[CQ-Contest] Distributed Contesting

Mon Oct 5 17:42:42 EDT 2020

Randy,

We think it is appropriate for all contests to be consistent in how they
level the field for their participants. Don't you think that an Oregon
station working remotely out of Maine has a leg up over other west coast
stations in the Worked All Europe Contests?

I am in favor of amateurs using innovation and technology. However, those
with an advantage, such as HP vs LP vs QRP or multi-op vs single-op, are
better off in a separate category where they can compete with like
capabilities. I also don't think that an overlay is the solution. (Whoever
placed wires in the same overlay as a tri-beam on a tower with a rotor?).

Why can't the WWROF take a leadership role in making recommendations to
overhaul the category structure used by the hundreds of smaller contest
sponsors (and the few larger ones)? This is the 21st century -- how about
some thinking to match today's technology (remote operating, SO2R, etc.)?
Return competition to radiosport competitions.

73,
Stan, K4SBZ

On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 2:01 PM Randy Thompson <k5zd at outlook.com> wrote:

> You ask for the contest sponsors to seek a solution to this issue.  What
> issue?  The problem seems to be with how the SQP handles scoring - not with
> the individual contests themselves.
>
> I don't think this is something that WWROF can assist with.
>
> Randy K5ZD
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces+k5zd=outlook.com at contesting.com> On
> Behalf Of Stan Zawrotny
> Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 6:04 PM
> To: Paul O'Kane <pokane at ei5di.com>
> Cc: CQ Contest <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Distributed Contesting
>
> This is a topic that is currently being discussed by the State QSO Party
> Group. We are seeing stations operating remotely as in-state operators in
> several different state QSO parties so that they can make more contacts for
> the State QSO Party Challenge.  Some stations are teaming up - "I will let
> you use my station for in-house in my state's QSO party if you will let me
> use yours during your state's QSO party." Some are piling up the points by
> operating in-state in 5-6 different QSO parties.
>
> The SQP Group would prefer that the contest sponsors seek a solution to
> this issue. It is obviously too late to prohibit the practice, but the
> sponsors need to address the inequity that remote stations have in scoring.
>
> I think the WWROF should take the lead and act promptly.
>
> This is my personal opinion and should not be considered a position of the
> SQP Group.
>
> Stan Zawrotny, K4SBZ
> Administrator, State QSO Party Group
> __________
> Stan, K4SBZ
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 3:21 PM Paul O'Kane <pokane at ei5di.com> wrote:
>
> > Last month, W3LPL and K3LR announced that they had decided not to
> > compete in any multi-op category in the 2020 CQ WW contests.
> >
> > http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2020-09/msg00036
> > .html
> >
> > They went on to say they "remain hopeful that science will allow our
> > teams to resume Multi Multi operations in 2021"
> >
> > There are at least two ways in which science will permit this.  The
> > first depends on the availability, and uptake, of effective vaccines
> > within the next 12 months.  Right now, that's uncertain.  The second
> > is that science, or rather technology, will help remote multi-op
> > entries to be competitive.
> >
> > There are many positive aspects to remote contesting, including -
> >
> >    It gets more people on the air - meaning more QSOs and more contest
> > entries.
> >    It saves the ops time and money - they don't have to travel to the
> > station.
> >    It's safer - no close contact between operators, whether day or
> > night, over several days.
> >    The RF is exactly the same, no matter where the operators are - so
> > what's not to like?
> >
> > There are some disadvantages -
> >
> >    It's expensive, and technically challenging, to configure a station
> > for competitive remote entries, and particularly so for multi-op.
> >    Latency can be a problem, especially for CW - though 5G may provide
> > a solution.
> >    As those who work remotely know, team spirit can be affected - it's
> > "just not the same".
> >
> > Regardless of these disadvantages, it's likely that multi-op contest
> > stations/owners generally are gearing up for remote operation - if
> > only to have the option in future.
> >
> > So, it's all good then - or is it?
> >
> > Not quite.  We're in the early stages of what I call Distributed
> > Contesting, of which remote operation is an example.  Until a few
> > years ago, it was a requirement in contest rules that all station
> > equipment had to be located within a given area.  With the increasing
> > take-up of remote, "equipment" was changed, typically, to "all
> > transmitters, receivers, and antennas" - meaning, in practice, that
> > not all station equipment had to be located within a given area.  In
> > other words, stations are becoming distributed.
> >
> > Further, CQ WW 160 permits the use, for SO Assisted, of one "remote
> > receiver located within 100km of the main transmitter site".  For a
> > good reason, of course - the rule is "designed to accommodate new
> > technology, and for those who experience high noise levels at the
> > transmitting site".  This is an example of the increasing distribution
> > of stations, whether remote or otherwise.  If follows that, since "high
> noise levels"
> > can apply to any band, and we all aware of increasing noise levels in
> > urban areas, there will be pressure to permit this concession more
> > generally.
> >
> > There is, simultaneously, an inexorable trend towards SDRs - Software
> > Defined Radios.  With faster communications technology and utilities,
> > there is less need for all software components of an SDR to be
> > available in one discrete location.  If there's better processing
> > power in "the cloud", in terms of modes supported (especially new
> digital modes), or
> > filtering, or noise reduction - why not use it?   This represents
> > distributed receivers, and they're on their way.
> >
> > Remote operators are quick to point out the disadvantages, outlined
> > above, they have to live with.  What they prefer not to be reminded
> > about is the opportunity value of remote capability.  They can compete
> > in circumstances where others cannot even enter.
> >
> > Neither do they like to be reminded that, at all times, they are
> > dependent on public utilities (internet, 4G, whatever) for their QSOs.
> > Further, they are simultaneously communicating over those same public
> > utilities - they require more than RF alone to have their QSOs.  This
> > is easily demonstrated by asking them to disconnect from the utility,
> > and then see how many QSOs they have.
> >
> > My point is that distributed-station operators, in order to realize
> > their not-insignificant opportunity to compete, are obliged to abandon
> > the communications-independence that  until recently has been the
> > hallmark, the defining characteristic, of ham radio.
> >
> > There's nothing wrong with distributed contesting - it's the preferred
> > option for many operators.  But it is different from RF-all-the-way,
> > and evolving rapidly - driven partly by the constraints imposed upon
> > us all due to the pandemic.  Could we have reached a tipping point?
> > It seems to me that this evolution is largely unregulated, with
> > individual contest sponsors doing their best to keep up with evolving
> > technology as it affects their particular events.
> >
> > My question is - will WWROF (the World Wide Radio Operators
> > Foundation) help to regulate Distributed Contesting in terms of a
> > general set of recommendations, including categories, for contest
> > rules - with particular emphasis on the major events?  The WWROF was
> > created "by a group of radio operators who saw a need for an
> > independent organization devoted to the skill and art of radio
> > operating."  Surely this is within their remit, and isn't "now" the
> right time for them to act?
> >
> > https://wwrof.org/
> >
> > 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
>