[CQ-Contest] SO2R REMOTE CONTESTING

[Paul J. Piercey]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Kelly Taylor
> Sent: June 25, 2007 21:51
> To: Bill Parry; 'Bill Coleman'; '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
> 
> 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.
> 

Not to start this thread again but, as one who was quite vocally (typingly,
anyway) opposed to long distance remote stations, I have to disagree with
that comment, Kelly. I am more envious of the op who actually hauls his ass
and his gear to KP4 than I would ever be towards a guy who simply pretends
to have done that.


> 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
> ve4xt
> 

Anyway, as it is with all this stuff, if it CAN be done, it WILL be done and
there's not much that can be done about it. As long as the right people feel
they benefit from using any of these new technologies, they will be
incorporated into radiosport.

73 -- Paul VO1HE




> ----- 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
> >>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>