I have a large contest station in Jamaica, 6Y1V.
While I prefer to go there and operate M/S, M/2 or M/M with other
amateurs, it is not possible to put a team together for every contest.
It is a waste of a fantastic resource for the station to sit idle during
any contest.
I am making preparations to automate the entire station over the
Internet so that it can be used for remote operation for either casual
DX'ing or single operator contesting. I see no reason why amateurs,
myself or someone I permit access to the station, should not be allowed
to utilize the station to compete in any single operator category of any
contest from any remote location in the world, so long as the entire
operation is performed over a remote link and absolutely no antennas,
receivers, etc., outside of the 6Y1V premises are not utilized.
Operating the station remotely provides no advantage over going there
and operating the station on-site. In fact, as others have mentioned,
with latency and external control problems with certain equipment, there
are slight delays introduced that either reduce or completely inhibit
certain operations.
It is my plan to make the 6Y1V contest station a showcase remote
operation and to occasionally allow amateurs whom would otherwise have
no access to the station and opportunity to experience DX'ing and/or
contesting from the Caribbean.
Imagine...you could operate 6Y1V from the comfort of your living room.
What fun!
David ~ KY1V
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ron Notarius
W3WN
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 5:30 PM
To: cq-contest reflector
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Hunting in Africa
Hi Mike,
You make some very good points. And you're absolutely correct that
experimental stations should be permitted. I also hadn't considered
temporary medical conditions, like broken bones in any manner that
limits
mobility. But -- that's why I made some suggestions as a starting
point.
By NO means do I think these are the be-all end-all; far from it!
And no need to consult the Handicapper General... again, far from it!
I think we sometimes forget that there is a great diversity amongst the
ranks of all contesters and all amateurs, and that there is not and
never
will be a so-called "level playing field." All we can do is set up
reasonable rules to ensure that everyone can do the best that they're
able,
and take it from there.
After all, don't we all want the freedom of Harrison Bergeron, not the
tyranny of Diana Moon Glompers?
In any case, unless something new comes up, I'm done with this topic.
The bottom line is that the technology exists today to make remote
stations
not only possible but practical. And eventually, the latency issues
will be
solved or minimized. So, the choices are to ban the remote stations
(which
I don't favor), ignore them and pretend they're not there (which will
lead
to claims of unfairness and biases, so I don't favor that either), or
work
with their users to give them the same "fair" shot everyone else gets...
which I think is the best possible solution.
73, ron w3wn
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Michael Coslo
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 9:06 AM
To: cq-contest reflector
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Hunting in Africa
On Mar 19, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
>
> ...that those whose only choice is to operate a remote station or
> not at all -- can't? Is that what I'm reading here in all these
> back and forth bogus hunting analogies?
At the risk of adding some emotional content, but with an actual Ham
radio application, let me note what might be a good application for a
remote station.
Say there is a Ham who for some reason or another is not able to
make it to our mountaintop site. Broken leg, illness, disability, or
the like. With an internet connection, this Ham would be able to
operate our station from home.
Other reasons might be living in an RF sink area - we have a few of
those in central PA.
Another might be simply because the technology to remote an HF
station is pretty cool stuff.
>
> Look... this should be something really simple. I'll leave it to
> the psuedo- and wannabe-lawyers to figure out the precise,
> accurate, razor-thin wording, but why not just say something like:
>
> X. Remote Operating
> X.1. Remote operating of a receiver or transceiver is permitted
> when the following circumstances apply:
> X.1.a. The remote station is located within the same country or
> DXCC entity
At first I didn't like this one, but as a practical matter, on
further thought, it eliminates a lot of problems. It also helps to
eliminate one of the philosophical issues with people operating
completely out of their areas.
> X.1.b. The remote station is the normal operating station for the
> operator in question [this rules out rent-a-shacks, and permits
> someone traveling to set up his home station as a remote]
Well, that kind of rules out setting up a remote as an
experiment. I
think that anyone who wants to try a remote operation should have the
chance. Frankly, I suspect that once people give it a try, they won't
use it very often unless they have to.
> X.1.c. The remote station may be operated by one or more
> operators, but only one transmitter may be in use at any one time
I think the remote could be any class that the contest supports
> X.1.d. The physical remote station shall conform to the same
> contest rules for station configuration [ie, if the contest uses a
> 500 meter circle, the entire remote station must also fall within
> the same 500 meter circle]
Yup, Of corse it seems odd considering that the remote station makes
a huge radius with the operators QTH, but other than remote
operating, the station should conform to all other contest rules.
> X.1.e. A remote station shall use only one callsign during the
> contest.
Absolutely!
> X.1.f. Exceptions to any or all of these provisions will be at the
> discretion of the contest committee, and must be applied for in
> advance. Failure to request these exceptions ahead of time will
> automatically change the remote station's log entry into a check log.
> X.2 Remote stations not adhering to the restrictions noted in
> Point 1 above shall automatically have their log entry changed into
> a check log.
Pretty much a given here.
> (Don't like this version? It's the best I can do on short
> notice... if you've got something better in mind, let's hear it!)
Good thoughtful post, Ron. No animals were harmed in its production
either! ;^)
-73 de Mike N3LI -
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|