[CQ-Contest] Remote Site Contesting Rules

[Ron Notarius W3WN]

I think we're missing a small but key piece of information in this discussion:

Intent, or, WHY do you want to have a remote receiver or station?

If your intention is to operate in the event when you otherwise could not (such as someone in an antenna restricted area, or someone with a physical difficulty making it near impossible for them to travel, or work/family/etc. restrictions that don't prevent you from operating but do prevent you from taking the travel time), I don't have a problem of any sort with a remote station.  There are some technical problems to overcome -- latency for one -- and there may be some questions raised over your choice of stations, and so forth -- but the INTENT is not be deceptive, but to operate.

On the other hand:  If your intent is to expand the capabilities of a M/S M/2 M/M type station -- such as operating one or more bands (say, 160) from a remote site to avoid inter-station QRM, or to change to a remote station (such as jumping from US East Coast to West Coast) to take advantage of propagation shifts -- then I have  a problem, as the INTENT appears to be deceptive.

So, my suggestion is to update the rules as needed to accomodate those who operate a remote station, but make it clear that the intent and purpose of the rules is to be flexible enough to aid people in participating, not to leave the door open to those misusing the technologies involved for an unfair competitive advantage.

73, ron w3wn

---------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 07:31:03 -0800
From: "Eric Hilding" <dx35 at hilding.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Site Contesting Rules
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>

Kelly, VE4XT, wrote:

> I also see absolutely no reason why a ham running a KP4 station must be
> physically located in KP4 -- so long as he's not running the KP4 station but
> passing himself off as a VE4, for instance.

I checked with the ARRL Contest Manger last year about operating remotely in the ARRL DX Contest from KP2 via remote while still here in California.  "No problem".

Well, "THEE Problem" is that nasty thing called "Latency" (especially for 35WPM CW).  I finally got Wireless Internet here, but trying several routes, it's still between 150ms to over 200ms latency ;-(

For one local remote site location here, I can be at less than 5ms latency with point-to-point 5GHZ gear from AIRAYA ( http://www.airaya.com ).  It will take mucho $$$ for a solar power setup, however less than $100,000 to run landline electrical up to "Locust Peak" ;-(

FYI & 73...

Rick, K6VVA