Whatever gave you the idea that SOTA was a democracy? Read the GR, 3.11.1.7.
In any case, the issue is too complex for a simple yes/no poll. More and more urban chasers are faced with impossible noise levels. The no-sayers are saying tough luck, get out of ham radio - but how many chasers can we afford to lose? Do we want chasing to be just the preserve of an elite who live in the countryside or do we want to include city dwellers with impossible noise levels? Can we devise rules to prevent tourism, and if so how will we know who is doing it?
As I see it, there is a huge difference between a chaser who solves a severe noise pollution issue by using a single nearby remote SDR and a chaser that switches from web SDR to web SDR until he finds one that is hearing the activation, and then uses high power to bag the chase. I call that latter case web SDR tourism and do not support it.
I think the question is poorly worded. SDR as in âSoftware Defined Radioâ is a receiver architecture. Many of the newer radios follow this design that is different from the classical superheterodyne (Superhet) receiver. There is nothing bad about it.
What you are referring to are web based and remotely accesible receivers, which could be SDR but also conventional superhet designs.
Given the ambiguity what the poll is about I will refrain from voting.
My opinion is the transmitter and receiver should be in the same physical area. Or in other words, itâs fine if you use a fully remote station (as long as you comply with remote operating regulations & use the appropriate call sign) but if you use a remote receiver it shouldnât count.
I agree, but the next step is to allow remote transceivers. Many chasers with high local noise may also live with antenna restrictions preventing them from participating because they canât radiate a decent signal. Should they be allowed to use remote transceivers? If so, how many? One, two, three, unlimited? Local, same country, same continent? Would the receiver and transmitter even need to be at the same location? Would the operators need to prove their lack of suitable home QTH conditions?
We can come up with a host of reasons why remote receivers and/or transceivers should or shouldnât be allowed and this will inevitably bring us to the conclusion that there is no fair solution. No matter the decision, some of us will feel that others are given an unfair advantage.
Well, life isnât fair and we have to play with the cards weâve been dealt. There is a SOTA op who lives about 20 miles from me who has a nice tower and beam antenna. Often I hear him working SOTA stations that I canât even hear. Is that fair? Should I be given an equal antenna? Should I be allowed a remote receiver to even things out? Of course not.
If remote receivers and/or transmitters are allowed, the next step would be remote activations. Can you imagine the discussions weâd have over this?
My vote (if I had one) would be to keep the receiver, transmitter and operator in the same location.
Just because my answers were in a different order and format to your questions doesnât mean I didnât answer.
OK you may not like the answers but to then suggest I am a troll is over the top. Did you look at the context in which I responded initially?
Trolls hide under bridges and ambush the innocent. Iâm not hiding, there are few innocents on this forum and Iâm not trying to ambush anyone.
Play the ball, not the man.
If the MT condones the use of remote stations and remote SDRs for chasing then say so clearly and we are done. Fence sitting gives everyone a sore butt.
Having operated a cross band relay in the past the solution was easy. From Home I was G4VFL and from the cross band site I was G4VFL/A. The both way transmission was to the same cross band site location.
The problem in this discussion is it appears that the Rx for the chaser has a different path to the Tx.
My view it that remote operation is a good thing, but the âOver the Airâ path should be bothway âSummit to the remote siteâ. Ideally the remote site should be ran by the licensee as a true remote and not a shared resource.
In extreme, this would remove the possibility of placing a VHF remote on Tristan da Cunha and when someone finally get to the summit of Queen Maryâs Peak they are deluged with 2m FM 59/59 QSOs because the Tristan da Cunha licensing authority has issued virtual visitor calls like postage stamps to increase their revenue.
Anyhow the one third of the world problem goes away if we activate using QO-100, you only need a Satellite Dish at home to chase. The summit station may be in a bit of sweat carrying their kit but no doubt there will be competition of make a sub 1kg portable sat rig.
Placing a hard hat on head before pressing âReplyâ
This would require a fundamental change to the GR, as in 3.7.1.4 âThe operating position must be within the activation zoneâŚThe operating position is taken to be the position of the operator.â Chasers using a remote receiver do not change the fundamental nature of SOTA, major changes to the activator rules do change the fundamental nature of SOTA. Its the activation that defines SOTA.
The reality is that at this time the use of a remote receiver for chasing is NOT against the GR. At this time, then, the MT condones the use of a remote receiver by default. This may change in the future after experience of any problems arising and completion of MT discussions. As far as I am concerned, and I am just one vote in the MT, a distaste for using a remote receiver or station for chasing is not the same as it presenting an actual problem for SOTA.
I was rather tongue in cheek in talking about remote activations.
We may have different views on the definition of âfundamental nature of SOTAâ. My definition doesnât include the use remote receivers to allow me to contact stations that I canât hear in my present location. Doing so takes some of the fun and challenge out of chasing as propagation is no longer as important. What fun is it to log half of a contact? The activator heard me, but I couldnât hear him.
Maybe we should change the rules to allow activators to log any call they hear. They wouldnât even need to reply, just keep a log of the calls. For these âcontactsâ the chasers would get half credit for the summit.
I think you missed the point, Mike. You can of course choose not to work chasers using a remote receiver, but how do you know that they are using a remote receiver? It would need a provision in the GR that either the chaser states that he is using a remote receiver or that he should be listed in the database as using a remote receiver, and when activating you are not in a good position to consult the database.
This has been considered. One option discussed is that chaser plagued with overwhelming local noise could nominate one remote receiver for use, and the location of that one remote receiver could be subject to limitations. It could be in the same DXCC entity, as required in DXCC rules IIRC, or it could be in the same Association area as the chaser, or it could be within a given maximum distance from the chaser. It would be desirable that it should be located closely enough to the chaser to make it a reasonable assumption that it would have similar propagation conditions to those the chaser would experience if there was no local noise. One option discussed was to adopt the same limitations as those adopted by IOTA.
The activator is hearing the chaser directly. The activators report to the chaser is received on the receiver that the chaser is using, it just doesnât happen to be on his desk. So it doesnât impact the activator, and as for the chaser - if it is a choice between using a remote receiver or giving up chasing or even ham radio, what choice would YOU make, and why would you wish to impose your choice on others?
I really would prefer to operate in the traditional manner, but my noise level on the lower bands has crept up to S8. If it eventually reaches S9, which seems inevitable, I will be faced with the choice of either giving up ham radio or using a remote receiver. My choice will be just that, MY choice. I donât seek to force that choice on you, whatever it turns out to be. And if my decision - MY decision - is to use a web SDR, I will choose the one nearest to me and stick with it.