Richard Thorne rmthorne at suddenlink.net
Wed Mar 28 06:29:35 EST 2007


I don't think the rule makers need to address remote ops.  Heres why in 
two simple points:

1 - The FCC has a rule on remote stations and how they can operate
2 - The contest rule makers have addressed how stations can be used, ie 
the 500m rule.  Some of the rules even state no remote receivers.

The term remote has everyone in a big frizzy. Some of this stuff (remote 
receivers for example) has and always could be a problem.  If someone 
wants to cheat they are going to cheat, theres nothing you and I can do 
about it.  For example a station  could run 1500 watts but claim to be a 
low power entrant, etc, etc.

Rich - N5ZC

W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
> Rich and all,
> This is obviously a wave of the future just like SO2R but different.  The
> hobby is not in a position to start excluding anyone from contests.  The
> technology today does not allow one to be very competitive while operating
> remotely.  If I can build a station on some remote island and operate from
> home using the internet, satellite or whatever might be down the road why
> not?  The transmitting and receiving is all happening on that island.
> The big issue to me,  which there is no way to police, is the use of remote
> receivers, which there are plenty.  It sure would have been nice to find a
> clear spot on a EU receiver this last weekend instead of hoping the one I
> picked might be clear or using a receiver on the east coast to listen to my
> run frequency and picking off 2nd/3rd layer stations that were just over my
> noise.
> The internet and remote stations might just be the ticket to get more folks
> interested in ham radio.  Especially the younger generation living on city
> and restricted developments.
> I would agree that the contest sponsors should be addressing this.
> Mike W0MU
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Richard Thorne
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:56 PM
> To: Joe Subich, W4TV
> Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com; 'Eric Hilding'
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R REMOTE CONTESTING
> Joe, W4TV, this note is not directed towards you, but you have, as well as a
> few others have struck a cord with me, ie the operator should be in the 500m
> circle.
> OK folks, as one who has put a lot of time and effort into building a
> reliable remote station for dxing and contesting, I'm starting to take this
> personal.  Some of you are leaning towards rule changes that would exclude
> my operating, not gonna happen on my watch.
> I haven't heard one single argument why I shouldn't operate remote be it
> 7 miles up the road from my home, like I currently do, or a station in
> Italy, which can easily be done.  Sounds more like, if I can't put up a
> decent antenna and be competitive, either can you.
> If the transmitter and receiver and antennas are within a 500m circle,
> they're in a 500m circle. Period.  Don't give me the lame "but your not 
> there" stuff.    I guarantee you I've put just as much work, if not 
> more, in my station than you have in yours, due to the technological hurdles
> I have had to jump.  
> This lame argument against remote operations,  ranks right up there with the
> past arguments that only station owners should operate their own stations
> and not have guest ops, because the guest op doesn't have a station. 
> And Joe, don't take this personal, even though I am, but if I have to be
> there, I guess theres no sense in having my Microham band decoder in line
> for auto antenna switching.  Heck since I'd be in front of the radio I could
> make the simple arm movement to manually change my old heath kit antenna
> switch ;-) .  Or there would be no sense in having my Idiom press rs-232
> rotor control, I'd be there to turn the rotor. 
> So in summary, if some one can put a remote station on Aruba and operate it
> from home in the USA, more power to them. 
> And for the record I'm not working you the person, I'm working your
> transmitter location for points, a multiplier or a DXCC entity.  I could
> careless where your sitting.
> Flame suite on, but you best have yours on too.
> Rich - N5ZC
> Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>> Rick,
>>> However, "in an abundance of caution" I personally want to get a 
>>> firm, iron-clad answer to this from the Contest Sponsors.
>> Like you, I would want a firm ruling from the contest sponsors and a 
>> decision on what constitutes "all equipment" particularly as 
>> technology has the potential to change the nature of the transceiver 
>> as we currently know it.
>> My personal prejudices are that the operator should also be within the 
>> "circle" but that may not be practical for some people.  However, in 
>> any case, the operator should be within the same entity (or contest 
>> multiplier).  Thus an operator in the US should not be permitted to 
>> run a DX contest remotely from the Caribbean or other "DX" location 
>> ... an operator in Florida should not do Sweepstakes remotely from VY1 
>> ... even an operator in Ohio should not contest remotely from WV.
>> Still, those "political" issues are separate from the technology 
>> questions.
>> 73,
>>    ... Joe, W4TV
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list