[VHFcontesting] What about me? I am captive.

[Dave Page]

Bob: 

> I am getting very tired of this discussion too, but I'm tired of the lack of 
> understanding of and continued denial of what the problem is. 

Precisely. Let us fix that. 

> >From the ARRL June VHF rules: 
>  
> ** 7.3. Multi-operator stations may not include QSOs with their own 
> operators except on frequencies higher than 2.3 GHz. Even then, a complete, 
> different station (transmitter, receiver and antenna) must exist for each 
> QSO made under these conditions. 
> (So, the qsos made with these captive rover stations above 2.3G might be 
> within the rules - maybe.) 

	A station 'operator' is a licensed amateur who keys a 
station transmitter in  amateur service. No one is asserting that 
captive rovers are main station ops (on,  say 222) that then go out 
and work the main station as a rover in the same contest.  Rovers 
may indeed be trained by and use equipment loaned by another 
station, but  they always use their own call sign and never are 
operators of that other station. 
	This is obvious, and your crude misconstruction of the 
plain language of the  rule is wholly disingenuous and 
inflammatory. 

> ** 3.7: All transmitters and receivers must be located within a 500-meter 
> diameter circle, excluding antennas. 

	"All transmitters" means what, exactly? Every extant 
amateur transmitter?  That would make it difficult to work more 
than three other grids. No, that means all  transmitters operating 
under the same callsign. Since rovers do not use the main  station 
callsign, this plainly does not apply. 
  
> ** 2.3.5.All Rovers are encouraged to adopt operating practices that allow 
> as many stations as possible to contact them. 

	The key word here is "encouraged" which means not 
mandatory. Let us say  a rover has the choice of taking all day to 
hike up and down Mount Marcy to work  everyone, or a half day to 
hike up half way to work only one or two stations visible  to the 
Southeast, then go to a birthday party. Are we saying that the rules 
must  paternalistically force this choice? Work everyone, or stay 
out of the contest. No. 

	So let us clearly state the apparent purpose here. The 
shallow, first order  objective is to force the rovers who have been 
equipped by the big guns to work  other stations that do not want 
to win enough to go through that effort themselves. 
And if that means that the rover has to climb a bigger hill, and thus 
work fewer  grids, than so be it.  If that means the rover has to skip 
little Johnny's birthday party,  or continue operating in a 
thunderstorm, or whatever, in order to avoid even the  appearance 
of being a captive rover, then so be it. The lazy whiners would 
rather  warp the rules in their favor rather than play fair. They 
would rather hijack someone  else's time and money rather then 
spend their own.  

	Keep firmly in mind that the only reason there are not 
enough 'captive'  rovers to work every station that wants to work 
them is that the 'want' is not  anywhere near sufficient to result in 
actual amateur activity -- building stations and  training ops. 
Unfortunately, the 'want' is enough, however, to push vacuous bits  
around the Internet. These people would rather sit here on this off-
the-bands mailing  list and yammer that people who train and build 
rovers are not hams. BS. Look in  the mirror. 

	So now let us consider the second order effect: what next? 
Let us say we  somehow ban captive rovers -- not that anyone has 
devised a practicable scheme  to do so. What effect will this have 
on contest participation?  
	First, the motive for the big guns to build and train rovers 
will be greatly  diminished, as more effort will be expended for less 
reward, therefore less rover  construction. Further, some rovers 
will be forced by the rules to a level a  participation they are not 
willing to make, and thus drop out. After all, the rules  presently 
"encourage" non-captive rovers. That there are rovers that meet  
someone's definition of captive, it is because they voluntarily wish 
to contest that  way. Sure, the rovers who remain may then 
grudgingly make a few more contacts  with the complainers on this 
list, but that is not going to change the result in any  appreciable 
way. 

	How about a plan B? Let us stop wasting our time belly-
aching on this silly  mailing list. Heat up your soldering iron, and 
build some radios. Get off the fool  computer, go to a club meeting 
and give a presentation on VHF/UHF contesting.  Recruit some 
hams who have never been off 2.45GHz, and introduce them to 
some  real microwaves.  

	Unless someone can logically show that somehow 
discouraging contest  participation by banning "captive" rovers can 
paradoxically increase overall contest  participation, this whole 
"captive rover" discussion is pointless waste of time. 


		Best regards - Dave KD3NC