Topband: strange propagation

[Roger D Johnson]

In that case the government should get off it's butt and bring the rules up to 
date. As it is, we have the
FCC publishing rules for the amateur service and the ARRL and others saying it's 
fine to disregard them.

73, Roger


On 1/15/2016 8:10 AM, Louis Parascondola via Topband wrote:
> There you have it folks. And guess what, The US government is very aware of RHR and is very impressed with the concept.  Know what that means?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom W8JI<w8ji at w8ji.com>
> To: Louis Parascondola<gudguyham at aol.com>; topband<topband at contesting.com>
> Sent: Fri, Jan 15, 2016 8:00 am
> Subject: Re: Topband: strange propagation
>
>> I can't be 100% sure but I think this will all wash down to the fact that
>> stations are no longer licensed and the control operator is fully
>> responsible.  And I do believe that is the case.  RHR has lawyers on
>> retainer and I'm sure this has been legally looked at.  I can get the
>> ruling they go by.
>>
> This all comes up every time with this subject. I don't know why people have
> such a difficult time remembering it. Like politics today, we can't let
> facts get in the way of hyperbole. It is also more fashionable to hate and
> complain than offer any viable solution. It is always all about the insults
> instead of solutions..
>
> Starting way back about 35 years ago, we no longer had station licenses. We
> no longer had to sign mobile, tell the FCC where we were at if out of local
> district, and no longer had to sign portable. Station licenses were gone as
> long as we were in the continental USA.  The license is with the control op.
>
> About the same time, location or station for DXCC also changed and did not
> matter. DXCC went with the call, not the location.
>
> It was also never illegal to make money from property in a station, it was
> only illegal to charge for the service of communication or use
> communications to augment business communications. People have been renting
> stations and equipment for years and years, and people have "made money"
> since the very first copper wire was sold.
>
> The proper way to handle this, if people disagree with the rules, is to work
> to have the rules changed. I would suggest, however, things get thought
> through very carefully. It would be very easy to kill or seriously damage
> the hobby with poor changes.
>
> It seems to me the real problem is people want an award for DXCC
> specifically to how they operate and live, and everyone has to fit that
> criteria.
>
> To me, that makes absolute sense for three tiers.
>
> 1.) You cannot use a club station, you cannot move, you cannot phone a
> friend. This would be a STATION and operator DXCC.
>
> 2.) DXCC to the station no matter who the op.
>
> 3.) DXCC to the no matter what the station. This is what we have now.
>
> Instead of whining like two-year-olds about what the FCC rules are, because
> the FCC will never roll back to making us have specific station locations,
> the real solution is in what the DXCC rules are. The award rules will not be
> changed here, and it is very unlikely the ARRL with yank DXCC's from people
> who have worked DX from more than one location, so the best approach would
> be a new DXCC with all contacts allowed from one location, where it is the
> licensee's station and operating.
>
> 73 Tom
>
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>