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

[W0MU]

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