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@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@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|