1. I don’t have any problem with remote use in the DXCC program, commercial or
self owned, as long as they are in somewhat in general area of the FCC address.
I can live with 200 Km diameter distance. Think that was a DXAC
recommendation. I don’t care what people use remotes for outside the DXCC
program. VUCC and WAS already have mileage limits.
2. Remotes in the 200 Km area of the FCC address can be operated from anywhere
in the world.
3. When someone moves their FCC address their credits go with them and the 200
Km area is moved to that new address.
4, No FCC rules need changing in regard to this request for a remote mileage
limit as it only involves the DXCC program for me.
The fact that people been using remotes coast to coast for years doesn’t make
it right or in the spirit of the DXCC program. Jumping coast to coast every 5
minutes to gain a propagation advantage does not represent what I believe the
DXCC program is about. I am not saying you can enforce this but I would like
to see the ruling in print so everyone knows what is expected of them. So when
you sign your name to a DXCC application if your honor mean nothing, go ahead
and sign even though you did something illegal to gain the credits. You can’t
enforce honor.
73 Mike K4PI
From: topband-request@contesting.com
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 11:49 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband Digest, Vol 151, Issue 7
Send Topband mailing list submissions to
topband@contesting.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
topband-request@contesting.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
topband-owner@contesting.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..."
Today's Topics:
Board meets next week - I'm looking for input
1. Re: Fwd: ARRL
(Charles Cu nningham)
2. Re: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for
inputRichard ( (Rick) Karlquist)
3. Re: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for
input (Robert Harmon)
4. Re: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input
(Charles Cu nningham)
5. Re: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input
(Ed Stallman)
6. Re: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for
input (Tom W8JI)
7. Re: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input
(Herbert Schoenbohm)
8. Re: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input
(Larry Burke)
9. Re: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for
input (W0MU)
10. Re: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for
input (T R Mortimer)
11. Re: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input
(Cecil)
12. Re: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input
(Robert Harmon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 22:10:54 -0400
From: "Charles Cu nningham" <charlie-cunningham@nc.rr.com>
To: "'Greg Zenger'" <n2gz@gregzenger.com>, "'topband'"
<topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking
for input
Message-ID:
<!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAEopzedXwP9GqWV0pOP2BFACgwAAEAAAAKRYlVkIzGZDqzQWaw9F1ikBAAAAAA==@nc.rr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
'Scuze me, guys! I had to take a break for something to eat! Larry -
important point! I'll forward my comments to ARRL. Greg, I don't have a
problem at all if you are operating your own station remotely, using the
same antennas, radios etc. What I would object to would be if you were
operating "Super Station" in the Phillppines to gain some advantage into
Asia, the Indian Ocean, VK/ZL etc. I do know of a JA that does exactly that
with a "Super Station" in the Phillippines. I won't mention his JA or DU
call here, but I have worked him from here in NC on 17m, when the band
should NOT have been open into DU!!
All good points guys - but, of course the ARRL willdo whatever they and the
"Old Boys' Club" damn well pleases, just as they have always done!
At this point I have worked all but P5 and I missed KH8,Swain's Island when
it was active. But with work pressures etc., I was sort of haphazard with my
QSLchoresover the years and now I'm trying to round up 4 more cards for CW
DXCC Honor Roll and I need to submit some 80m cards for 8-band CWDXCC. Hope
I get those last 4 soon!
73,
Charlie, K4OTV
-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Greg
Zenger
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 9:11 PM
To: topband
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for
input
Bob and the others,
I understand (and even agree with, at least to an extent) many of the
arguments against remote operation. It seems like most of these arguments
are against remote stations that are rented, or remote stations that are
self owned but at a different location than the operators primary operating
location (Other side of country, lower noise QTH, etc.)
Do you have a problem with those of us who operate our own primary stations
remotely? Sometimes I am sent out of the continental USA for business
trips, and I can be away for months at a time. I'm likely to miss a good
DXpedition or two during that time away. By operating remotely, it gives me
something to do in the hotel room when the work for the day is complete, and
it drives me to build a more robust and reliable station, because I dont
have the luxury of making repairs until I return home. It sure is nice to
have these 'remote' contacts that I make count towards my award.
Afterall, every contact applied toward my award was made from the same
antennas, connected to the same radios, in the same yard, regardless of
where I was when I touched the paddles or PTT.
Curious to hear your opinions on this particular angle.
73,
Greg N2GZ
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Robert Harmon <k6uj@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Mike,
>
> I also do not like the idea of remote station operation being
> acceptable for DXCC.
> (Charlie, you have one more year on me, I was licensed in 1958 :-)
> I have pursued the DXCC awards for all these years and now to allow
> remote op to be granted the same awards gives the DXCC awards almost
> zero value. Whether the remote operation is rented or self owned it
> makes no difference. I'm sure a lot of us have the same thinking on
> this but haven't had the opportunity to express our feelings.
> Actually I believe the majority of ARRL DXers feel this
> way. I think the board needs to find a way to get input from the
> majority !
> Lastly, One consideration for the board to look at is to have a
> separate DXCC category for remote operation. Then everyone is happy
> and there would be a level playing field for each category, home
> station or remote. (After all that is the crux of the issue)
>
>
> 73,
> Bob
> K6UJ
>
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Charles Cu nningham <
> charlie-cunningham@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Mike
> >
> > Well, I've been licensed and a DXer since February 1957. In my
> > opinion remote stations and operations should NOT be acceptable for
DXCC.
> Perhaps a
> > special NEW DXCC could be established for those operations Most of
> > us
> over
> > the decades have worked diligently so improve our stations and
> > antennas within the bounds available to us! To have to compete with
> > remote Super Stations that are sited to provide significant
> > advantages on certain DX paths or bands REALLY spoils it for oo many
> > of us, and establishes is as
> a
> > "Sport for the Rich" like so many other things in our society! I am
> opposed
> > to offering conventional "DXCC" credit for remote operations!
> >
> > 73,
> > Charlie, K4OTV
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> > Tony K1AMF
> > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM
> > To: topband@contesting.com
> > Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for
> > input
> >
> > FYI, now's your chance to speak up if you haven't already. Please
> > e-mail N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions
> > or
> comments.
> > Not looking to rehash things here on the reflector.
> >
> > -------- Original message --------
> > From: ARRL Members Only Web site <memberlist@www.arrl.org>
> > Date: 07/09/2015 7:01 PM (GMT-05:00)
> > To: k1amf@live.com
> > Subject: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Next week, the Board of Directors will be holding their second
> > meeting of the year. One of the topics up for discussion is the
> > recent change in
> DXCC
> > rules, particularly as to the use of remote operations for DXCC credit.
> >
> > I would be interested in knowing what you, the ARRL member, feel
> > about
> the
> > rules for DXCC. In particular, I would like to know what your
> > opinion is regarding crediting (for awards) DX contacts made by
> > remote control operations, be they through self owned or rented
stations.
> >
> > I would be also be interested in your experiences if you have
> > operated remotely in chasing DX for DXCC credit.
> >
> > If you have any other items of interest, please also let me know.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > 73 de Mike N2YBB
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ARRL Hudson Division
> > Director: Mike Lisenco, N2YBB
> > n2ybb@arrl.org
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > To unsubscribe from messages, go to:
> > http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/9f9aac45c9716441c7caaf5957d1c686
> > _________________
> > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> >
> > _________________
> > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:32:05 -0700
From: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>
To: topband <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm
looking for input
Message-ID: <55A08025.2020404@karlquist.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
It seems that many people don't understand
the recent rules change. Remote operation
has always been acceptable for DXCC ... as
long as the control point is in the same
DXCC entity as the physical station. All
the rules change permitted was operations
like Radio Arcala. The remote operations
characterized as "abusive" by some are
unaffected by the rules change. They
don't have a problem with the rules change;
they have a problem with the original rules
dating back to 1945.
Rick N6RK
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:41:59 -0700
From: Robert Harmon <k6uj@pacbell.net>
To: topband <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm
looking for input
Message-ID: <7478AB87-B363-4BDA-B439-9A863519C86E@pacbell.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi Rick,
Maybe that is the case. Please define control point and physical station a
little bit.
For example lets say I am a KH6 in Hawaii. My control point is at my home
station in Hawaii
and my remote operation can be on a mountain, lets say, as long as it is in the
same entity of Hawaii ?
Bob
K6UJ
> On Jul 10, 2015, at 7:32 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist <richard@karlquist.com>
> wrote:
>
> It seems that many people don't understand
> the recent rules change. Remote operation
> has always been acceptable for DXCC ... as
> long as the control point is in the same
> DXCC entity as the physical station. All
> the rules change permitted was operations
> like Radio Arcala. The remote operations
> characterized as "abusive" by some are
> unaffected by the rules change. They
> don't have a problem with the rules change;
> they have a problem with the original rules
> dating back to 1945.
>
> Rick N6RK
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 22:50:57 -0400
From: "Charles Cu nningham" <charlie-cunningham@nc.rr.com>
To: "'Ed Stallman'" <ed.n5dg@gmail.com>, <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking
for input
Message-ID:
<!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAEopzedXwP9GqWV0pOP2BFACgwAAEAAAAGcac+LpyrhEi9wJwRDob04BAAAAAA==@nc.rr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Excuse my ignorance, Ed, what's "RHR"?
-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ed
Stallman
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 9:34 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for
input
Please get an email off to your ARRL Division Director , they do want to
hear from you !
The West Gulf Coast Director let me know that he is also receiving email's
from op's that think RHR is the best thing since slice bread .
Ed N5DG
On 7/10/2015 8:09 PM, Larry Burke wrote:
> Guys, the feedback needs go to your ARRL Division Director, not the
> Topband Reflector -- the ARRL is not reading this list. Feedback needs
> to be received prior to next Wednesday, July 15. You can find your
> Director and his contact information here:
> http://www.arrl.org/divisions
>
> - Larry K5RK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Robert Harmon
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 7:42 PM
> To: topband
> Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking
> for input
>
> Mike,
>
> I also do not like the idea of remote station operation being
> acceptable for DXCC.
> (Charlie, you have one more year on me, I was licensed in 1958 :-)
> I have pursued the DXCC awards for all these years and now to allow
> remote op to be granted the same awards gives the DXCC awards almost zero
value.
> Whether the remote operation is rented or self owned it makes no
difference.
> I'm sure a lot of us have the same thinking on this but haven't had
> the opportunity to express our feelings. Actually I believe the
> majority of ARRL DXers feel this
> way. I think the board needs to find a way to get input from the
majority
> !
> Lastly, One consideration for the board to look at is to have a
> separate DXCC category for remote operation. Then everyone is happy
> and there would be a level playing field for each category, home
> station or remote. (After all that is the crux of the issue)
>
>
> 73,
> Bob
> K6UJ
>
>
>
>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Charles Cu nningham
> <charlie-cunningham@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>> Hi, Mike
>>
>> Well, I've been licensed and a DXer since February 1957. In my
>> opinion remote stations and operations should NOT be acceptable for
>> DXCC. Perhaps a special NEW DXCC could be established for those
>> operations Most of us over the decades have worked diligently so
>> improve our stations and antennas within the bounds available to us!
>> To have to compete with remote Super Stations that are sited to
>> provide significant advantages on certain DX paths or bands REALLY
>> spoils it for oo many of us, and establishes is as a "Sport for the
>> Rich" like so many other things in our society! I am opposed to
>> offering
> conventional "DXCC" credit for remote operations!
>> 73,
>> Charlie, K4OTV
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>> Tony K1AMF
>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM
>> To: topband@contesting.com
>> Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for
>> input
>>
>> FYI, now's your chance to speak up if you haven't already. Please
>> e-mail N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions
>> or
> comments.
>> Not looking to rehash things here on the reflector.
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: ARRL Members Only Web site <memberlist@www.arrl.org>
>> Date: 07/09/2015 7:01 PM (GMT-05:00)
>> To: k1amf@live.com
>> Subject: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Next week, the Board of Directors will be holding their second
>> meeting of the year. One of the topics up for discussion is the
>> recent change in DXCC rules, particularly as to the use of remote
>> operations for DXCC
> credit.
>> I would be interested in knowing what you, the ARRL member, feel
>> about the rules for DXCC. In particular, I would like to know what
>> your opinion is regarding crediting (for awards) DX contacts made by
>> remote control operations, be they through self owned or rented stations.
>>
>> I would be also be interested in your experiences if you have
>> operated remotely in chasing DX for DXCC credit.
>>
>> If you have any other items of interest, please also let me know.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> 73 de Mike N2YBB
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ARRL Hudson Division
>> Director: Mike Lisenco, N2YBB
>> n2ybb@arrl.org
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> To unsubscribe from messages, go to:
>> http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/9f9aac45c9716441c7caaf5957d1c686
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:56:58 -0500
From: Ed Stallman <ed.n5dg@gmail.com>
To: Charles Cu nningham <charlie-cunningham@nc.rr.com>,
topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking
for input
Message-ID: <55A085FA.3090200@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Remote Ham Radio
Ed N5DG
On 7/10/2015 9:50 PM, Charles Cu nningham wrote:
> Excuse my ignorance, Ed, what's "RHR"?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ed
> Stallman
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 9:34 PM
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for
> input
>
> Please get an email off to your ARRL Division Director , they do want to
> hear from you !
> The West Gulf Coast Director let me know that he is also receiving email's
> from op's that think RHR is the best thing since slice bread .
>
> Ed N5DG
>
>
>
> On 7/10/2015 8:09 PM, Larry Burke wrote:
>> Guys, the feedback needs go to your ARRL Division Director, not the
>> Topband Reflector -- the ARRL is not reading this list. Feedback needs
>> to be received prior to next Wednesday, July 15. You can find your
>> Director and his contact information here:
>> http://www.arrl.org/divisions
>>
>> - Larry K5RK
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>> Robert Harmon
>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 7:42 PM
>> To: topband
>> Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking
>> for input
>>
>> Mike,
>>
>> I also do not like the idea of remote station operation being
>> acceptable for DXCC.
>> (Charlie, you have one more year on me, I was licensed in 1958 :-)
>> I have pursued the DXCC awards for all these years and now to allow
>> remote op to be granted the same awards gives the DXCC awards almost zero
> value.
>> Whether the remote operation is rented or self owned it makes no
> difference.
>> I'm sure a lot of us have the same thinking on this but haven't had
>> the opportunity to express our feelings. Actually I believe the
>> majority of ARRL DXers feel this
>> way. I think the board needs to find a way to get input from the
> majority
>> !
>> Lastly, One consideration for the board to look at is to have a
>> separate DXCC category for remote operation. Then everyone is happy
>> and there would be a level playing field for each category, home
>> station or remote. (After all that is the crux of the issue)
>>
>>
>> 73,
>> Bob
>> K6UJ
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Charles Cu nningham
>> <charlie-cunningham@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Hi, Mike
>>>
>>> Well, I've been licensed and a DXer since February 1957. In my
>>> opinion remote stations and operations should NOT be acceptable for
>>> DXCC. Perhaps a special NEW DXCC could be established for those
>>> operations Most of us over the decades have worked diligently so
>>> improve our stations and antennas within the bounds available to us!
>>> To have to compete with remote Super Stations that are sited to
>>> provide significant advantages on certain DX paths or bands REALLY
>>> spoils it for oo many of us, and establishes is as a "Sport for the
>>> Rich" like so many other things in our society! I am opposed to
>>> offering
>> conventional "DXCC" credit for remote operations!
>>> 73,
>>> Charlie, K4OTV
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>>> Tony K1AMF
>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM
>>> To: topband@contesting.com
>>> Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for
>>> input
>>>
>>> FYI, now's your chance to speak up if you haven't already. Please
>>> e-mail N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions
>>> or
>> comments.
>>> Not looking to rehash things here on the reflector.
>>>
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: ARRL Members Only Web site <memberlist@www.arrl.org>
>>> Date: 07/09/2015 7:01 PM (GMT-05:00)
>>> To: k1amf@live.com
>>> Subject: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Next week, the Board of Directors will be holding their second
>>> meeting of the year. One of the topics up for discussion is the
>>> recent change in DXCC rules, particularly as to the use of remote
>>> operations for DXCC
>> credit.
>>> I would be interested in knowing what you, the ARRL member, feel
>>> about the rules for DXCC. In particular, I would like to know what
>>> your opinion is regarding crediting (for awards) DX contacts made by
>>> remote control operations, be they through self owned or rented stations.
>>>
>>> I would be also be interested in your experiences if you have
>>> operated remotely in chasing DX for DXCC credit.
>>>
>>> If you have any other items of interest, please also let me know.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> 73 de Mike N2YBB
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ARRL Hudson Division
>>> Director: Mike Lisenco, N2YBB
>>> n2ybb@arrl.org
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from messages, go to:
>>> http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/9f9aac45c9716441c7caaf5957d1c686
>>> _________________
>>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>>
>>> _________________
>>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 07:06:03 -0400
From: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>
To: "topband" <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm
looking for input
Message-ID: <2DEF05FB4D5044CCBEDFF9F24E42D271@MAIN>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response
I don't understand the sudden hysteria, except it may be Internet driven.
Around 52 years ago, my first or second 160 meter California contact was
with remote W6YY. I can't remember if W6VSS Dale or W6YY was first, but that
was when the band was split and the power limit was maybe 25 watts plate
input power.
