[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 Richard Thorne
> Sent: March 28, 2007 00:56
> 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.
> 

Within reason. As I have stated on numerous occasions, it's a question of
necessity over desire. If you can't set up a station at your house but can
set one up a few miles away, then go for it. No one NEEDS to set up a
station in Aruba because they live in a CC&R neighbourhood.

> 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.
> 

See above. 

> 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.
> 

Actually, it sounds more like "Because I can, I will... and the rest be
damned". No one is begrudging you a station that conforms to your situation.
You just don't have to overdo it. Conversely, I haven't heard on compelling
argument why setting up a station in a foreign country should be permitted
simply because it can be done but is currently not advanced enough to
compete. Eventually it will be so that point will be moot. 

> 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.  
> 

Again, this smacks of roboticization (?) in extracting the operator from the
definition of "station". This is fundamentally what I oppose.

> 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. 
> 

Yes, someone can. But SHOULD they. Really, what is the ultimate purpose?

> 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.
> 

This is the mentality that seems to be currently proliferating. This wasn't
the case until contests for points and entities for awards became a main
factor of amateur radio. Now it's to the point where "as long as I get the
points or the mults or the country counter, I don't care about anything
else". This is why I am defending my position on this so strenuously. To me,
it's all about contacting people in different places. If this ambivilence
towards the operator and where he is located is allowed to flourish
unchecked, then I feel that amateur radio as it was and is will be gone and
it will be a hobby of R/C enthusiasts.

That's all I can say, as lame as you feel it is.


73 -- Paul VO1HE



 

> 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
>