[CQ-Contest] New Contesting Classification
w9sz.zack at gmail.com
Mon Oct 3 16:03:47 EDT 2016
Exactly! I don't know why it is so hard for some people to grasp this. If
the path between the transmitters/receivers of both stations is via the
aether, ionosphere, free space or whatever you want to call it, then the
QSO is entirely by radio.
And these links are NOT necessarily over the internet. Remote station
control could be by microwave link (I know of instances where this actually
happened), laser links, INMARSAT phone (I know where this has happened,
too), landline telephone, even CB walkie-talkies controlling the ham
station from a block away. I was involved in an instance of the latter many
years ago. It was an interesting and fun experiment. We couldn't control
the frequency of the station but we could talk a couple blocks away from
the station using considerably modified CB walkie-talkies..
VOIP, Echolink are NOT the same thing. These mainly VHF links involve the
radio signal entering the world of internet BETWEEN STATIONS. Part of the
actual path between transmitter and receiver is over internet. To me, this
is not even CLOSE to having a transmitter and receiver and intervening path
being entirely by RF with only the control location being on a different
link. What difference does it make if the controller is one block, five
miles or 4,000 miles away? And I want to reiterate that internet is NOT the
only way to accomplish this, as I outlined above.
73, Zack W9SZ
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Paul Stoetzer <n8hm at arrl.net> wrote:
> The important thing in amateur radio is the RF-to-RF path. The
> internet is just serving as a long cord connecting the operator to the
> key/mic/front panel of the radio.
> There is absolutely no difference in what I have achieved with my
> station if I'm sitting at the front panel or controlling it remotely
> via the internet.
> Paul, N8HM
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Paul O'Kane <pokane at ei5di.com> wrote:
> > On 11/09/2016 21:52, Jim Brown wrote:
> >> I strongly disagree. I'm lucky enough to have my own station -- I own a
> >> large plot of land and have built a nice antenna farm, so I'm happy
> >> operating from home. But MANY hams do NOT have that luxury -- they live
> >> small plots of land, or in housing developments where, by conditions of
> >> their purchase or rental of the property, are NOT PERMITTED to have any
> >> antennas. And there are MANY hams who are surrounded by neighbors with
> >> multiple noise sources that make it difficult to hear all but the
> >> signals on a band.
> > I can relate to almost everything in that paragraph.
> > I have a small plot, with a 60-foot back yard - not
> > enough room for an 80m dipole without bends, and I
> > am surrounded by neighbours with multiple noise
> > sources. The site is clearly visible on Google Earth.
> > None of this stops me from having fun - with a K3
> > barefoot to a TA33jr at 32ft and an off-centre dipole
> > for 80 and 40m.
> > I can be competitive on 10m by replacing the TA33 with
> > a 5-el monobander. I've done this to get #1 in SOLP
> > Mixed (DX) in the 1991 ARRL 10m contest, and #2 and #3
> > in subsequent years.
> >> If you are one of those MANY hams who cannot build even a modest antenna
> >> system, the only thing available to you is remote operation.
> > Remote operation is not the only other option. There
> > is always the option to operate from another station,
> > in my case EI9E in Co. Wexford, abut 85 miles from
> > my QTH. From there I got World #1 in CQWW CW SO80 LP
> > last year (November 2015) with 85w from the K3 to a
> > 4SQ, and World #3 SO80 HP CW in 2014.
> > It wouldn't be too difficult to configure the EI9E
> > station for remote single-band operation with the K3,
> > but that's not an option I will consider.
> >> Moreover, you clearly misunderstand remote operation. Communication IS
> >> radio. The internet is no different from a telephone link to a remote
> >> or a radio link to a remote site.
> > On the contrary, I have a full understanding of remote
> > operation. The necessary two-way communications between
> > the operators concerned take place BOTH by radio AND
> > by internet. There is full dependence on both modes
> > of communication. The internet is serving not just
> > to control the remote station, but also as a carrier
> > for whatever information the operators are exchanging.
> > Without the internet, there can be no communications
> > whatsoever between the operators. That's not the same
> > type of rf-all-the-way ham radio I'm used to. Because
> > more than one communications technology is required, I
> > prefer to call it what it is - hybrid-communications.
> >> Several years ago, K3NA, W3DQ, and I visited an old "ship to shore" HF
> >> MF station north of San Francisco. There are two sites about 20 miles
> >> one for TX and one for RX, each equipped with multiple rhombics. The two
> >> sites are linked by a dedicated landline that carries multiple CW
> >> as audio tones of different frequencies, one for each transmitter. That
> >> station dates back to 1913 -- see this link for a description of the
> >> station.
> >> http://www.ptreyes.org/activities/marconi-rca-wireless-stations
> > This gets to the nub of the issue. What Jim has described
> > is/was a commercial installation for paid traffic. In the
> > commercial communications world, the priorities for the
> > supplier have always been revenue and return on investment.
