With the term "remote airport" I meant an airport which utilises a remote tower operation, at the moment the only one I know of which is operational is Örnsköldsvik in Sweden. Although I have heard that LFV are also planning to introduce remote towers at other airfields, as I recall Linköping being one.
I don't know, but it is reasonable to expect a controller to remain current on say two (and I believe there are examples of people who have been current on three) sector groups in an area center. I have no area experience but I would assume they are different in a similar way that airfields are different. However they've always had the advantage of having the same equipment, something airfields have not, at least until now.
Yes there are many issues here, and I'm sure many more will appear if (when?) the first attempts at having ATCOs valid at several airfields start. But my gut feeling is that this will happen, in particular for the smaller airfields (which is where this technology seems to be expected to have the greatest impact).
"The regulators" would be the CAA for the UK for example, or appropriate goverment organisations for each individual country. At the end of the day they have to approve the new remote mode of operation and they are there to, among other things, regulate these things. At least that is my understanding of the process of bringing in new ATM technology.
With the training times today it's less than 3 years, and I will be the first to admit I am one of the newest people around here (and in the industry in general). But then again I'm also happy to be told I am wrong, although I will try to understand why that is the case.
I am not saying this is an all out positive development, but today I a sure many view the role of the flight engineer as something of the past that we can now deal with perfectly well without. At the end of my career maybe we will view the concrete towers of today in a similar fashion. Something that was used until technology meant there was a more efficent (and some would argue, better) way to do it.