totally remote
>> <http://www.arrl.org/news/no-one-in-the-shack-as-station-logs-4200-contacts-in-arrl-dx-cw-contest> 
>>
>> Multioperator Unlimited category effort in last weekend's
>> ARRL DX CW contest at the station of K4VV.
>>
>> It seems to me that the K4VV station was, in effect, a
>> private repeater, with access restricted to team members.
>>
>> http://www.arrl.org/general-rules-for-all-arrl-contests
>>
>> The general rules or ARRL contests state -
>>
>> 3.7.2.1. Stations remotely controlled by radio link may
>> use necessary equipment at the control point.
>>
>> Note: there is no reference to stations remotely
>> controlled by internet link.
>>
>> 3.9. Contacts made through repeaters, digipeaters, or
>> gateways are not permitted.
>>
>> 3.10. The use of non-Amateur Radio means of communication
>> (for example, Internet or telephone) to solicit a
>> contact (or contacts) during the contest period is
>> not permitted.
>>
>> It would appear that, for each and every K4VV QSO hosted
>> on the internet as a result of calling CQ or TEST, the
>> internet was indeed used to solicit those QSOs.
>>
>> IMHO, remote contesting, with its absolute dependence
>> on the internet for each and every QSO, needs to be
>> identified as such, and needs separate categories for
>> scoring and listing purposes. For identification, the
>> suffixes /IM (internet mobile) or /R (remote) would do
>> do the job.
>>
>> 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