Steve, the perspective of an award chasing RHR user who also has a well
equipped home station has been missing from the discussion. Thanks for
providing it. There are others who share your views. The availability of the
paid remotes, either in geographically advantageous locations and or using
super stations, has made it possible to instantly change transmitting/receiving
location to suit the prop. Some folks have already had this ability, either
through their own remote QTH or arrangements with friends. The paid remotes
have opened favorable propagation selection of station location to the masses.
DX chasing is not a life or death situation, as someone else pointed out. I
have been licensed since 1962 but was only a casual DXer until retirement in
2008. I rarely sent of a DX QSL and did not apply for my first formal DXCC
award until 2009. At retirement, I did set some DX operating and award
chasing goals: 160M DXCC, 6M DXCC, DXCC on 10 bands, Honor Roll, Challenge
3000 and 160 WAZ. Better late than never.
My perspective on the awards is that their value would be cheapened for me if
shortcuts were taken to earn them. Cheapened to the point of: why bother? I
could have achieved 6M DXCC long before now by logging into a W6 west coast
station to work the Pacific Islands/Asia or logging into a Maine station to
work EU more often and more easily. The award would just not be meaningful to
me if earned in that manner. Ditto the other awards mentioned. There are
many folks who feel as I do. I understand there are many folks who don't feel
as I do.
I generally don't care what others do if they don't affect me. The prop
window on Topband is sometimes short. When I have to stand in line behind a
long list of east cost remote users to break a rare DX pileup from western WV,
I might have to rethink my Topband participation. So far it has not come to
that.
So far, most of my goals have been achieved without what, to me, are shortcuts.
The last was 6M DXCC, with the application currently pending with ARRL.
Still to go, 160 WAZ (2 more zones needed) and Challenge 3000 (2700 plus and
counting).
Interesting discussion. I appreciate the civility of it.
73 Charlie N8RR
> Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 13:32:30 +0000
> From: nn4t@comcast.net
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Topband: The Remote question
>
> Good morning. I have followed with interest the discussion on this subject. I
> enjoyed hearing both sides of the issue from my fellow DXers. Most of the
> replies have been both thoughtful and respectful and I thank you for that.
> I thought you may find it interesting to hear a comment from the perspective
> of an RHR user. Perhaps some of the others who comment also used that service
> (which seems to have triggered this debate) but I don't remember seeing that.
> I have been an RHR customer for two years. I have been a DXer for the entire
> 42 years of my amateur career. Climbing the DX Challenge ladder is my
> principal goal. I have a home station focused on 6, 80 and 160. 93.5% of the
> entities I need for the Challenge are on these three bands. I have a full
> sized quarter wave vertical for 160 (and 8 560 ' beverages), a 4 square for
> 80 and a 9 element M2 at 80' for 6. The station works well and has been
> productive. But as you know from 160 propagation is finicky. And for those
> who have not spent time on 6, it is even more so there. I rent the RHR
> stations because they give me more opportunities to work new ones for the
> Challenge. It is simply another tool I use to accomplish my goal. And unless
> the DXCC rul
es
> change I will continue to do so. I appreciate, and respect, those who feel
> this somehow violates the spirit of the DXCC program. I simply do not agree.
> Ham radio has always had a prickly relationship with technology. On one hand
> we love the cool gadgets and the hobby would die without them. On the other,
> it forces us to deal with change. Anyone remember the debate about using
> packet clusters to work DX? "Shooting fish in a barrel" was a common
> criticism of those who used that technology. Remember when there was a move
> to ban from DXCC credit qsos made on a list?
> I suspect remote technology is here to stay; the ARRL BOD has already spoken
> once on that matter and were quite clear. What I would suggest is view this
> technology as simply a tool; available to all willing to pay the fee (just
> like our expensive radios, antennas, amps, etc.) . Use it or don't use it.
> The choice is yours. Best, Steve, NN4T
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|