[CQ-Contest] Distributed Contesting

Tue Oct 6 11:31:05 EDT 2020

Why would that be?
An op from Oregon remotely using a station in Maine would be competing
against other W1 stations not W7.
Or, are you talking about an undeclared remote operation?

Please clarify.

Thanks,

Martín LU5DX

El lun., 5 oct. 2020 8:56 p. m., Stan Zawrotny <k4sbz.stan at gmail.com>
escribió:

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