Topband: strange propagation

[Louis Parascondola]

Steve, your question has a simple answer.  It is undeniable that it is illegal and unethical and should be shunned.

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


-----Original Message-----
From: nn4t <nn4t at comcast.net>
To: kolson <kolson at rcn.com>
Cc: topband <topband at contesting.com>
Sent: Sat, Jan 16, 2016 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: strange propagation


Gentlemen. I wonder if Tree regrets beginning this discussion with his post the other day? I suspect he might. The discussion of ethics has been interesting to me. Most of the comments have been thoughtful and not angry. Those I have enjoyed, even the ones with which I disagree. 
I have a related question, one that has risen both from this discussion and threads I saw on Low Band Chat about 6 weeks ago. How many of you know hams who routinely run more power than is allowed on Top Band in the United States? Leaving aside the illegality of it, do you also view that as unethical? Does anyone confront operators who flaunt the rules on power limits or is it simply a wink and a nod and good for a laugh in the suites at Dayton? 
Steve Daniel, NN4T 

----- Original Message -----

From: <a removedlink__ea25cda2-c4e4-4524-8ef0-ae7d93c0f75b__href="mailto:kolson at rcn.com">kolson at rcn.com</a> 
To: "John Frazier" <<a removedlink__ea25cda2-c4e4-4524-8ef0-ae7d93c0f75b__href="mailto:fraz1 at bellsouth.net">fraz1 at bellsouth.net</a>> 
Cc: <a removedlink__ea25cda2-c4e4-4524-8ef0-ae7d93c0f75b__href="mailto:topband at contesting.com">topband at contesting.com</a> 
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 10:23:11 AM 
Subject: Re: Topband: strange propagation 


I would see this as analo g ou s to what happened in contesting. Originally, you could use 2 meter spotting nets to help "find" multipliers, no problem. Eventually, f olks in less populated areas complained that this was disadvantageous to them and the contest sponso rs decided that use of these "nets" put you in multi-op category (it would say in the listing "K3OX + net"). O nce computer technology became mature enough, "assisted" operating became possible using computer technology alone and a decision had to be made as to the proper disposition of this practice . The computer didn't technically make you "multi-op", but it was an advantage over the fellows who operated without this benefit, so the "assisted" category was created. Soon operating assisted class was an accepted thing with no more or less "glory" than any other class. 

So here's a proposal; maybe hav ing two cate gorie s, a DXCC "bareback" (all QSO's made from a station within, say, 200 miles of the operator's licensed address) and "unlimited" (any legal QSO's according to current DXCC rules) would be a reasonable accommodation. If you moved outside the miles limit, you would have to decide whether to stay " bareback" and start another DXCC from your new QTH or transition to "unlimited" and carry over your previous credits. Current DXCC accounts would have to declare which category their previous operations conformed to . 

For a hot minute, the "bareback" category might be seen as more prestigious, but eventually that would fade like the contest categories have faded. End of problem. Except to the ARRL which would have to administer all this, hi hi. 

73 Kevin K3OX 


----- Original Message ----- 

From: "John Frazier" <<a removedlink__ea25cda2-c4e4-4524-8ef0-ae7d93c0f75b__href="mailto:fraz1 at bellsouth.net">fraz1 at bellsouth.net</a>> 
To: <a removedlink__ea25cda2-c4e4-4524-8ef0-ae7d93c0f75b__href="mailto:topband at contesting.com">topband at contesting.com</a> 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 2:22:53 PM 
Subject: Re: Topband: strange propagation 

Well......many of us /have/ worked to change the rules to reflect the 
use of remote operations. In FACT, the ARRL DX Advisory Committee 
recommended to the ARRL BOD that a distance limit be included in the 
rule. The BOD rejected that recommendation despite the FACT that the 
members of the BOD actually appoint the members to the DXAC. So, they 
appoint members and totally ignore or reject their recommendation. 

Also, even after my post, no one has offered a position on why a 
separate DXCC award for using remote is unfair or unacceptable. All we 
ever hear is "it's legal" or "you object to technology", or "you're 
whiners". We understand it is perfectly legal, and we embrace new 
technology. We simply have an opinion that honestly differs from yours. 

Tom is correct in that the DXCC Award was diminished over the years do 
to the location rule change(s). But, the number of super stations now 
(and in the future) available for rent and the number of folks using it 
will dilute the Award many times more than the previous changes. It begs 
for a separate award. 

73 John W4II 
_________________ 
Topband Reflector Archives - <a removedlink__ea25cda2-c4e4-4524-8ef0-ae7d93c0f75b__href="http://www.contesting.com/_topband" target="_blank">http://www.contesting.com/_topband</a> 

_________________ 
Topband Reflector Archives - <a removedlink__ea25cda2-c4e4-4524-8ef0-ae7d93c0f75b__href="http://www.contesting.com/_topband" target="_blank">http://www.contesting.com/_topband</a> 

_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - <a removedlink__ea25cda2-c4e4-4524-8ef0-ae7d93c0f75b__href="http://www.contesting.com/_topband" target="_blank">http://www.contesting.com/_topband</a>