So what? Anyone who works a remote station would never know the
difference. They still have to fight the pileups, they still have to
navigate propagation, and they give/receive the exact same signal
report. A remote station would be transparent to 99.9% of the
participants in any given activity, and I wouldn't be surprised if
you've already worked a stateside remote station without ever knowing it.
On the flip side, if the operator on the DX end (yourself in this case)
prefers to physically travel to the distant location ... in order to
"have more fun" ... they can always choose to do so, although I fail to
understand how it is more difficult to set up a temporary station (rig,
antennas, power source) in a hotel than it is to set up a remote station
(rig, antennas, power source) ... temporary or otherwise ... anywhere
else. Possibly you can explain that for me.
And I really, really fail to see how WRTC makes any difference one way
or the other in this debate. You think it would be cheaper and easier
to organize and manage an event like that with participants spread out
all over the globe? Seriously??
On 4/13/2012 9:31 AM, Albert Crespo wrote:
> So, remote control is the same as just being there.
> Well, I propose to hire the guy that set up all the bank servers on Nauru
> (C21) to put up a ham station and hook it up to the Internet. Instead of the
> monumental task of trying to get to Nauru , and once there, finding a
> decent place to stay (there are only two hotels in the entire country ), I
> will ease into my easy chair at home and the world will line up to work the
> only C21.
> This is the new Radio Sport, according to the rules now in place.
> All that money and time spent for participants to go to WRTC to compete, all
> that nonsense can be avoided . The teams can stay at home, with a referee to
> supervise each team, and all the transmitters and receivers can be in a
> good radio location like Puerto Rico. What fun!
CQ-Contest mailing list