[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] Remote Contest Operating

To: "cq-contest@contesting.com" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Remote Contest Operating
From: "Roberts, Will" <Will.Roberts@pgnmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 15:27:50 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I am all for remote contest operation. As long as the RADIO part of this is 
done legally and within the contest rules, I don't see a downside. The up side 
is more contest participation and it allows those who are in antenna restricted 
areas to participate where they may not be able to otherwise.


Will AA4NC

Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 20:55:45 +0000
From: Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com<mailto:pokane@ei5di.com>>
To: cq-contest@contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] W7RM SS CW Operation on LiveATC
Message-ID: <509584D1.7090003@ei5di.com<509584D1.7090003@ei5di.com">mailto:509584D1.7090003@ei5di.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

On 03/11/2012 16:13, Tree wrote:

> What is unique about this operation is that the operator is on a
> business trip in Bangalore India.

It seems to me that remote-control contesting makes about as much sense as 
remote-control hunting.

It may involve advanced technology, it may be harder than the real thing - but 
that's missing the point.

Remote-control hunting is generally considered to be unethical, because it 
defies the principle of fair chase.  Contest sponsors might consider whether 
it's time to apply this principle to amateur radio.


Internet-hosted contesting is not smart, it's not clever and, most of all, it's 
not amateur-radio.
Why?  Because no "QSOs" are possible without 100% dependence on a public 
communications utility.

Paul EI5DI

CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [CQ-Contest] Remote Contest Operating, Roberts, Will <=