Pete Smith N4ZR said:
>> The basic reason why I took such strong exception to the idea of pure
>> pay-to-play is that it seems to me part of a pernicious trend. Why go to the
>> trouble of learning all we do in the course of building a station? Why go
>> through the exhilarating experience of trying, and failing, and trying, and
>> eventually succeeding? Now you can just pay for air time.
>>Maybe I'm just getting old (actually I know I am), but when someone sets out
>>to make money this way I *do* hope they fail. Not as hams, or as people, but
>>as a business.
I’m usually QRX on here, but I just have to jump in and make a comment, Pete.
You are saying that you hope someone (a fellow ham) fails as a business when
his business is to trade his valuable time, sweat and engineering skills (not
to mention literally putting his life at risk building big towers and
installing antennas) for money so that other hams can make use of them.
Are you also saying that you hope that Array Solutions fails as a business?
And Top Ten Devices? And DX Engineering? And Optibeam? And Palstar? The
list goes on.
There are many business that have been created by hams. They all do the same
thing: They create product(s) that other hams can use, and they sell them. I
guess you feel that the hams who buy those manufactured products are “cheating”
by paying someone else to do the work of building components of their station.
So I guess that means that if I visited your station, I would find nothing but
homebrew gear, is that right? If so, my hat’s off to you – I congratulate you
for your dedication and knowledge. I know my limitations, and I am willing to
pay hard-earned money to someone else whose skills far exceed my own when it
comes to building components of a station, even if that is extended to be the
entire station.
If an operator is willing to take on all of the risks associated with remote
operation during a contest (network latency, something fries and you can’t swap
it out, something gets stuck and you can’t un-stick it, etc.), just so they can
get on the air and have fun in the contest, then by all means let’s welcome
them and encourage them to participate! It can easily be argued that a remote
station is at a DISadvantage compared to a manned station. I don’t see how you
can argue that having what essentially amounts to ultra-long cables for your
mic, key, and headphones provides any sort of advantage other than a geographic
one if the remote station is in a better QTH than your home. But if that
station wasn’t being operated remotely in the contest, it would probably be
manned, in which case the score it submits would probably be higher. And for
what reason would someone be opposed to a competitor’s use of technology, other
than out of fear that they would lose to that competitor, or that the
competitor has an unfair advantage? Again, I reiterate, in this case, the
argument is pointless, since a competitor using a remote station is actually at
a disadvantage, not at an advantage, in a contest situation. If you doubt
this, think back over your contest career and ask yourself how many times you
had to get out of the chair during a contest and unscrew a PL-259 inside your
shack, or go outside to fix or adjust an antenna. Those are things a remote
operator cannot do. That can be a fatal handicap if something goes wrong.
IMHO, the only limitation that should be placed on remote operation is that it
shouldn’t be allowed to count toward DXCC unless the remote station is within a
certain radius of your own home. And this opinion is coming from a guy who has
been opposed to the use of spotting networks and computer generated CW and SSB
since they came into existence. In other words, I am as “old fashioned” as it
gets, and yet I see NO issues whatsoever with remote contest operation.
73,
John
W2ID
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|