How is this a disappointing response? Remote operation is allowed. What
matters is the contact is made between 2 stations, and all contact
information is exchanged via amateur radio between those 2 stations. The
method of control, whether you’re sitting in front of the radio, or
controlling it remotely is irrelevant.
I’m working on upgrading my station to be able to remotely control it from
my home office. At some point, I’ll be controlling the radio via my
wireless router. Are those contacts not counted?
If I chose to use the same protocol and control it over the internet, does
that change the fact that the information was exchanged between 2 stations
via amateur radio? Where I’m physically sitting controlling the radio
(local or remote) is irrelevant.
73,
Paul N1SFE
On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 10:15 AM <kq2m@kq2m.com> wrote:
>
> WOW Paul - what a truly disappointing response!
>
> First, the ARRL, when whomever decided unilaterally to treat remote the
> same as just
> using a keyer, they did so without ANY open discussion with the
> contesting community.
> It was simply included DE FACTO. No notice, no discussion, NOTHING that
> I ever saw.
>
> 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.
>
> Three, Rules are not like firmament even though some people like to act
> as though they are. A non-existent rule
> or badly written rule doesn't become better or more valid with time.
> Rules can and should be written or rewritten
> as needed, to codify and/or clarify the situation at hand, and as soon
> as possible. Indeed the BEST contests
> have rules that are made/changed AFTER OPEN discussion WITH THE CONTEST
> PARTICIPANTS and contest community!
>
> 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.
>
> And, NO, remote operation is NOT "like an extended mic cord". That's a
> rationalization used by
> people that want REMOTE to be treated the same as NON-REMOTE because
> they don't want to acknowledge the clear
> distinction between the two - which is that REMOTE operating REQUIRES
> the use of NON-AMATEUR RADIO means in order to
> make and confirm the contest qso's. NON-REMOTE operating does NOT
> require the use of NON-AMATEUR RADIO technology.
>
> Your example of non-allowance of "email, text message, phone call,
> carrier pigeon, smoke signal" etc. to confirm
> signal report or part of the exchange highlights EXACTLY what I am
> talking about. The ARRL is being INCONSISTENT
> in allowing the use NON-AMATEUR RADIO MEANS to make qso's (REMOTE) but
> NOT allowing the use NON-AMATEUR RADIO means to confirm them. That
> doesn't even make sense!
>
> 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
>
>
>
> On 2024-03-15 20:57, Paul Bourque wrote:
> > Control of the transmitter via remote control is allowed. Remote
> > operation is just like an extended mic cord. The contact is to be made
> > from one radio to another radio, regardless of the control method.
> > Would the contact not be allowed if you used a Bluetooth headset?.
> > Bluetooth isn’t amateur radio.
> >
> > Now your’e just nitpicking the rules, really??
> >
> > What the rule says is that you can’t confirm your signal report or
> > any part of the exchange via an email, text message, phone call,
> > carrier pigeon, smoke signal…. See rule OPRG.4 of the Dx Contest
> > rules
> >
> > -Paul
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 9:47 PM <kq2m@kq2m.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Paul,
> >>
> >> Not to change the subject but, if "All required elements of a
> >> contact must be exchanged via amateur radio.", then how do contacts
> >> made via remote qualify? Is the internet considered to be Amateur
> >> Radio?
> >>
> >> It seems to me that contacts made via remote - which requires the
> >> use of
> >> NON-Amateur Radio technology as a conduit for making those qso's -
> >> should be in a separate category because those NON-Amateur Radio
> >> means
> >> are essential to making those qso's.
> >>
> >> Bob, KQ2M
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|