Topband: The Remote question

[Hardy Landskov]

All I can say is working the P5 was awesome to me for the last one. The
pileups were horrendous, the postage bills too much, but I loved every
minute through the years. And I did love the plaque. I did this to see what
I could do, not to compete with someone else. Some think it's a waste of
time but I learned more about antennas, RF, amplifiers, etc that really made
me succeed in my job. I question what you accomplish by playing golf--with
green fees being what they are? But we all have are wants and desires.
Just my outlook on the whole thing.
73 N7RT

-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of W0MU
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 3:57 PM
To: topband at contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: The Remote question

So what is the difference if I build a station for $100,000 or I rent one
for whatever it costs?  Nothing.  I guess the guy that can't climb towers
who has to pay someone else to climb it and fix his stuff should be shoved
into another category too?

I must have missed what is the big prize for #1 Honor roll?  A plaque?   
I hope that you feel good about yourself because of other things not because
you managed to work them all.  As I said before #1 has been at it longer,
has better stuff and plays radio more and probably is located in a better
location.

CQ has a competition every year and I get that.  It starts over every year
and it is a rush to work as many as you can.  Once again the winners will
have great stations and tons of time.  Congrats to the winners.  I think
Honor Roll #1 means much more to you that have decided to make this a
strange competition that really doesn't have a start date or and end, then
it does the majority of active hams.

Bitch all you like about Remote Radio it is here to stay just like packet
and the ARRL is certainly not going to exclude anyone.

I could care less who is or is not using Remote radio.  I hope more people
do as we could use more activity on the bands.  I would love to see old
timers and most of the ham population are old timers now be able to operate
from nursing homes, condo's, rv's etc.  I guess you would rather them be
shoved to the streets and ignored.

What you are asking for is less competition in your competition which is a
bit hypocritical isn't it?  Removing players from the DXCC field waters down
your victory doesn't it?

Why would the rules change now after remotes being allowed for 50 years?
Paying for a service is not even relevant to the conversation so 
lets not make it one.    How I get on the air is really none of your 
business.




On 7/12/2015 2:47 PM, Cecil wrote:
> It's obvious the DXCC award system is not important to you by your own
admission, which doesn't put you in the best of positions to be so vocal
about paid/shared remote station access and its impact on the award systems.
>
> Call it what you will it's very competitive...in an individualized sort of
way but competitive it is.
>
> It is a badge of honor for those passionate about such things.  Yes the
guy with the $100,000 station most days has an advantage over the guy with
100 Watts and a wire...but some days the propagation Gods shine on the guy
with 100 Watts and he beats the big bucks station out..also operator skill
levels that playing field as well...you learn those things when that's all
you have for a station.
>
> Yes we have always faced those kind of challenges and no rule or class
changes were really needed.  It was incentive to make your station the best
it could be within your means and to improve your operating skills.
>
> For contesters things were a bit better as the differences in station
capability was recognized and different competitive classes were
formed....so the guy with 100 Watts and a wire could feel a sense of
accomplishment by competing with guys generally equipped like him.
>
> In today's world where one could finally move into that swanky
neighborhood that the wife has always wanted to live but couldn't because
hubby needed space and acceptance to put up all those ugly wires, towers,
antennas and such....no worries! (That's my wife...and we still don't live
there)
>
> We can pick up a radio front panel for a song and a smokin internet
connection and just dial up whatever superstation has propagation to where
the DX is today and bag em.  Just think about being able to get in on that E
skip action anytime it happens just by dialing up a station that is in the
skip zone today...and 160 DXCC...just dial around until you find a station
that can hear that rare DX station that's on tonight.  The wall paper is
piling up...
>
> What's a traditional station OP to do...he's been working hard for years,
building new antennas, buying commercial products and improving his station
whenever he can, staying up late nights or getting up early mornings.  An
expected normal progression for Ham Radio....he is close to finishing his
DXCC on 160 and a guy that don't even own a station...or worse owns a small
station but doesn't use it to work the hard ones, lands his first 100 on 160
in his first year of being on the air.
>
> He throws up his hands and says what's the point...and certainly won't be
buying any more commercial products to try and improve his station....and
out of business go more of the commercial equipment makers.
>
> Now...
>
> I don't have a problem with technology and its advancement...I'm a
technical guy.  But the advantages that paid or even shared remote station
access allows should dictate that these OPs compete in their own class with
others that are leveraging that advantage.
>
> The exception to this is the guy that has built his station on a remote
site on land he owns or leases for that purpose because he has noise issues
he can't overcome or he lives in the subdivision with an HOA that won't
allow his antennas, but he still wants to compete on the bands...that remote
station is his primary station...it's just a traditional station accessed
remotely by its owner...no problem....good use of today's technology.
>
> You own property on three different coasts and one remote island and have
stations on all of them....the new DXCC/Contesting class is ready made for
you too...
>
> I think new class structure language in the DXCC and various contest rules
is the only viable answer...
>
> Don't limit technology, adapt to it to allow its advancement but as it
evolves allow the traditional station owner to continue to practice his kind
of Ham Radio on a traditional playing field....fact is probably 90 percent
of stations are traditional styled operations anyway.
>
> Soap box mode OFF...
>
> Cecil
> K5DL
>
>
>
>
> Sent using recycled electrons.
>
>> On Jul 12, 2015, at 2:16 PM, W0MU <w0mu at w0mu.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think much of the issue with RHR is people are bent out of shape that a
group of people have jumped on this and appear to be doing quite well.
Business must be booming as they are adding new stations constantly.
>>
>> Personally I have a decent station and am not interested in renting
station time.
>>
>> In the end the challenge is personal.  The award is whatever you make it.
>>
>> DXCC is DXCC.  If you feel better that you worked it from the same
location using wet noodles more power to you.
>>
>> If you are chasing DX to impress other people I think you are doing it
wrong.  When you focus on yourself and what you are doing then these little
"issues" become non issues.
>>
>> My Dad told me a long time ago in business was to quit paying so much
about the other guy and start focusing on my business and what my strength
were.
>>
>> I have been a ham since 1978.  Honor roll number 1 mean very little to
me.  What it says is that you have either been doing this longer than me,
spend more time on the radio, have a better setup, etc.  It doesn't mean
that you are a better DXer.  I hear so called big DXers in pileups calling
endlessly with no clue about how pileups work etc.  Lots of great DXers are
in and out of a pileup before you know it.  Many of those guys may or may
not have DXCC.  I waited for over 20 years to apply for DXCC and the award
is still in the tube..........
>>
>> Be proud of yourself and what you have done.  The watering down of the
award is in your head.
>>
>>> On 7/12/2015 7:32 AM, nn4t at comcast.net wrote:
>>> 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 r
 u
>   l
>> 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
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband