[CQ-Contest] Remote Contesting

[Jim Neiger]

Outstanding words and visions from Paul.  Because somebody CAN do it, does 
it follow that they SHOULD?  Self-serving logic to the maximum.

If some are keen to "remote" in a contest, fine.  But the rules should 
stipulate that all the radios, antennas, and operators are within the same 
contest multiplier entity: WAZ Zone, DXCC Country, State, Province, etc, 
whichever is smaller.

Jim Neiger   N6TJ


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey at nl.rogers.com>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Contesting


>
>
> <<<NB --- "you" and "your" as referenced in my little diatribe is the
> collective "you" and "your" and not you specifically.>>>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
>> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tom Taormina
>> Sent: March 28, 2007 23:09
>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Remote Contesting
>>
>> This is starting to sound like the discussions of 30 years
>> ago about packet that led to SO-A class entries.
>>
>
> And people still get confused as to what constitutes "assistance" so, if 
> you
> ask me, this issue hasn't been resolved yet. Why jump into another one?
>
>> Part of the future of our hobby is symbiosis with computers
>> and the Internet. I suggest that remote stations, and even
>> remote stations for hire, are going to be part of the
>> landscape of contesting within a few years. We had best look
>> forward to a new set of categories to accommodate SO, MS, M2,
>> MM remote operating. Think of how inventive we could get if
>> we made it a wide-open category, i.e., no geographic
>> boundaries on the remote locations! What a hoot that might be.
>> Imagine the rates you could have running a remote in EA9 from
>> an apartment in Sheboygan?
>>
>> Maybe it's just me, but I always look at what is and think
>> about what is possible. The status quo is for old fogies with
>> no vision.
>
> I have to take exception to this characterization as I am neither old nor 
> am
> I "Fogie"-ish. And my vision is perfect. I don't want the status quo. I
> would like to see someone invent a better mousetrap... not move the
> mousetrap and call it better.
>
> I am growing tired of having to defend my position against the Borg-like
> "Resistance is futile" view of technology and progress. I find it 
> extremely
> humourous that there is this push on to make radio, always known for its
> ability to transcend physical media in order to pass information, so 
> heavily
> reliant on a wired network. And this is called progress? That is funny to
> me.
>
> Inventive to me was the development of the SteppIR antenna. This took an
> already good thing and made it better. I fail to see how taking all your
> equipment, shipping it to a foreign country and operating it remotely
> benefits anyone but you.
>
> Some tried and true characteristics of amateur radio should never be 
> pushed
> aside in the name of technology or progress and, in my opinion, the main 
> one
> is that the operator is a key element in the operation and should be a 
> part
> of the station. When you remove the operator from the site, you open the
> door for removing the operator from the hobby. If you want to brag that 
> your
> equipment beat my equipment, feel free and if you're living in an 
> apartment
> in Sheboygan and the closest place you can set up a remote station is 
> Ceuta,
> then there's a problem here far greater than we realize.
>
> Some have argued that opening the door to remote operation will increase 
> the
> numbers of amateurs on the bands. Frankly, if they don't have the drive to
> set up a station as best they can now, then a glorified video game is not
> going to hold their attention for very long. Ultimately, only the truly
> interested will stick with the hobby. This hasn't changed as long as I've
> been a involved in the hobby.
>
> Having forward vision doesn't mean you won't trip on what's directly in
> front of you and fall on your face.
>
> 73 -- Paul VO1HE
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>