[CQ-Contest] Self spotting - now ARRL and Remote

[Steve Maki]

Well said.

I suppose that some would be OK with the invisible mic cable if it was 
located in a ham band?

Common sense should rule.

-Steve K8LX



On 03/17/24 11:30 AM, john at kk9a.com wrote:
> I have never operated remotely so I am wondering what advantage remote
> stations have over non-remote stations that you feel they should be in a
> separate category?  Obviously many remote stations are located in
> geographical advantaged locations however nearly anyone can travel to Maine,
> Bonaire, Aruba, Cape Verde, etc to operate in person. I see operating remote
> as a disadvantage since it is impossible to fix minor things, swap out a
> radio, amp, rotator controller or even physically just look at the antenna
> to ensure its pointing correctly, unless of course the remote location is
> staffed.  It also requires a solid internet connection on both ends for the
> entire 48 hours.  Then there are latency issues than can make copying more
> difficult.  During the last 2023 CQWW RTTY contest my AT&T fiber somehow
> became disconnected for the entire weekend and more, if I had operated
> remotely I would have made zero QSOs. Sure you need the internet for remote,
> just like you do for assisted/unlimited and any category if self-spotting.
> I really do not understand why Bluetooth should be a different category
> since it is on site and essentially an invisible wire connection. What if
> you use WIFI for switching on site antennas, should that be separate too?  I
> am not a DXer however I can see an unfairness if stations use different
> remotes spread across the US to work countries across the globe.  Doing that
> IS apparently allowed under DXCC but thankfully not in contesting.
>
> It is not just the ARRL that allows remote contesting under the same
> category as not-remote, so does CQ.
>
> John KK9A
>
>
> Bon KQ2M wrote:
>
> Had remote operating been openly discussed by the ARRL at that time, I
> would have formally
> made my objection TO THE ARRL at that time to REMOTE NOT being in it's
> own separate REMOTE category.
> REMOTE would have it's own NON-Assisted and Assisted categories of
> course.
>
> Second, there is a difference between outlawing the use of a technology
> vs. allowing it
> as it's own class of technology.  I have NEVER been opposed to the use
> of remote technology
> to operate, only that it be considered different because it uses NON
> AMATEUR-RADIO based technology
> to communicate, which is fundamentally DIFFERENT than NON-REMOTE.  I
> have always felt that Remote should be in it's
> own category the same way that a distinction is made for ops using high
> power, which as we know, is in it's
> own category because it uses a DIFFERENT and more powerful technology.
>
> As it is, I have objected to not having REMOTE in it's own category FOR
> MANY YEARS with my
> explanation as to why, in many contest writeups and emails since that
> time.  AGAIN, I don't object to the
> use of the technology - I think that advancements in the state of the
> art of contest operating are
> more often than not, a GOOD thing, and I used Remote to operate 20
> meters at K1LZ in the 2023 ARRLDXCW,
> but regardless, it is STILL making qso's by NON-Amateur means.  If the
> ARRL wants to allow qso's by using
> NON-Amateur means then it should openly acknowledge that fact, allow
> it's use and put Remote in it's own category.
>
> Bluetooth is a another form of remote, which should be in the REMOTE
> category because, like REMOTE, it uses
> NON-AMATEUR RADIO means to communicate.
>
> No rule change is going to fix that unless it is a rule that
> acknowledges and puts REMOTE or BLUETOOTH within it's own
> separate REMOTE category.  And it is NOT too late to do so.
>
>
> Bob, KQ2M
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest