[POLL CLOSED] With 10 days to run, if you have not already voted please do so. Final result will be sent to IOTA HQ for their consideration.
[APRIL 16] With the help and input of a few esteemed IOTA chasers and activators, DX-World has been asked to run a poll with regards this topic because it is has created such interest.
Section B3.7 of the IOTA Programme Rules is the area in question and is circled – you can click the image to read the entire IOTA rules.
There’s two polls to this (one for IOTA Chasers & one for Activators, and not necessarily the “casual ham”), but also a defining question at the beginning to determine whether you really should vote or not. Basically, we’re looking for IOTA enthusiasts and participants to take part.
The first question is quite simply: Are you interested in IOTA? If yes, then carry on to the polls below. However, if you are holding back from joining or participating in the IOTA program, please leave a comment at the bottom of this webpage explaining why – it’s important to understand if there’s something that discourages or deters you from active participation.
- POLL 1 – for the CHASER
Should rule B3.7 be removed from IOTA Programme to allow wireless connection to a vessel and/or internet connection to another location during activation of an island, license permitting?
- NO (42%, 132 Votes)
- YES (58%, 182 Votes)
Total Voters: 314
Loading ...- POLL 2 – for the ACTIVATOR
Should rule B3.7 be removed from IOTA Programme to allow wireless connection to a vessel and/or internet connection to another location during activation of an island, license permitting?
- NO (44%, 91 Votes)
- YES (56%, 117 Votes)
Total Voters: 208
Loading ...As you can see the poll question is the exact same, but it’s very important to distinguish what a Chaser prefers compared to an Activator, hence the separate polls.
The poll is open until April 30th. IPs are logged to avoid repeat voting, and it’s kindly asked that really only IOTA enthusiasts take part. The result of the polls will be sent to IOTA Management with a time-defined response schedule which will be published on DX-World thereafter.
In the meantime, please share this topic and polling far and wide to gauge definitive feeling on this matter. Thanks !
[APRIL 13] The recent FO/AA7JV activation is both interesting and thought-provoking, especially when it comes to possible future activations of rare entities or difficult IOTA.
Yuri, N3QQ posted a comment given the above activity and is displayed below. We’d like your opinion on this issue, particularly when it comes to the IOTA rule (B3.7)
Contacts made using a radio, Internet or non-wire direct link from a land-to a sea-based station or from a sea-to a land-based station to facilitate or enhance signal transmission or reception will not count.
In other words, FO/AA7JV does not count for IOTA.
So, to Yuri’s comment published in full.
Personally, I’m very much for such technology and building a similar prototype. The problem statement is:
We need to ask IOTA chasers and activator’s opinion who makes/supports IOTA, regarding activation rules. The current edition of IOTA Rules is outdated and lagging in time. It is excellent “Rules” for UK operators; they live on the IOTA island, but supporting this program for several decades and operating from very difficult remote islands, my conclusion is deployment time and team safety is something that has to be seriously considered.
Proposal: Remove “B.S” about remote operations from IOTA island. B3.7 and everything around B3 portions. As long as the equipment/antenna is on the island, who really cares where the operator is? Does someone want to camp? No problem. Getting off from the island safely is always a problem. I would rather leave equipment on the island if the weather is bad than a human being.
Maybe need a letter to IOTA Ltd for consideration or an open discussion.
Open discussion it is. What do you think?
Totally agree with R7AL! And if it’s comfortable remote operation from the warm sofa, why not FT8 robot? It’s a lot more convenient!
Couldn’t care less. I took a 30 minute look at the rules and then said “screw this.” Way to many rules and nuances. And the QSL requirements? We’re not in the 20th any more. Just wouldn’t be fun for me.
Absolutely disagree!
IOTA is about traveling, adventure, raging seas, frosty nights in a tent, bears, crocodiles…
That’s why we are going to activate the islands. This is the unique IOTA spirit.
This is not for those who are looking for the easy ways, onboard the comfortable yacht with soft bed and air con -))
I really hope that IOTA Directors will not remove this rules.
Should operate from the actual IOTA island.
I voted YES as a chaser, but I think there should be a maximum limit of the distance between the operator and the remote equipment on the island.
I have a lot of friends voting and don’t want to cause a problem with them, however to me it sounds like
and bunch of operators just looking for an easier way to get on the honor roll. Of all the islands that I activated
it was an expedition and thrill doing it. Many problems but that was what made it exciting. I was the first to
activate Tillamook Rock which had to be from helicopter only. Maybe I’m old fashion but I can tell you I have
spent thousands of hours listening and searching for new IOTA’s. It’s been a joy for me and meeting all the IOTA
guys. I hope the home office don’t change what has been an excellent way to communicate with islands.
As a checkpoint for the USA and responsible for the 7,8,9,0 and Kl7 areas, I have been receiving a lot of emails about whether this Activation will or will not count. My only answer at this time is not to include the QSO in your submission. And then the ARRL through a wrench in the game by not calling it French Polynesia. Please share your concerns here and also with the board of directors for the IOTA program. They can be contacted at…info@iota-world.org….we can comment all we want here and on FB, but go right to the source to make your comments heard.
I think it is time to allow remote operations to count for IOTA. There are still a few questions to address such as whether the remote ops all need to have licences for the country that the island RIB station is located in. My interest is in hearing a signal from the island and being received by the equipment on the island. I don’t mind where the control op is located. I hope the technology works for SSB and CW though as I would not want FT8 to become the only mode available via RIB. As to whether the wildlife authorities will be happy, I rather doubt it. There will be less impact but they will still fret about fuel leaks, birds flying into the antennas, rats/mice being introduced from the landing vessel, noise disturbance, humans wandering around to erect and remove antennas, etc. Useful to have the same general rules for IOTA as DXCC to avoid confusion.
Thank you all for your comments!
Per Jean-Pierre’s F1HFW suggestion, Col will set up a poll next few days.
In order to have qualified responses, will set criteria of who can vote.
If you are not a stakeholder in the IOTA Program, please do not participate.
Stakeholder means current activator with plans for future activations and/or IOTA islands chaser.
73, Yuri N3QQ
Make it all the EASY WAY! Dont set up radio gear, no antenna, no radio, no operator… Yes , do all automatic,
check your internet connection and then go ahed.
I dont understand , where is the challenge?
vy 73 es good DX (??? ) de dl5mae Wolfgang
As long as someone physically goes to an island, sets up a station, and operates from that island, I think the spirit of IOTA is met.
If the station is operated part-time via wireless remote link from a boat offshore, for safety or to satisfy regulatory concerns about the environmental impact of overnighting on the island, I think the spirit of IOTA is also being met, with the advantage of facilitating an IOTA operation.
When we get to operators keying the island station via remote control over the internet from halfway around the world….I have mixed thoughts. Technologically, if you’re allowing remote control from a boat, or even a neighboring island….there isn’t really any difference from that and from someone operating while sitting in their home on the mainland. (Note: I do a decent amount of remote operating.)
That being said, activities like IOTA or state QSO parties have an inherent “go to the island/county/whatever….” element to the activity, and thus remote control is arguably contrary to the spirit of such things.
My preference would be to allow remote operating of temporary stations…but I’d be OK with an alternative of “remote operating is allowed, as long as it doesn’t traverse the public internet”
Not allowing these type of “remote” operations (even though the radio/antenna setup is clearly on the location) leads to paradoxical situations where QSOs with them do not count, but cheaters using remote stations all over the world can work any DXCC on any band at any time and no one even bats an eye, even though their operation is clearly illegal, not just fraudulent.
We’re in the 21st century. It’s time to shed off ancient rules and embrace this as a solution to otherwise inaccessible locations. It’s better to have a landing permit from environmental agencies for this than none at all. Half of the activity on the bands nowadays consists of computers talking to each other anyway, so comparing activations from 50 years ago to today is silly.
Who refueled the generators, and how?
It’s certainly something we can set up.
That’s great.
Stations are on the island.. That is the main goal.
For me, no problem..
surprises to receive LoTW confirmation with FO/M for all QSO as DXCC and not FO.
I think a vote would be nice: for or against remote in IOTA or DX? there should be a lot of voters. 73 Jean-Pierre, F1HFW
If Rules do not go with technology it can lead to some realy ridiculous results:
Lets look at some (partly hypothetical) scenarios
AA7JV and KN4EEI mount an IOTA expedition to Tikehau Atoll OC-066
3 stations, antennas generators are on the island
Case 1
They roll out 1000 feet of CAT cable to the boat through the shallow water.
Subcase A: They operate one island station with full control in SSB/CW through the CAT Cable Link using a Maestro Console on the boat
Result: IOTA rules followed = valid IOTA operation
Subcase B: They operate another island station with full control in FT8 through the CAT Cable link by mouse-clicks in the WSJT-x screen of an FT8 dedicated PC on the boat.
