> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Gerry Hull
> Sent: March 17, 2007 00:47
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Site Contesting Rules
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> On 16 Mar 2007 17:30:49 -0000, dave@ka1n.cn <dave@ka1n.cn> wrote:
> >
> > This probably should be something for the contest committee
> to address.
> >
> > Due to politics and technology, contesting is changing. This is
> > inevitable
>
>
> I would say: "Due to politics, contesting is stagnant. Technology is
> trying to evolve contesting. This is inevitable", but that
> is a matter of opinion.
>
> Nevertheless, there are more fundamental questions involved,
> which strike at
> > the heart of amateur radio and contesting.
> >
> > Namely:
> >
> > 1) Must an operator have to contend with the same physical
> and legal
> > conditions of the location that he represents that he is located?
>
> It probably is physically possible to set up a remote
> station on CY9/0
> > right now. Usually, these locations take considerable
> effort, risk,
> > time, and expense to activate. This is why they are rare.
> But using
> > such a remote station in a contest would mean that the presence of
> > SOME person was on that island at one time is enough to allow any
> > operator to "contest" from such an location.
>
>
> Ah.. Now I understand... This is DXCC holy ground. Is
> operating a remote
> station the same as being there?
> I'd say that's for the DXCC boys to contend with. Let's
> hope that idea
> goes the way of the physical QSL card.
> (Not that I don't like cards -- it's the thought process).
>
>
> When an operator is physically present in a location, he must
> contend with
> > site-specific challenges. For example, they must 1) secure
> visas and
> > travel to that location; 2) acclimate him/herself to the local
> > cuisine; and 3) remain safe. The harder it is to do these
> things, the
> > more rare the mult. Remote contesting will drastically change the
> > equation. Not only can operators "instantly" travel to places that
> > take a long time to travel to, but they can be assured that their
> > "support" network of family and local business can supply them with
> > provisions. Also, operators would not longer have to account for
> > possible physical or political upheavals. If things get
> bad, they can just shut down their internet connection.
> >
> > Maybe a good analogy is the furor, some time ago, surrounding
> > internet-controlled sport hunting. As I understand it,
> many hunters
> > thought it was bad sportsmanship to have condemned animals released
> > into a controlled area and shot by a gun that was positioned and
> > "fired" by remote-control from anywhere in the world.
> >
> > 2) Maybe the 500-meter rule does inhibit some technological
> > advancements. For example, a contester with two
> non-contiguous pieces
> > of property (perhaps on opposite sides of a mountain or
> river within
> > the same
> > multiplier) might want to have a remote internet-connected receiver
> > that provides a constant audio stream to the main shack. This
> > probably does not drastically alter the spirit of contesting in any
> > major way, and should be viewed in the same way that
> wireless ethernet
> > or wireless keyboards might be.
>
>
> I think the 500-meter rule is EXTREMELY clear.. no tx/rx
> outside of 500m...
> the interconnection mechanism does not matter.
>
> That should preclude all the worries about M/S or M/M
> stations around a city or state, linked by the internet.
>
> However, humans cheat. It's human nature. Yeah sure,
> nobody breaks the
> 500m rule right now. (Oh, and nobody runs gas on 160m). There will
> always be ways to cheat. That is no reason to stop innovation.
> I bet back in the day when everyone used a regenerative rx,
> and they got their ass whipped by someone using a superhet,
> they felt they were
> cheated. Amateur Radio is a technology hobby that is
> centered around radio
> communication. We should not be afraid to mix other
> technology with the
> radio.
>
> Regarding my quote about $100K for a station on the east
> coast ... it was
> just to make the point about envy. With a fast broadband
> connection on
> both ends, a significant station could be built for little
> more than the cost of the radio station itself.
>
> Operating a station ANYWHERE in the world over the internet,
> as long as the radio on the other end of the wire is an
> Amateur Radio approved for operation in that entity (if
> required), and the remote operator is licensed to operate in
> that entity, then the entity should count as a contest point
> and/or multiplier. That's just my opinion, but I know it
> burns the ears of
> the DXCC folks, and will probably never happen.
>
> Those of us in the technical realm will continue to push the
> envelope, and hopefully we will move forward. I'm encouraged
> by the number of people who can "think outside the box".
>
> 73,
>
> Gerry, W1VE/VE1RM
> Examine contest competition in real-time - post and see
> scores at http://www.getscores.org !
No offense, Gerry, but you can't be serious! I have no problem with people
"thinking outside the box" when it comes to improving technology to make
things better. The SteppIR antenna is a case in point. But what you are
proposing here is tantamount to reducing amateur "radio" to a wired system
and if you think that is forward thinking, then you'll really have fun with
your wind-up or rotary dial landline telephone and your telegraph connection
to Mr Drucker's store.
To me, it has nothing to do with the DXCC desk or cheating.... it just
doesn't seem to be in keeping with the advancements of radio. We used to
pride ourselves on our ability to take a bunch of gear and set it up in a
field anywhere and provide communications. That was the basis for Field Day.
Now everyone gets in a snit if the Internet connection goes down and they
can't connect to the cluster. Just imagine a network wide failure in the
middle of a contest and everyone loses their connections. Oh, the horror!
Nope, like I said before, this is not what I got my licence for.
73 -- Paul VO1HE
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|