In the 1970's, when it was actually very difficult to work DXCC, W2EQS
(Charlie) had almost made 100 DXCC on 160. His age and health forced him to
move to Indiana, and he lost all of those credits.
Today (and for a long time now) anyone anywhere in the USA (remotely or
locally) can operate anyone else's station in the USA under their call, or
someone else can come in (remotely or physically) operate their station
using the local call. People around here come in physically and operate my
station, and they have for many years. It counts for their DXCC.
This leads me to think the sudden recent wave of hysteria about DXCC is
based on people actually wanting one of three things:
1.) In spite of being legal for over 50 years, all remotes to be banned
2.) In spite of being legal for around 35 years that I know of, they want
the rules changed so a station has to sign callsign / district or say
portable and then district when transmitting from any location other than
the station owner and builder location, and so no guest op can ever use his
call. This is the way it was before the FCC changed that rule, which I think
happened in the 1980's.
Since the FCC is unlikely to change rules because of an award that has not
had that much meaning about being tied to any location, station, or operator
since maybe 1980 or so, they want a new DXCC. They want a new DXCC that
requires the contact to be made by the physical owner of the station at one
location.
To me, the real issue is people are unhappy either with the use of a remote
of any type (which has been legal as long as I have been a Ham and has been
used for DXCC and contests since I have been licensed) or they suddenly
want DXCC to be tied to a station at a single location that the DXCC
recipient owns.
I think the mob got all worked up because they didn't think about the actual
rules, they just dislike RHR (and not the dozens of free uncontrolled
remotes all over the place). For years they have been competing against
people who use other people's stations, move around, or have a remote. Now,
out of the clear blue sky, DXCC is suddenly useless when the actual changes
than made it useless were made over 30 years ago.
I think the real solution is a DXCC endorsement or a new DXCC that requires
the holder to swear he did it all transmitting and receiving from one
location all by himself with gear he assembled.
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 07:20:03 -0400
From: Herbert Schoenbohm <herbs@vitelcom.net>
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking
for input
Message-ID: <55A0FBE3.2050606@vitelcom.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Why should we be concerned where the operator of a remote station is
actually located. The location of the actual station is all that really
matters. Remote control of your station provides an amazing advance of
our hobby. It provides an reliable escape to so many who are not able
to construct antennas at their homes due to restrictions and restrictive
covenants. Here in the Virgin Islands I have built and functional SO2R
station (NP2P) which provides for the operator (N2TTA) to operate from
his apartment in NYC. The ability to over come obstacles and have the
interfaces that provide for automatic band switching of the Alpha 87A,
rotor control, on screen monitoring of the amp(s), selection of
direction RX Beverages for the low bands, antenna selection of seven
different antennas such as quad, verticals and horizontal dipoles, all
take our technology to a new level. The reliability by end to end fiber
connectivity and the reduction of cost of most of the hardware cost at a
more reasonable level.
Let's face it that remote control operation is here to stay and it
applications are advancing everyday. Restricting such operations by
imposing old archaic rules is moving in the wrong direction. Hopefully
those that make the rules will not preclude such wonderful advances to
amateur radio.
Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
On 7/10/2015 9:11 PM, Greg Zenger wrote:
> Bob and the others,
>
> I understand (and even agree with, at least to an extent) many of the
> arguments against remote operation. It seems like most of these arguments
> are against remote stations that are rented, or remote stations that are
> self owned but at a different location than the operators primary operating
> location (Other side of country, lower noise QTH, etc.)
>
> Do you have a problem with those of us who operate our own primary stations
> remotely? Sometimes I am sent out of the continental USA for business
> trips, and I can be away for months at a time. I'm likely to miss a good
> DXpedition or two during that time away. By operating remotely, it gives me
> something to do in the hotel room when the work for the day is complete,
> and it drives me to build a more robust and reliable station, because I
> dont have the luxury of making repairs until I return home. It sure is
> nice to have these 'remote' contacts that I make count towards my award.
> Afterall, every contact applied toward my award was made from the same
> antennas, connected to the same radios, in the same yard, regardless of
> where I was when I touched the paddles or PTT.
>
> Curious to hear your opinions on this particular angle.
>
> 73,
> Greg N2GZ
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Robert Harmon <k6uj@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Mike,
>>
>> I also do not like the idea of remote station operation being acceptable
>> for DXCC.
>> (Charlie, you have one more year on me, I was licensed in 1958 :-)
>> I have pursued the DXCC awards for all these years and now to allow remote
>> op to be granted
>> the same awards gives the DXCC awards almost zero value. Whether the
>> remote operation is
>> rented or self owned it makes no difference. I'm sure a lot of us have
>> the same thinking on this
>> but haven't had the opportunity to express our feelings. Actually I
>> believe the majority of ARRL DXers feel this
>> way. I think the board needs to find a way to get input from the
>> majority !
>> Lastly, One consideration for the board to look at is to have a separate
>> DXCC category for remote operation. Then
>> everyone is happy and there would be a level playing field for each
>> category, home station or remote. (After all that is the
>> crux of the issue)
>>
>>
>> 73,
>> Bob
>> K6UJ
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Charles Cu nningham <
>> charlie-cunningham@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Hi, Mike
>>>
>>> Well, I've been licensed and a DXer since February 1957. In my opinion
>>> remote stations and operations should NOT be acceptable for DXCC.
>> Perhaps a
>>> special NEW DXCC could be established for those operations Most of us
>> over
>>> the decades have worked diligently so improve our stations and antennas
>>> within the bounds available to us! To have to compete with remote Super
>>> Stations that are sited to provide significant advantages on certain DX
>>> paths or bands REALLY spoils it for oo many of us, and establishes is as
>> a
>>> "Sport for the Rich" like so many other things in our society! I am
>> opposed
>>> to offering conventional "DXCC" credit for remote operations!
>>>
>>> 73,
>>> Charlie, K4OTV
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tony
>>> K1AMF
>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM
>>> To: topband@contesting.com
>>> Subject: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input
>>>
>>> FYI, now's your chance to speak up if you haven't already. Please e-mail
>>> N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions or
>> comments.
>>> Not looking to rehash things here on the reflector.
>>>
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: ARRL Members Only Web site <memberlist@www.arrl.org>
>>> Date: 07/09/2015 7:01 PM (GMT-05:00)
>>> To: k1amf@live.com
>>> Subject: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Next week, the Board of Directors will be holding their second meeting of
>>> the year. One of the topics up for discussion is the recent change in
>> DXCC
>>> rules, particularly as to the use of remote operations for DXCC credit.
>>>
>>> I would be interested in knowing what you, the ARRL member, feel about
>> the
>>> rules for DXCC. In particular, I would like to know what your opinion is
>>> regarding crediting (for awards) DX contacts made by remote control
>>> operations, be they through self owned or rented stations.
>>>
>>> I would be also be interested in your experiences if you have operated
>>> remotely in chasing DX for DXCC credit.
>>>
>>> If you have any other items of interest, please also let me know.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> 73 de Mike N2YBB
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ARRL Hudson Division
>>> Director: Mike Lisenco, N2YBB
>>> n2ybb@arrl.org
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from messages, go to:
>>> http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/9f9aac45c9716441c7caaf5957d1c686
>>> _________________
>>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>>
>>> _________________
>>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 06:48:17 -0500
From: "Larry Burke" <wi5a@sbcglobal.net>
To: <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking
for input
Message-ID: <03b501d0bbcf$7aeb74e0$70c25ea0$@sbcglobal.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
This issue is actually bigger than the farce it is making of the ARRL awards
programs.
When you write your Division Director you might also ask him "at what point
will the League consider 'for rent' commercial remotes -- which are already
in operation today -- an affront to the amateur spectrum?" At what point
will these stations be indistinguishable from common carrier networks, which
are highly regulated in the US? If Verizon Wireless wakes up one day and
realizes they have much of the infrastructure in place (towers, internet
connections, backup generators, billing systems) would the League be
receptive to them dotting both coasts with remotes? At what point will the
amateur community finally object? The barriers to entry into this game are
really not that high for the right player. The more "commercial" the Amateur
Service becomes, the more vulnerable it becomes at spectrum allocation time.
You might also ask your Director how the League's support of commercial
remotes is consistent with their very prominent push of HR 1301 and S 1685
(The Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2015). Why would lawmakers want to provide
relief from antenna restrictions if all a ham has to do is sign up for
RemoteHamRadio.com or similar to get on the air? Years of ARRL efforts in
this arena can disappear pretty quickly, and it wouldn't take a very bright
lobbyist for an association of HOAs to figure this out. All they'd have to
do is point to the RemoteHamRadio.com ad on the page facing the April 2015
editorial in QST.... the editorial that announces the January Board decision
and arguably supports commercial remotes.