Result: IOTA rules followed = valid IOTA operation
Subcase C: Through an internet-link via satellite an external operator in the US connects to the boat and performs the same mouse-clicks as under Subcase B above using Remote Deslktop or Teamviewer
Result: IOTA rule B.3.7 violated = Invalid IOTA operation
Subcase D: As under Subcase C above. However, the external OP is W1xyz, who happens to spend his holidays in a Resort on Rangiora, which is the next Atoll in OC-066. W1xyz has Teamviewer installed on his smartphone and can thus control WSJT-x on the FT8 dedicated PC on the boat.
Result: IOTA rule B.3.9 applies = valid IOTA operation
Case 2
A shark damages the CAT cable. Fortunately a UHF link can be used as a fall-back.
Subcases A and B now violate IOTA rule B.3.7 an the operation becomes invalid.
Operation under Subcase D remains a valid operation under IOTA rule B.3.9
Food for thought ???
With tongue in cheek
73 de Wolf, DK1FW
re: DXCC: Opening a door you may not be able to shut? For example: let’s say the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is approached with a RIB proposal for a rare dxcc they administer. They approve. Operation succeeds. The USF&G then decides this will be the only type of operation they will approve going forward.
Is that what the dxcc community wants?
IOTA = no remote outside island
FT8/4 = separate DXCC and IOTA
EASY
I think it is time for the reconsideration of IOTA on several levels. Would be nice to see the activity increase. Allowing a station to be set up on the island and operate it remotely is not an easy task in itself. Imagine if we had to take spark radios to IOTA’s or some of the boat anchors of years gone by. Times change and challenges change.
Some scenarios with remote technology:
Operator and remote station in the same DXCC entity (same for a IOTA entity)
Operator and remote station in different DXCC entities (for ex., OP on a business trip in HB9, connects remotely to the home station in DL, otherwise would miss a DXpedition)
2 Operators on a DXpedition in a rare DXCC entity, one of them connects via satellite/internet to own station at home to work his DXpedition buddy sitting beside him in that rare entity. OP activates this entity, but is still missing it for his/her own home call-sign.
1 Operator on a DXpedition in a semi-rare DXCC entity with Internet connectivity, OP makes a QSO with his/her home station by remote connection (2 different antenna locations in 2 different entities, but 1 OP for the QSO).
Station set up in a semi-rare or rare DXCC entity, but run from somebody on a ship (person located in a none-entity area).
Station set up in a semi-rare or rare DXCC entity, but run from somebody in a shack 5,000 miles away (same as the HB9 – DL example above).
Station set up by a logistic company in a semi-rare or rare DXCC entity, license permissions would allow a kind of QSO self-service to work that station remotely by anybody in the world via web frontend (like Web SDR) (QSO can be made entirely by oneself). If only the line between 2 antenna positions is the criterion for validity for the award, then only 1 OP would be needed to make a QSO beween these 2 antenna positions, provided that license regulations permit this.
From a technical point of view, all this is feasible, and from the line of argumentation, you will never find any point to say “stop”. For some awards it would make sense to define that remote connections should only count when OP and station are both (!) located in one and the same DXCC or IOTA entity. This would imply, for ex., no validity of contacts from DL while being on a business trip in HB9, and no validity when OP is located on a ship. However, if you decide to restrict the validity of contacts in this way, there is no proof that people really adhere to this and do not “cheat” by using remote conectivity. It could be made transparent on the DXpedition side, but not on the other end of the QSO.
Technology enables and “allows” a lot of things, but in how far it does make sense in certain contexts, is a different question. So, for IOTA (DXCC), the decisive point will be whether to further insist on the geographical position of the operator or whether to base the validity of a contact on the geographical antenna postion only and decouple it from the operator’s position. And exactly here opinions differ. To choose an extreme example: To have made a personal QSO with Neil Armstrong while he was on the moon via VHF is something different than to “have a QSO” with a remotely controlled robot tationon the moon operated by somebody sitting in the control station on earth. Well in both cases it is a contact with the moon, but is it really the same?
Back in 2016 I emailed the IOTA general manager to seek clarification on various aspects of “remote” operating. This was before we were all checking our FT8 screens while out and about from our smart phones and pressing “TX”!
I had a different set of questions and scenarios than now, but it may give you a flavor of the sort of challenges ahead with rule changes in IOTA.
