[CQ-Contest] Remote Site Contesting Rules

[Mike Reagan]

Perhaps someone has already noted this:  Since the technology is available,
remote stations for M/M, M2, and M/S operations and remote receivers for all
of us are readily available...Cost would not be an issue since most of the
OPS at a Multi Multi have their own home stations complete with
radios,antennas, computers and internet connections..At a Multi/Multi with
10 Ops one could simply link one or more of the OPS home stations to the
location of the multi.......Perhaps some are already doing this...the
advantage for same band S&P would be worth the effort..as would the use of a
location with more favorable terrain to a particular direction...since all
the equipment is already in place the cost is close to zero...

Getting back to the rules ... I suggest we should find a place for all new
technology..that is what this hobby is all about..finding new, better and in
some cases just differing ways of communicating...

Mike Reagan
NI7T
Price, Utah
http://www.ni7t.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gerry Hull" <gerry at w1ve.com>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Site Contesting Rules


> This is a very interesting discussion.
>
> If one follows the 500-meter-circle rule, remote operation has always been
> allowed.
> Rich, N5ZC, has been doing it for quite a while.
>
> When, say, a W6 builds a super-station in MA or ME and remotes it from
> Southern California,
> people will complain that it is unfair.   Yes, it's unfair that the W6 can
> spend the, let's say, $100K, to
> build the remote station and others cannot.  People complain and fight
> pushing the state-of-the-art due to
> jealousy or to stay competitive with their own status quo.
>
> Let's take a real-world situation:
>
> Jeff, K1ZM, has built a world-class station in PEI; if Jeff decides he
does
> not want to drive/fly to PEI for a contest,
> and he had installed remote-control capabilities at his VY2ZM QTH, would
he
> be cheating/have an unfair advantage
> by controlling the station from NY?  I think not.  VY2ZM would still be a
> Canadian entry.
>
> (Knowing Jeff, he'll probably never do remote)
>
> Technology is going to allow us to do things in Amateur Radio that have
> never been done before.   Why not remote DXPeditions?   I can imagine a
> permanent, remote ham station on CY0 or CY9, sponsored by some ham club,
> that has security-controlled remote access over the internet.   What would
> be wrong with that?     How about using a Caribbean QTH for a non-major
> contest?  How about giving a physically-challenged ham, who cannot travel,
> the thrill of operating from a hot DXpedition location?
>
> Some will say that remote access will encourage cheating, by using an
> additional receiver on the local end of the control link.   Well, that is
> entirely possible.   However, like most rules in ham radio contesting, we
> operate by the honor system.   Cheaters are going to cheat no matter the
> technology.
>
> 73.
>
> -- 
> Gerry, W1VE/VE1RM
> Examine contest competition in real-time  - post and see scores at
> http://www.getscores.org!
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest