[CQ-Contest] Remote contest operation

[John W]

Pete Smith N4ZR said:
>> The basic reason why I took such strong exception to the idea of pure pay-to-play is that it seems to me part of a pernicious trend. Why go to the trouble of learning all we do in the course of building a station? Why go through the exhilarating experience of trying, and failing, and trying, and eventually succeeding? Now you can just pay for air time. 
>>Maybe I'm just getting old (actually I know I am), but when someone sets out to make money this way I *do* hope they fail. Not as hams, or as people, but as a business.
 
I’m usually QRX on here, but I just have to jump in and make a comment, Pete.  You are saying that you hope someone (a fellow ham) fails as a business when his business is to trade his valuable time, sweat and engineering skills (not to mention literally putting his life at risk building big towers and installing antennas) for money so that other hams can make use of them.
 
Are you also saying that you hope that Array Solutions fails as a business?  And Top Ten Devices?  And DX Engineering?  And Optibeam?  And Palstar?  The list goes on.
 
There are many business that have been created by hams. They all do the same thing: They create product(s) that other hams can use, and they sell them. I guess you feel that the hams who buy those manufactured products are “cheating” by paying someone else to do the work of building components of their station.  So I guess that means that if I visited your station, I would find nothing but homebrew gear, is that right? If so, my hat’s off to you – I congratulate you for your dedication and knowledge. I know my limitations, and I am willing to pay hard-earned money to someone else whose skills far exceed my own when it comes to building components of a station, even if that is extended to be the entire station.
 
If an operator is willing to take on all of the risks associated with remote operation during a contest (network latency, something fries and you can’t swap it out, something gets stuck and you can’t un-stick it, etc.), just so they can get on the air and have fun in the contest, then by all means let’s welcome them and encourage them to participate! It can easily be argued that a remote station is at a DISadvantage compared to a manned station. I don’t see how you can argue that having what essentially amounts to ultra-long cables for your mic, key, and headphones provides any sort of advantage other than a geographic one if the remote station is in a better QTH than your home. But if that station wasn’t being operated remotely in the contest, it would probably be manned, in which case the score it submits would probably be higher. And for what reason would someone be opposed to a competitor’s use of technology, other than out of fear that they would lose to that competitor, or that the competitor has an unfair advantage?  Again, I reiterate, in this case, the argument is pointless, since a competitor using a remote station is actually at a disadvantage, not at an advantage, in a contest situation.  If you doubt this, think back over your contest career and ask yourself how many times you had to get out of the chair during a contest and unscrew a PL-259 inside your shack, or go outside to fix or adjust an antenna. Those are things a remote operator cannot do. That can be a fatal handicap if something goes wrong.
 
IMHO, the only limitation that should be placed on remote operation is that it shouldn’t be allowed to count toward DXCC unless the remote station is within a certain radius of your own home.  And this opinion is coming from a guy who has been opposed to the use of spotting networks and computer generated CW and SSB since they came into existence. In other words, I am as “old fashioned” as it gets, and yet I see NO issues whatsoever with remote contest operation. 
 
73,
 
John
W2ID