Joe, I don't know where you ever got such an idea. Of course you would have to
be licensed in the country where the TX is. It is, after all just remote
control, not magic, nor ultra national.
If I want to use a station by remote control in this country, both the station
and I have to be licensed. Whether it is covered under one license (mine)
because I own the remote station, or whether it is someone else's station, it
has to be licensed and so do I.
Somehow, I don't see a remote station on St. Paul, or Sable, what
infrastructure is there, for power, maintenance, etc.?
Sorry, I can't get very worked up over it, as long as all national and
international laws and contest regulations are followed.
I think it could be a good thing.
73, Gerry K8GT
---- "Joe Subich wrote:
=============
So you would have no problem if I operated a station on Sable
or St. Paul without ever being licensed in Canada (put aside
US/Canadian reciprocity for this discussion)? How about PJ4,
PJ2, FJ, etc. without being licensed in those countries? What
about IT9, EA8, EA9, ZD8? I wonder if the cables are still in
place to KH3, KH4, KH9?
I think such operations violate so many rules/laws/treaties
that they are absurd on their face even though they are
technically possible.
At the very least, the "control point" for any contest entry
should be required to be in the same "multiplier" (country,
state/province, section, county, oblast, etc.) as the station
being operated and the operator must be licensed to operate
in the jurisdiction of the transmitter.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ve4xt@mts.net [mailto:ve4xt@mts.net]
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 3:15 PM
> To: Joe Subich, W4TV; 'Michael Coslo'; 'cq-contest reflector'
> Subject: Re: Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations
>
>
>
> > The "unfair" advantages are: 1) the ability to build antennas that
> > that would not be available in normal residential areas, 2) the
> > ability to operate from geographically advantaged locations (e.g.,
> > rare zone, country, section) without being a resident or travel,
> > 3) the ability (although not legally) to use multiple receive
> > locations.
>
> Why is the ability to build bigger and better antennas when
> you can live at or travel to the site a fair
> advantage and the ability to build the same antennas when you
> can only travel there virtually unfair?
>
> I simply see no bone of contention with remote operation at
> all, provided: 1. The operator claims the point of origin of
> the RF as the location (so that a W0 can't use a station in
> Maine and pretend to still be a W0).
> 2. The point of origin of RF is the ONLY site for reception
> or transmission of RF. (So that a station in
> California remoting to a station in Maine can't use a local
> receiver to help him hear Asia.)
>
> The only possible explanations I can see for those
> complaining about remote stations is envy or turf
> protection or both. Contesting isn't, and shouldn't be, just
> about those with the means or life
> circumstances that permit rural acreages. It sounds kind of
> petty: "Well, if I had to spend $400k and
> give up my city job to move here to contest, than dammit, so
> does the other guy."
>
> 73, kelly
> ve4xt
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|