[UK-CONTEST] UK-CONTEST] Remote Control

[Don Beattie]

I've been watching this thread, and think we need to consider things a bit 
more broadly.

Personally I think that any plan to encourage innovation in the way that 
amateur radio operates is to be applauded. Innovate or die is an oft-quoted 
maxim, and it applies to us all as well ! If CQ want to offer the 
opportunity for people to experiment with remote control in contests, then 
good luck to them. I agree that it would not be a level playing field if 
such stations were ranged against "normal" stations in the results. But that 
is not what CQ is proposing.

I have another reason for encouraging remote control. As the range of 
electronics in use in the average home develops, I an see a situation 
developing where the only way some people can operate QRO on HF will be via 
remote control. I can even envisage the concept of a "time share" station , 
where a number of people who are blighted with local EMC problems share a 
remote station positioned on some distant hilltop. So remote control is to 
be encouraged, in my view. As long as the contest categorisation is such 
that "normal" stations and remote control multi-site megastations are 
separated, I see no problem.

FWIW

73

Don, G3BJ






----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roger Parsons" <ve3zi at yahoo.com>
To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] UK-CONTEST] Remote Control


>
>
> I obviously cannot agree with you Paul, and it seems to me that you have 
> shifted your ground somewhat. Earlier it seemed to be the evil internet 
> that stopped remote stations being 'proper amateur radio'. Now that I have 
> described one which does not involve any third party, it appears to be 
> remoteness itself that is a problem.
>
> Others have described some of the ways in which remote stations could be 
> used to cheat in contests. That seems to me to be beside the point - there 
> are lots of ways to cheat and all of them are exactly that.
>
> My station is not a repeater, it is a normal station that happens to have 
> its controls at my house and its radios and antennas at the remote site. 
> And I could use paper logging with no computer at either end if I felt so 
> inclined. It has no relationship to a broadcast situation - there is no 
> studio - and there is a receiver at the same site as the transmitter.
>
> I fail to see the distinction between:
>
> (a) A 'boy and his radio';
> (b) A one site station with the Alpha 87 in the next room (remember I'm in 
> Canada, but I can't afford one in any case);
> (c) A modern mobile rig with the front panel remote from the rest of the 
> radio;
> (d) An operator in the house with the equipment down the garden in a 
> shack - I know several UK stations are doing just that;
> (e) An operator at one location with the equipment at another location - 
> connected in any technically feasible manner.
>
> I can't see the distinction because there is no true distinction.
>
> 73 Roger
> VE3ZI/G3RBP
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest