> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> steve.root@culligan4water.com
> Sent: March 30, 2007 02:30
> To: Jim Neiger; vo1he@rac.ca; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Contesting
>
> >
> >If some are keen to "remote" in a contest, fine. But the
> rules should
> >stipulate that all the radios, antennas, and operators are
> within the
> >same contest multiplier entity: WAZ Zone, DXCC Country, State,
> >Province, etc, whichever is smaller.
> >
> >Jim Neiger N6TJ
>
> I don't know that this is necessarily a requirement. It's
> more important that the rules stipulate that you will be
> competing against other stations in the same geographic
> location as your remote station. In other words, if somebody
> in Wisconsin builds a remote station in New Hampshire, then
> he's competing with other stations in New Hampshire. This has
> to be true; if the actual location of the operator is
> irrelevant (as the remote-station enthusiasts insist) then
> only the location of the station matters. Other Wisconsin
> operators suffer no disadvantage since they aren't competing
> directly against the remote station, and New Hampshire
> operators (based on current state of the art) should be able
> to out perform a remote station.
> 73 Steve K0SR
So Jeff K1ZM and Ken K6LA will be happy if everyone decides to line the
coastline of PEI with remote stations as they'd now have some competition?
And what about the guys who live there with their tri-banders and wires? I
guess they'd still have the joy of shovelling snow.
How long do you think latency is going to be a problem? I'd say only a
matter of a year or so.
73 -- Paul VO1HE
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|