Bill,
>I guess that I have heard this argument one to many times. The idea
that
>because there is a microphone or wire attached to my radio, my radio is
the
>same as remote is just a silly extension of the facts.
I am not saying that it is the same as remote. My argument was with
Paul, when he claims it is NOT amateur radio and that I am not radio
amateur if I operate remote.
I have no problem with identifying as a remote station in the contest
logs. I do have problem with someone saying I have an advantage
operating remote versus onsite when I claim my score from the location
of the radios and antennas.
Now, if I operated 6Y1V from Kentucky and claimed to be in Kentucky,
that would be cheating, or at least not in the spirit of the contest.
>What makes a station remote is the distance from the
>person that is operating the station, not whether I have wires (short
or
>long) in my shack!
No argument here.
>If all stations are just different varieties or types of remote
stations,
>why do we need to call some stations remote!
I don't understand this comment. Not all stations are remote. I think
everyone is quite clear on the difference between remote and local.
Remote means the operator is not onsite.
>Remote stations are stations or parts of stations that are built and
operated at a location separated (by
>some distance) from the operator. The control of these stations can be
>wired or wireless themselves. Remember, these folks have a right to do
this,
>and experiment with this type of station as much as they want under our
>laws.
Thank you!
>My concern is not whether a person has the right to operate a remote
station
>in a contest.
Why wouldn't I have the right to operate it during a contest?
I have a license. I have been granted privileges to operate the station.
My license doesn't say only during non contest periods.
In my case, I even have a control operator onsite. So I would satisfy
all applicable laws.
>My concern is that if a person can do this, they can easily
>extend that technology to having multiple receiving sites.
Now this is where I take exception. Just because I could rob a bank,
doesn't mean that I am going to rob a bank.
I have vast amounts of Internet knowledge. In about 2 hours, I could
probably find 10 or 20 websites to fire off SQL injection attacks and
harvest thousands of credit cards.
Does this mean that I am going to do it? This statement is ludicrous! In
effect, you are saying that because I operate remote, I am probably
going to cheat. I take as much offense to that as I do Paul saying if I
operate remote I am no radio amateur.
If someone were to extend the technology to multiple receiving
locations, then they should declare it and be categorized as such so
that the "spirit of the competition" is retained.
>(I know that this is already clearly outside the rules.) I don't need a
license to locate
>remote receiving antennas in other countries. I would certainly have a
>distinct advantage if I had receiving antennas in propagation favorable
>locations to Europe and Japan.
What's your point? People COULD be doing this now and NOT operating
remote.
I COULD operate from my station in Jamaica and STILL have remote
receiving antennas in other locations.
You are mixing apples and oranges and making assumptions that because
someone uses a particular technology, they are "likely" to cheat.
HOGWASH!
>(I can certainly see a big multi adding a few
>of these to their arsenal.) Just like the "skimmer", how would you
catch
>something like that!
How do you catch bank robbers and Internet thieves?
Again, just because someone can do it, doesn't mean they are. I take
exception to any inference that accuses me of potentially cheating just
because I have the capability to cheat.
>I have basically decided in my mind (such that it is) that operating a
>remote station in a contest doesn't seem like such a problem.
Thank goodness, because it's likely to become common place.
>I guess that if something goes wrong at the remote location then you
are off the air. If
>you had someone at the remote location to reset the amp, unstick the
>rotator, reset the circuit breaker, etc, you would have to identify
yourself
>as multi!
I can't really comment on this. I am not clear on the rules of every
contest with regards to what is considered "operating", "technical
assistance" and plain old "assistance".
Let's examine some scenarios:
1) if your antenna froze and you don't climb towers and your neighbor
(ham or not) climbed the tower and unfroze it, are you now multi-op?
2) if your computer locks up and your whiz kid computer expert (ham or
not) fixes it, are you now multi-op?
3) if your wife prepares your meals and brings you coffee all night, are
you multi-op, or "Assisted"?
4) if you're ham buddies come over and help put up that new SteppIR just
before the contest, are you multi-op or "Assisted"?
When I read comments such as these, I always try to keep one thing in
mind...I will say it once more...
What is the spirit of the competition?
In my mind, unassisted means unassisted operator, at the microphone. No
packet, no skimmer, no remote antennas, no help from anyone...except
perhaps your lovely wife (friend, dog, whatever) bringing food and
beverage. I don't think it means you can't call your local electrician
if a breaker burns up during the contest, or have someone reset your
power at your remote location.
The spirit of the competition is to compete with like people on as
fairly as possible. WE all know this is extremely difficult in amateur
radio contesting.
Is it fair that I have 3/3 at 140'/70' on 40 meters and PJ2T has a
shortened 40m 2 el yagi at 105'?
Is it fair that KC1XX is in NH and K3LR in PA.
Is it fair PJ2T gets 3 points for USA and 6Y1V gets only 2 points in
CQWW?
Is it fair that CT1BOH is a great SO2R op and I can only manage one
radio?
I could go on and on.
What it really comes down to is human nature. Everyone wants to win.
Everyone wants an advantage. For some it's skill, for others it's money,
for some its charisma. Whatever it is, no one wants to have their
advantage leveled by change. Unfortunately, we live in a world of
change.
I for one, welcome change. Bring it on. It only enhances my being and
gives me new challenges.
Respectfully,
David ~ KY1V
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|