Larry K5RK
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 08:18:10 -0600
From: W0MU <w0mu@w0mu.com>
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm
looking for input
Message-ID: <55A125A2.4090401@w0mu.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Instead of embracing ways to get and keep more people on the air they
want to regulate a certificate into the ground just like the Gov't seems
to do with everything it touches.
Obviously remote ham radio is very popular as these stations are popping
up all over the place, which is a good thing.
A prolific W6 had or has a remote station in W1 land for over 30 years.
These are individual awards. How you get them is your business, how I
get mine is my business as long as we both follow the rules. The rules
have allowed this for a very long time. Why would we change the rules
now that a particular part of the hobby is picking up steam?
I don't think we need any more meaningless endorsements for awards.
Someone working DXCC from one location is no big deal. I can be done in
a contest weekend. Honor role is a separate subject. How would you
feel if you worked in an industry that required you to move every few
years and you had to keep starting over because you moved X distance
from the location you were in previously but you were still in the same
DXCC country? Remote ham radio is going to let old timers continue with
ham radio long after they might have been able to otherwise.
Things change and the older people get the less and less they can handle
change so they complain and create problems where none
existed........These people tend to dominate home owners associations
and create more harm than good.
On 7/11/2015 5:06 AM, Tom W8JI wrote:
> I don't understand the sudden hysteria, except it may be Internet driven.
>
> Around 52 years ago, my first or second 160 meter California contact
> was with remote W6YY. I can't remember if W6VSS Dale or W6YY was
> first, but that was when the band was split and the power limit was
> maybe 25 watts plate input power.
>
> In the 1970's, when it was actually very difficult to work DXCC, W2EQS
> (Charlie) had almost made 100 DXCC on 160. His age and health forced
> him to move to Indiana, and he lost all of those credits.
>
> Today (and for a long time now) anyone anywhere in the USA (remotely
> or locally) can operate anyone else's station in the USA under their
> call, or someone else can come in (remotely or physically) operate
> their station using the local call. People around here come in
> physically and operate my station, and they have for many years. It
> counts for their DXCC.
>
> This leads me to think the sudden recent wave of hysteria about DXCC
> is based on people actually wanting one of three things:
>
> 1.) In spite of being legal for over 50 years, all remotes to be banned
>
> 2.) In spite of being legal for around 35 years that I know of, they
> want the rules changed so a station has to sign callsign / district or
> say portable and then district when transmitting from any location
> other than the station owner and builder location, and so no guest op
> can ever use his call. This is the way it was before the FCC changed
> that rule, which I think happened in the 1980's.
>
> Since the FCC is unlikely to change rules because of an award that has
> not had that much meaning about being tied to any location, station,
> or operator since maybe 1980 or so, they want a new DXCC. They want a
> new DXCC that requires the contact to be made by the physical owner of
> the station at one location.
>
> To me, the real issue is people are unhappy either with the use of a
> remote of any type (which has been legal as long as I have been a Ham
> and has been used for DXCC and contests since I have been licensed)
> or they suddenly want DXCC to be tied to a station at a single
> location that the DXCC recipient owns.
>
> I think the mob got all worked up because they didn't think about the
> actual rules, they just dislike RHR (and not the dozens of free
> uncontrolled remotes all over the place). For years they have been
> competing against people who use other people's stations, move around,
> or have a remote. Now, out of the clear blue sky, DXCC is suddenly
> useless when the actual changes than made it useless were made over 30
> years ago.
>
> I think the real solution is a DXCC endorsement or a new DXCC that
> requires the holder to swear he did it all transmitting and receiving
> from one location all by himself with gear he assembled.
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 14:42:12 -0000
From: "T R Mortimer" <mort.g2jl@ntlworld.com>
To: <topband@contesting.com>, "W0MU" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm
looking for input
Message-ID: <FA91D77ECFD0410DAF03FC0BB91B650A@usera6e44ade96>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
"...These are individual awards. How you get them is your business, how I get
mine is my business..."
Excellent ! May I inject 39 Cents'-worth ? [allowing for inflation]
That seems to me to sum it up, totally, completely, utterly, and entirely.
There must be 75 dB (give or take a few "S" points) of difference between the
poorest penny-whistle [goober-whistle] rig and those of some of the mighty
contesters whose rigs rival commercial & military installations. To worry
about remote operation in view of this as rather like "straining at a gnat &
swallowing a camel".
If I can get away with a set of forgeries (or even fivegeries) it's between me,
the ARRL & my conscience. It would be like cheating at patience [solitaire].
