[UK-CONTEST] Remote Control

[Roger G3SXW]

Tom (and others who are yet to fully absorb the new rules), it says:
3. Locations: The entrant's transmitting sites must be located in a single 
country, as defined by the applicable licensing authority, and a single 
zone. Remote receiving sites may be located anywhere.

That's pretty clear. And by the way (Paul) the 2-way contest exchange still 
happens entirely with RF. If the radio-control and logging software are 
managed remotely by WiFi across the room versus internet across a continent 
. . . I don't see the difference.

This new category replaces nothing. All the current categories stand. But 
perhaps a few mega-stations who were bending the rules to fit some other 
category no longer need to *cheat*. That's good: they are applauded for 
their technological innovation while everyone else carries on as before.
73 de Roger/G3SXW.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "tom wylie" <thomaswylie at sky.com>
To: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane at ei5di.com>
Cc: "UK Contest Reflector" <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Remote Control


>I think I am with Paul on this one.   The USA is one Country - so a
> station no longer has to identify his call area - eg K6AAA could equally
> be in New York as California and so on.
>
> A Russian UA9 might just be over the Urals or on the birder with UA0.
>
> What is there now (technically) for the Californian guy to have complete
> propagation and yes maybe even two sunrises if he operates his "A"
> station from his home and when he feels like it, operates his "B"
> station remotely from his other - remote - east coast location.
>
> In a contest which uses serial numbers how is anybody to know?
>
> This gives him (or her) an unfair advantage and is tantamount to
> cheating in my book.   IMHO it is certainly outwith the spirit of the
> Contest!
>
> The only benefit I could see in our much smaller country is like if
> Clive (POI)was on holiday and GB7HQ needed his station, it could be
> remoted from the mainland!!
>
> I think the rules of contesting should be reviewed to take this scenario
> into account.  Its difficult enough competing at the moment.
>
> Contesting has got itself into a mess with big stations running
> humungous amounts of power totally un-policeable relying on self
> policing and "honesty"..... as the man says - yea - right!
>
>
>
> Tom
> GM4FDM
>
>
>
> Paul O'Kane wrote:
>> Posted under the topic "New CQ WW Category"
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Roger Parsons" <ve3zi at yahoo.com>
>>
>>
>>>> .. My remote station is 14km from home and I control it
>>>> over a 900MHz link - that being an amateur band in
>>>> Canada. I hope that most people would accept that as a
>>>> legitimate amateur radio operation for contesting or DXing?
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>> My link uses TCP/IP protocol and there is no technical
>>>> reason why the station could not be controlled over a 14km
>>>> wire, somebody else's radio, or even the evil internet.
>>>> How does that fundamentally change things?
>>>>
>>
>> and Peter G3LET replied
>>
>>
>>> Your system just transfers you as the operator from a
>>> practical radio location to somewhere you'd prefer to
>>> live, never mind the connecting technology, which
>>> doesn't provide any additional benefit.   No changes
>>> to the rules for the existing sections have been
>>> indicated, so you should be fireproof!
>>>
>>
>> This issue of remote-control operation isn't quite as
>> clear-cut as we might expect.  We all consider ourselves
>> to be reasonable people and therefore, by definition,
>> nearly everything we do is reasonable.
>>
>> Roger has a remote station 14km from home, and he considers
>> this to be perfectly reasonable because that's what he
>> does.  I have had emails from a Californian contester who
>> can fire up his Prince Edward Island super-station any
>> time he chooses and hand out PEI mults.  He thinks this
>> is reasonable because that's what he does.  Not everyone
>> will agree.
>>
>> I believe distance is a red herring - there's something
>> fundamentally different about remote control operation.
>> Of course, we are all perfectly entitled to do it.  It's
>> fun, technically challenging and in some ways even more
>> difficult than "conventional" operation.
>>
>> Here's why I believe remote-control operation is
>> different.  It reminds me of standard professional
>> broadcasting techniques - the operator is in the
>> studio, and the RF bits are somewhere else.
>>
>> Remote-controlled stations are, in effect, personal
>> repeaters.  I have an aversion to working repeaters,
>> it doesn't seem quite the same as a "real" QSO and,
>> after all, I'm a reasonable person?  Not everyone will
>> agree.
>>
>> Because of almost-universal broadband internet, and
>> because manufacturers are starting to integrate remote-
>> contol facilities into rigs, an increasing proportion
>> of rag-chewers, DXers and contesters will avail of it.
>> We will soon have super-stations selling access by the
>> hour/day/week. No need to travel to experience pile-ups
>> from exotic locations.
>>
>> It's getting to the stage where regulation is needed.
>> I believe the first step, as G3LET suggested for the
>> Xtreme contesters, is to have remote-controlled stations
>> identify themselves as such.
>>
>> For more on this topic, please see
>> www.ei5di.com/hunting1.html
>> www.ei5di.com/hunting2.html
>>
>> 73,
>> Paul EI5DI
>> _______________________________________________
>> UK-Contest mailing list
>> UK-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest