Hey Bob…
I tend to agree with you on remote operating, but I’m not I consider
Bluetooth the same. After all, isn’t BT just a short-range replacement for
a mic cable, headphone cable, or similar? Don’t you have to be on the
premises to use BT? Not sure why it would justify a new category.
U3 de Lee, AA4GA
On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 12:22 PM <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
|