> > For their customers, the priorities have always been value
> > for money and reliability. With commercial communications,
> > their customers communicate with one another, not caring how
> > the system works, so long as it does work. In ham radio,
> > ham-radio operators communicate with one another using ham-
> > band RF. That's what gives us our name, and what gives our
> > activity its name.
> > Now, if what I've just said is becoming an old-fashioned
> > concept, that's OK, but our name and that of our activity
> > should change to reflect the changes.
> > It's a mistake to ape commercial communications practice
> > and believe that it leaves ham radio unchanged - it
> > doesn't necessarily represent "the future".
> > By the way, anyone who still believes that it was ham-radio
> > operators who pioneered SSB in the 1940s or 50s might be
> > interested to know that the Marconi Company started a
> > transatlantic telephone service between London and New York
> > on 7th January 1927 using long-wave SSB. On this side of
> > the Atlantic, there was a 200kW transmitter in Rugby,
> > England and a receiving site at Cupar, Scotland, with
> > "a directive aerial system ... covering an area of several
> > square miles" (Wireless Over Thirty Years, by R.N. Vyvyan,
> > 1933, Page 179)
> >> If that station were built today, it would likely use UHF or VHF radio
> >> the internet to link the two sites. But that would not make it an
> >> system, or a UHF system, or a telephone system. It's STILL an MF and HF
> >> radio system.
> > Yes, but that's not the full story. It's a commercial
> > communications service with internet relays, and/or
> > telephone relays and/or microwave relays, and/or MW
> > and HF relays. How the service works (or is advertised)
> > is of little consequence to the people who use it to
> > communicate with one another.
> > Now, if progress in ham radio is measured by how close
> > we can get to commercial practice - with free (for all
> > intents and purposes), world-wide, on-demand, person-to-
> > person communications, then I don't want to know. I'll
> > stick with Skype or FaceTime on the internet.
> >> Yet another example. W7RH, who lives in Las Vegas, built his station
> >> ten years ago at a remote site in the Arizona desert, which he mostly
> >> operates remotely from home. During contests, he operates from the site
> >> provide greater operating flexibility. http://w7rh.net/
> >> Building a remote station is no small engineering feat -- it's a LOT
> >> complex than opening a box, pulling out a radio that you've bought, and
> >> hooking it up to an antenna. Remote control is a complex engineering
> >> problem, and the guys who have built good remote stations have my
> > This reminds me of the guy who goes to the doctor
> > complaining of a pain in his arm. He says "Doc,
> > every time I move my arm like this, it hurts."
> > And the doc says "Well, don't do it".
> > If you want to make things harder for yourself by
> > operating remote, go right ahead - but don't expect
> > either praise or sympathy. You have elected to
> > operate that way - when there is usually the option
> > to operate from the remote site.
> > In 2011, I was a team member on the FSDXA DXpedition
> > to Kiritimati (T32C) - and we hold the world record
> > of 213,000 QSOs. Now, if the team members had all
> > stayed at home and operated remotely - what sort of
> > a record would that be? I'd call it "devalued" :-)
> > We all know and accept that QSOs via repeaters may be
> > fun, but are devalued to the extent that they invalid
> > for contesting and DXCC. Well, it seems to me that
> > remote stations are, in effect, personal or private
> > repeaters accessed over the internet.
> > Remote QSOs, those carried over public communications
> > utilities, are fake or counterfeit QSOs - with a
> > correspondingly diminished value. They may be such
> > good fakes that they are indistinguishable from the
> > real thing, but they are fakes nevertheless.
> > However, many operators and organisations do not accept
> > this. They claim that internet relays are just as
> > valid as ham-band RF relays and, anyway, it's not people
> > who communicate with one another, it's stations that
> > do it. They are wrong.
> >> Someday, old age or bad health may force us to give up this lovely home
> >> the mountains, but I hope that I can continue to operate some station
> >> remotely. And when I do, I will consider it "real" ham radio.
> > I'm close to that old age or bad health group. When
> > I am no longer able to operate from home I will either
> > go to where I can operate, or do something else
> > altogether - like using the internet for worldwide
> > communications, just like everyone else in the developed
> > world. I understand and acknowledge the difference
> > between "real" ham radio and internet-dependent ham
> > radio (hybrid communications). The only people who
> > don't accept this difference are those who choose to
> > disregard inconvenient facts.
> > I suggest it's time to acknowledge the difference and
> > place remote operation in separate categories for both
> > contesting and DXCC.
> > 73,
> > Paul EI5DI
> >> 73, Jim K9YC
> >> On Sat,9/10/2016 6:47 AM, Paul O'Kane wrote:
> >>> If ever there was a group of operators who should be
> >>> classified separately, it is remote operators.
> >>> Why? Because the facts are that -
> >>> 1. Those operators are at all times communicating over the
> >>> internet.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
More information about the CQ-Contest