The ARRL refused a perfectly valid card with my first DXCC application - one
from a nearby EU country [entity] which I'd worked dozens of times. I didn't
ask why. It was all free in those days last century, so straining at gnats is
nothing new. I still need 18 on 1.8 to reach 100; I'm not going to do it,
but I'll try.
All's fair in love and war, love it or hate it !
73 de Mort, SV5/G2JL
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 09:44:31 -0500
From: Cecil <chacuff@cableone.net>
To: Larry Burke <wi5a@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: "<topband@contesting.com>" <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking
for input
Message-ID: <6D144201-F787-40D1-ADB3-B1CE1CF32022@cableone.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
All excellent points and very well stated Larry....
Cecil
K5DL
Sent using recycled electrons.
> On Jul 11, 2015, at 6:48 AM, Larry Burke <wi5a@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> This issue is actually bigger than the farce it is making of the ARRL awards
> programs.
>
>
>
> When you write your Division Director you might also ask him "at what point
> will the League consider 'for rent' commercial remotes -- which are already
> in operation today -- an affront to the amateur spectrum?" At what point
> will these stations be indistinguishable from common carrier networks, which
> are highly regulated in the US? If Verizon Wireless wakes up one day and
> realizes they have much of the infrastructure in place (towers, internet
> connections, backup generators, billing systems) would the League be
> receptive to them dotting both coasts with remotes? At what point will the
> amateur community finally object? The barriers to entry into this game are
> really not that high for the right player. The more "commercial" the Amateur
> Service becomes, the more vulnerable it becomes at spectrum allocation time.
>
>
>
> You might also ask your Director how the League's support of commercial
> remotes is consistent with their very prominent push of HR 1301 and S 1685
> (The Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2015). Why would lawmakers want to provide
> relief from antenna restrictions if all a ham has to do is sign up for
> RemoteHamRadio.com or similar to get on the air? Years of ARRL efforts in
> this arena can disappear pretty quickly, and it wouldn't take a very bright
> lobbyist for an association of HOAs to figure this out. All they'd have to
> do is point to the RemoteHamRadio.com ad on the page facing the April 2015
> editorial in QST.... the editorial that announces the January Board decision
> and arguably supports commercial remotes.
>
>
>
>
>
> Larry K5RK
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 08:49:25 -0700
From: Robert Harmon <k6uj@pacbell.net>
To: "<topband@contesting.com>" <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking
for input
Message-ID: <63F52098-F979-4372-812B-DDDCC77CDB00@pacbell.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Larry,
I agree with Cecil. very good points. !
Bob
K6UJ
> On Jul 11, 2015, at 7:44 AM, Cecil <chacuff@cableone.net> wrote:
>
> All excellent points and very well stated Larry....
>
> Cecil
> K5DL
>
> Sent using recycled electrons.
>
>> On Jul 11, 2015, at 6:48 AM, Larry Burke <wi5a@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> This issue is actually bigger than the farce it is making of the ARRL awards
>> programs.
>>
>>
>>
>> When you write your Division Director you might also ask him "at what point
>> will the League consider 'for rent' commercial remotes -- which are already
>> in operation today -- an affront to the amateur spectrum?" At what point
>> will these stations be indistinguishable from common carrier networks, which
>> are highly regulated in the US? If Verizon Wireless wakes up one day and
>> realizes they have much of the infrastructure in place (towers, internet
>> connections, backup generators, billing systems) would the League be
>> receptive to them dotting both coasts with remotes? At what point will the
>> amateur community finally object? The barriers to entry into this game are
>> really not that high for the right player. The more "commercial" the Amateur
>> Service becomes, the more vulnerable it becomes at spectrum allocation time.
>>
>>
>>
>> You might also ask your Director how the League's support of commercial
>> remotes is consistent with their very prominent push of HR 1301 and S 1685
>> (The Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2015). Why would lawmakers want to provide
>> relief from antenna restrictions if all a ham has to do is sign up for
>> RemoteHamRadio.com or similar to get on the air? Years of ARRL efforts in
>> this arena can disappear pretty quickly, and it wouldn't take a very bright
>> lobbyist for an association of HOAs to figure this out. All they'd have to
>> do is point to the RemoteHamRadio.com ad on the page facing the April 2015
>> editorial in QST.... the editorial that announces the January Board decision
>> and arguably supports commercial remotes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Larry K5RK
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Topband mailing list
Topband@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
------------------------------
End of Topband Digest, Vol 151, Issue 7
***************************************
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|