I was unsure if I should tick the box “I use a remote station” on my profile (as stated in the rules for some far from clear situations). The reply suggested I should state I was operating remotely in my application even if sat next door baby sitting with a laptop, controlling my shack “through the wall”. At the time to be singled out in an application as operating remotely in such a situation seem bizarre to me.
The reply suggested, I was pushing the envelope too far with other scenarios presented and the committee needed to be considerate towards the vision Geoff Watts had, when setting up the program in the 1960s , along with all those operators listed in the performance tables who had achieved their scores under the current rules. I was quickly “shut down”.
Move on 7 yrs ( a life time in technology), but if the same statement still holds true, that’s your 1st challenge to overcome.
GL
Fully agree with this proposal. Environmental restrictions are growing and growing and RIB is a now feasable technology helping to reduce the environmental impacts of an dx-pedition. Like all remote operations, it may not be fully automated and all radio-equipment including antennas has to be on the island.
I worked FO/AA7JV on several bands CW FT8 with great enthusiasm.
There were indeed bilateral radio link between our antennas and their antennas, were well on the island
I already have credit for OC-066 however I would find it unfortunate that this activity does not count for the IOTA program
Where is the cheating? The transceiver, the antennas were well on the island
There was indeed human intervention to come to the island to install all this
The only difference: the operator is no longer on the island at the time of contact
I have a lot of respect for those responsible for the IOTA program
At a time of ecological concerns which notably risk restricting future authorisations,
without forgetting the other economic considerations as well, I believe that it would be time to review certain rules
Thank you
73 Phil F6FHO
I agree with Yuri. Efforts from DX-Peditions (Polar, antarctica ) in the past, would have been in vain . They are the real heros.
Many HAM-s today operate remote stations to escape noise or a bad QTH. Indeed, it is impossible to tell who operates remote and they all get credits when they work IOTA. It would be logical to apply the same to the island-end of the contact. DXCC allows it. 73, George, AA7JV
I always wondered what happened to the Luddites…. There is NO valid reason to not allow remote operation in any of amateur radios awards program.
I am in 100% full agreement with the proposal, and that it be effective retroactively to 1 January 2023.
Rick – K 6 V V A * The Locust
IOTA Marathon DIAMOND Activator
Jean-Pierre,
When we are on the island we are not informed about how another station is operating. Maybe from a retirement home using remote because of health/age and inability to maintain antenna systems.
If we use the same logic, should be no value to us contacting him/her?
Ray,
In the past, your phone was connected by the wire to the wall (sounds like an IOTA Rule?). Now I bet you can check email and talk to relatives from any place where cellular service is available. In the past, everyone had to make an “insurance QSO” to be sure he/she is in the log. Now almost instantly for many DXpeditions who invest in technology and have skills, you can see if contact was made. Saving the most important resource -TIME on both ends.
Why DXCC Advisory Committee had some balls and changed the rules without regard to past operations?
Common Sense.
73,
Yuri N3QQ
If they take the time to set up all the gear in antennas on that island and then operate it a short distance away remotely like these guys AA7JV have. I think it should still count and it could also lead to more DX expeditions were safety has to be put first when working in very difficult conditions such as Rockwall which was mentioned and also Bouvier Island.
Hello, I think that the DX hunter must be informed if he makes contact with a DX remotely or not. So he can choose to make contact or not. I will not make contact with a DX remotely, for me this contact does not have the same value. It’s my choice. I regularly contact friends who are remote and I find that normal. But it’s not DX. That’s my opinion, those who don’t think like me I respect them.
Let’s stay united it’s only a hobby, this subject should not upset us. 73 qro. Jean-Pierre, F1HFW
This type of operation should not COUNT, because those who activated in the past where not able to do so . The same goes for that FT8 type of operation.
Well, remote technology can also lead to funny situations. Being proud to have made a QSO with a rare IOTA pinnacle in the ocean. although nobody was really on it at that time, for safety reasons. Sounds like a sketch by late comedian Dave Allen.
This could potentially be a great solution for Rockall if that kind of remote operating were approved for IOTA.
Agree 100%. The “Old Timers” complain that “these new kids” have it too easy (well, this OT doesn’t) with all the new technology, like it’s a bad thing.
Why SHOULDN’T hams take advantage of technology that makes it easier (and SAFER) to make contacts?? Programs like IOTA that needlessly discriminate against advanced technology need to either grow up or stop talking.
Absolutely agree with Yuri ! Also – this should apply to other DX world programs, including DXCC, etc.!