Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input

Sat Jul 11 07:20:03 EDT 2015

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 at 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 at 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 at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tony
>>> K1AMF
>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM
>>> To: topband at 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 at www.arrl.org>
>>> Date: 07/09/2015  7:01 PM  (GMT-05:00)
>>> To: k1amf at 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 at 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