IMO, contesting is already "unfair". Geographic location is a key to high
scores, as is the topography around the station, the size and height of the
antennas, the quality of the radios, and the power of the amplifiers.
Human ability is also important, but winning requires more than just human
operating skill. Getting on the DXCC honor roll is sure a whole lot easier
with a good geographic location and station, but the biggest key to the
honor role seems to be longevity. It can take decades for those rare DX
locations to be put on the air.
WRTC seems to be the closest thing to a "fair" contest and even that has
station location variables.
It costs an awful lot of money (and usually a very willing wife) to buy a
good station location and build a good station or to fly to one for the
major contests. It's already a bit of a "rich man's game". Isn't that
true of nearly everything? Most sports are "rich man's sports". So is
politics and the stock market.
I agree with Jim Brown when he says that his goal is to improve on his
previous efforts. I do the same. Comparing my efforts on the West Coast
of USA, running a 3 el. Steppir at 55 feet to someone running a
super-station on the East Coast with stacked arrays on a hilltop is
pointless.
I'd gladly pay for access to a remote station if I could afford it. It
requires no less skill than to fly to a super-station for a major contest.
I fail to see the difference between operating the station remotely and
flying there to operate.
Unfortunately, one of these days I may be in a situation where remote
operation is my only option. Our next home move may very well be into an
antenna restricted sub-division. As much as I love having an antenna, I'm
definitely getting pretty tired of restricting myself to old houses built
prior to 1970.
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Patrick Greenlee
<patrick_g@windstream.net>wrote:
> While I'm not going to rent a station, I fail to see how the FCC rules are
> broken. Consider if you went to "RENT-ALL" and rented the components,
> transceiver, tower, and antenna. Whether or not the rental clerk, his boss,
> or the owner or stockholders are lisc hams is immaterial as they aren't
> doing any transmitting. So long as the equipment is operated within the
> rules no harm no foul.
>
> Irrespective of the commercial nature of the equipment rental/lease, the
> operator is responsible for the transmissions being IAW FCC rules and regs.
>
> When you buy equipment that is a monetary transaction. How is that
> different from renting/leasing. How is this materially different from a
> club station where users pool finances and put up "super stations?"
>
> This is like motocross. Try to campaign a bike on your own and whimper
> about the guys with corporate sponsors.
>
> What about if Icom and other corporate sponsors loaned or gave all the
> equipment to outfit a DXpedition, then what? Same deal but for a contest
> station. Where would you draw the line? Could operators mention they were
> getting their equipment for free from the nice sponsor folk? We all brag
> about our specific favorite equipment, right? What if it was to "pay back"
> the sponsor for the loan/gift used at the contest station or DXpedition?
>
> I fail to see where these super stations for hire violate any FCC rules or
> regs. I also fail to see any morality issues either. I also fail to be
> personally attracted to the idea of being a customer. I think this is a
> new, clever advance in creative hamming and deserves some new clever
> contest rules to level the playing field and or to cause the creation of
> WAC and WAS awards etc. endorsed for personal stations, club stations, "for
> hire" stations as well as QRP and QRO stations. I'd be the first to admit
> that a phased array of multiple huge antennas on multiple sky scraping
> towers is unfair competition for ther 100 or the 1 watt station with a
> salty noodle for an antenna.
>
> Andy Granatelli nearly won the Indianapolis 500 with a turbine powered
> car. Immediately the playing field was leveled to prevent turbine powered
> "rule beaters" from dominating the track. Similar could be done in this
> ham radio instance.
>
> Patrick AF5CK
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Gene Smar
> Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 7:19 PM
> To: Mike ; 'K8RI' ; towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Remote Ham Radio
>
> TT:
>
> When a local posting on this showed up here a few months ago, I
> protested that this service can't be legal. See below, especially
> 97.113(a)(2) and (3):
>
> "Sec. 97.113 Prohibited transmissions
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
> --------------------
>
> "(a) No amateur station shall transmit:
> "(1) Communications specifically prohibited elsewhere in this part;
>
> "(2) Communications for hire or for material compensation, direct or
> indirect, paid or promised, except as otherwise provided in these rules;
>
> "(3) Communications in which the station licensee or control operator has a
> pecuniary interest, including communications on behalf of an employer, with
> the following exceptions: ...."
>
> The exceptions are concerned with for-sale adverts on the air if this
> isn't the operator's line of work and a few others.
>
> IMHO, the station licensee leasing time on his super station for this
> purpose is in violation of this Section of the Rules. But that's just me.
>
> 73 de
>
> Gene Smar AD3F
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike" <noddy1211@comcast.net>
> To: "'K8RI'" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>; <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 7:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Remote Ham Radio
>
>
> Nope this is the USA monetary gain Trumps ethics:-)
>>
>> Seriously I think that rule applies to advertising.
>>
>> Mike/K6BR
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TowerTalk
>> [mailto:towertalk-bounces@**contesting.com<towertalk-bounces@contesting.com>]
>> On Behalf Of K8RI
>> Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 4:22 PM
>> To: towertalk@contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Remote Ham Radio
>>
>> On 8/2/2013 3:39 PM, Jim W7RY wrote:
>>
>>> At very impressive (high) prices!
>>> 73
>>> Jim W7RY
>>>
>>
>> Isn't it against the rules to make money or receive reimbursement for the
>> use of an Amateur Radio station?
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Roger (K8RI)
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: K7LXC@aol.com Sent: Friday, August
>>> 02,
>>> 2013 9:39 AM To: towertalk@contesting.com Subject: [TowerTalk] Remote
>>> Ham Radio Greetings, TowerTalkians --
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how I missed it but here is a new service for hams.
>>> It's a time-share of ham radio stations of some clout. Check it out
>>> at http://www.remotehamradio.com/**.
>>> Some impressive stations are available for your use.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Steve K7LXC
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> TowerTalk mailing list
>>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/towertalk<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> TowerTalk mailing list
>>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/towertalk<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/towertalk<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3209/6544 - Release Date: 08/01/13
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/towertalk<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk>
>>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
>
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/towertalk<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk>
> ______________________________**_________________
>
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/towertalk<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk>
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|