Paul,
Your response was disappointing because it ignored what I wrote
previously and your follow-up reply
(cited below) also ignored what I objected, to in detail. It was
obvious that you either didn't read my post or you did not
want to acknowledge and respond to what I wrote and respond and the
points that I laid out.
That is disappointing.
Then you cited "what matters" and what is irrelevant. Really? That's a
very arrogant response.
Did it occur to you that what matters to you is not the same thing that
matters to me, or to others?
The fact that a particular aspect of a rule matters to you doesn't mean
that everyone else agrees with you.
Control IMO is a strawman, a rationalization to avoid the uncomfortable
fact that REMOTE uses NON-AMATEUR
RADIO technology, something that was anathema to ALL contests at one
time. I have repeatedly written that I believe the use of REMOTE
is fine, but not in the "normal" Single Op category. I explained this
in detail, no need to explain it again here.
Then you completely ducked my question of why all the NON-AMATEUR RADIO
communications methods
that you are cited are not legal for confirmation of qso's, but REMOTE
is? You avoided that inconsistency
entirely.
I assumed that you would actually read my post before responding the
first time. Then it would be clear
to you what I was objecting to and why, and the conflict between what
you said was allowed and not allowed.
The issue was never about "Control", it was about AMATEUR vs.
NON-AMATEUR technology and the inconsistency
of the ARRL rules on that, as well as your own interpretation of same.
And it was NEVER about not counting REMOTE qsos, which you would have
understood had you read my post
before responding to it.
And NO, if you are using the internet to make your qso - which is what
REMOTE actually uses, then you
are using Amateur Radio PLUS the internet (NON-AMATEUR MEANS) to make
your qso. If you doubt that, then turn off your internet
and try to make that same qso. And when you can't then maybe you will
understand the distinction and why I feel that it is important
and relevant whether you feel that way or not.
Bob, KQ2M
On 2024-03-16 14:43, Paul Bourque wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|