[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Control in Contests

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Control in Contests
From: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:15:50 -0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>

Paul, you've flogged this topic to death so many times and still always 
miss the point that the rest of us, as well as the various contest and 
awards sponsors, don't really care about the link between the OPERATORS 
... they only care about the link between the STATIONS.  You may not 
like that, but that's the reality of the situation.  The funny thing is 
that everyone, including you and including me, pretty much agrees that 
"the path of relevance" is defined by what the RF is doing.  If I am 
physically located in Arizona but operate a legally licensed remote 
station in Aruba that makes a contact with a station in Germany everyone 
agrees that the only allowable claim is for a contact between Aruba and 
Germany.  Your insistence that the RF needs to extend to the operator is 
purely arbitrary and without any foundation other than your own 
emotional bias.

Dave   AB7E

On 4/12/2012 9:42 AM, Paul O'Kane wrote:
> What's different about remote control is that it uses the internet 
> (typically) to replace RF in the signal path between the operators 
> concerned. That's what makes the QSO fundamentally different from 
> vanilla QSOs, using RF only. We're back to the difference between 
> hybrid QSOs and amateur-radio QSOs - and that's why remote control 
> entries should be classified separately. 

> 73, Paul EI5DI 
CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>