If you think "the ability to build antennas that would not be available
in normal residential areas" is an unfair advantage, then W0AIH, K3LR,
KC1XX, etc. are all "unfair". What is a "normal residential area" anyway?
I think that objection is completely ridiculous.
If your concern is about operators using a station by remote control that
is located in another country, then you should limit your objection to that
point. There may be regulatory hurdles to such operations already. My guess
is that a lot of DXCC entities do not have as much freedom for remote and
auxillary station operation as those of us operating under FCC jurisdiction
have.
The potential of using multiple remote locations is a valid concern and
one that contest sponsors need to make sure is prohibited and communicated to
the contest community through rules clarifications, changes, or FAQs.
That said, when you iterated your objections, the first two were really
unrelated to remote operation per se, but about people having better station
locations because of remote operation.
FWIW, I have neither operated from DX nor operated a station remotely
myself.
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 03:37:56PM -0400, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>
> > So, you're grievance is not so much with remote stations as
> > with QTH envy? I guess you are against guest operators at
> > bigger/better located stations than their own, too?
>
> No, I don't have "QTH envy" nor do I have anything against
> guest operators who actually travel to the station they are
> operating. I do oppose stations in a location where the
> operator is not present. I would be as much against "guest
> operators by internet" - situations where a local in a DX
> QTH rents his station (and call) during a DX Contest to someone
> in the US/EU who is NOT LICENSED in the DX location and NEVER
> BEEN in the DX location.
>
> Such "DXpedition by wire" operations really bother me; I could
> even make a case that they are not legal because the operator
> is not licensed to operate in that country or the presence of
> a "control operator" makes such operations "multi-operator"
> at the minimum (or illegal third party communications).
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kenneth E. Harker [mailto:kenharker@kenharker.com]
> > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 2:45 PM
> > To: Joe Subich, W4TV
> > Cc: 'Michael Coslo'; 'cq-contest reflector'
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Contesting using remote stations
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 11:58:27AM -0400, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
> > >
> > > > Exactly what are the "unfair" advantages of a remote station? It
> > > > seems to me that there might be some significant
> > *disadvantages* to
> > > > remote contest operation.
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > So, you're grievance is not so much with remote stations as
> > with QTH envy? I guess you are against guest operators at
> > bigger/better located stations
> > than their own, too?
> >
> > --
> > Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
> > kenharker@kenharker.com
> > http://www.kenharker.com/
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
--
Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
kenharker@kenharker.com
http://www.kenharker.com/
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|