Kelly Taylor ve4xt at mts.net
Mon Jun 25 17:51:14 EDT 2007

I'm with both Bills on this one.

As long as there is only one site, and the operator is only claiming the 
site of the actual RF generation as his location (a VE4 operating remotely 
to a KP4 site must compete as a KP4, not a VE4), I have no problem with the 
length of his control wires. If he's a KP4, he's not competing against me 
and I don't care that he's actually just across town.

The only reason I can see for opposing remote operation is envy: why does he 
get to play a KP4 station and I don't? The same argument could be used to 
invalidate guest operations: why does he get to fly to KP4 and play while I 
don't? It's not a good reason to oppose remote operation.

Using remote operation to gain advantages against your direct competitors 
(pretending to be a VE4 in a DX contest but using a remote station in Nfld., 
or using multiple remote sites (even using a local receiver)) would be 
wrong. THEN -- and only then -- it would be like using a repeater.

Otherwise, it's just like he's in KP4, without the hassle of having to go to 
KP4 (especially considering security these days).

73, kelly

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Parry" <BPARRY at RGV.RR.COM>
To: "'Bill Coleman'" <aa4lr at arrl.net>; "'Joe Subich, W4TV'" 
<w4tv at subich.com>
Cc: <nccc at contesting.com>; "'W0MU Mike Fatchett'" <w0mu at w0mu.com>; "'Eric 
Hilding'" <dx35 at hilding.com>; <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R REMOTE CONTESTING

>I agree with Bill....I don't particularly like it but I agree. I think the
> most important point he made was the last one. "The key behavior we're
> looking to prevent is the use of multiple receiving and transmitting 
> sites."
> This seems so obvious that we assume that this isn't or won't be a 
> problem.
> As the time passes, more and more will have the capability and ingenuity 
> to
> have multiple receiving sites. Just saying that it isn't allowed is really
> not enough. How would we know if someone was doing this? The receiving
> antenna is a passive device. It will certainly modify the propagation
> advantage that the east coast has in the DX contest and others have in the
> SS.
> Bill, W5VX
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:cq-contest-
>>bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill Coleman
>>Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 7:38 AM
>>To: Joe Subich, W4TV
>>Cc: nccc at contesting.com; 'Eric Hilding'; 'W0MU Mike Fatchett'; cq-
>>contest at contesting.com
>>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R REMOTE CONTESTING
>>On Mar 26, 2007, at 11:37 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>>> Remoting the control head is probably not the issue.  However,
>>> there is a greater point as to what constitutes the transmitter
>>> or receiver.  A line will have to be drawn and it is better to
>>> draw it now that quibble over the number of stages, what stages
>>> or what part of the DSP process are required for a transmitter
>>> at some future date.
>>Seems to me that as long as all the signal origination (transmitter)
>>and signal capture (receiver) points reside in a single 500m circle,
>>there's really no issue here. The results would be no different than
>>if someone had a physical transmitter and receiver(s) at the location.
>>The key behavior we're looking to prevent is the use of multiple
>>receiving and transmitting sites. That seems to be adequately
>>addressed by the current rules.
>>Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL        Mail: aa4lr at arrl.net
>>Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
>>             -- Wilbur Wright, 1901
>>CQ-Contest mailing list
>>CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list