Joe Subich, W4TV w4tv at subich.com
Wed Mar 28 23:46:34 EST 2007


> Why?  We are talking about a remote station.  What difference 
> does it make if I am operating my station from Montana or the 
> MOON?  The station is located in Montana.  All transmitting and 
> receiving is done in Montana.  The received signal is just being 
> passed via some medium to where I am located.  The station owner 
> that has built a station for remote operation has expended
> a bunch of money to do this.  Now you want to require that he 
> jump on an airplane and fly to Aruba for every contest just so 
> that he is actually on the island?  
> This is another situation that would be almost impossible to police. 

Yes, I want the operator of a station in Aruba to be in Aruba.  Why? 
because DXCC rules require that that a DXCC operation actually be 
land based and in the country.  Accreditation of many of the "less 
common" entities actually require submission of passport and/or 
landing documents to show that the operator was "in country." 

when applied to contesting .... I don't want a Florida station 
remotely operating a station in a "quiet" location in Maine 
for ARRL 160 and submitting that score for the Florida Contest 
Group (control point was within the FCG "circle") or a New 
England station remotely operating as KP4 station in ARRL DX 
and submitting a score for YCCC (again, control point is in 
the YCCC "circle") or a California station remotely operating 
K3LR in Sweepstakes (if Tim doesn't have a multi effort) and 
submitting that score for NCCC.  

Similarly, I do not want to see multi-multi stations operated 
remotely by an all star team of operators scattered all over 
the world rather than making the effort (and expense) to be 
"on site."  All of these scenarios significantly change the 
nature of amateur radio. 

Would I deny someone who lives in a HOA controlled area or an 
urban apartment the opportunity to build an effective station 
and operate it remotely?  No, not if it is in the same entity 
(country/state/province/section/zone/etc.) as the control 
point.  That is not unreasonable or unduly restrictive. 

Someone argued earlier that broadcast stations have been using 
remote transmitters for years.  In nearly every case those 
transmitters have been "manned" (the transmitter operator has 
been at the transmitter site) and some stations have gone to 
extraordinary lengths to keep operators at the site.  Still, 
broadcasters place transmitter facilities where they are for 
technical reasons (coverage, availability of sufficient land, 
etc.) and studios where they are for operational reasons 
(access to newsmakers, accessibility to the public, etc.). 
Those decisions are usually made to satisfy FCC requirements 
that often make it impossible to locate both facilities at 
the same place.  None of those issues apply to amateur radio. 


   ... Joe, W4TV 

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list