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

[Herbert Schoenbohm]

Do you get the impression that the ARRL has always been lagging behind 
dragging their feet and slow to  grasp the many advances in our hobby 
that lie ahead? This is evidenced by their collective inability to make 
needed upgrades to programs and contest rules. A perfect example is the 
ARRL 160 meter contest which clearly punishes stations located in the 
U.S. Territories by counting them as ARRL states rather than DX like 
they really are.  Many have begged and pleaded for change by following 
the suggested procedures of writing the CAC and Directors for nearly two 
decades.  All attempts are ignored and everything remains the same.  Why 
does this not surprise you?



Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ

On 7/12/2015 12:19 AM, W0MU wrote:
Boxbe  This message is eligible for 
Automatic Cleanup! (w...@w0mu.com) Add cleanup rule 
 
| More info 
 


While the horse and carriage still exist very few use them.

I am sorry you feel badly about ham radio as we have had some very 
amazing advancesWeak signal programs are amazing.


On 7/11/2015 10:09 AM, Roger D Johnson wrote:
I sat down to write an intelligent response to the remote question 
but realized
I don't really care anymore. The Amateur Radio that I grew up with, 
and loved,
is gone forever. Thanks to the ARRL and the FCC, it has been "dumbed 
down"

and deregulated to the point where it's just another Citizens Band.

73, Roger


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


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


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

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

[w7dra]

i started radio with WN7ZVY in 1955, and i use the same rules that were
in vogue then. if it is in the 1954 ARRL handbook i do it

when i operate at my dughters house 50 miles away from my house i sign
W7DRA/7

field day still has a 30 watt input power regulation

mike w7dra


On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 20:43:34 -0800 Gary and Kathleen Pearse
 writes:
> I told myself when I started Amateur Radio I was going to be a 
> Goose…where every day’s a new day. No awards, just work who you can, 
> when you can, any way you can. 
> 
> So now when I hear DX or there’s a contest I try to make a contact 
> if it’s of interest. As I say, that way every day and contact’s a 
> new one.
> 
> 73, Gary NL7Y 
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> 


Old School Yearbook Pics
View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/55a1feec1bfa37eeb4df8st03vuc
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

[Gary and Kathleen Pearse]

I told myself when I started Amateur Radio I was going to be a Goose…where 
every day’s a new day. No awards, just work who you can, when you can, any way 
you can. 

So now when I hear DX or there’s a contest I try to make a contact if it’s of 
interest. As I say, that way every day and contact’s a new one.

73, Gary NL7Y 
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

[W0MU]

While the horse and carriage still exist very few use them.

I am sorry you feel badly about ham radio as we have had some very 
amazing advancesWeak signal programs are amazing.


On 7/11/2015 10:09 AM, Roger D Johnson wrote:
I sat down to write an intelligent response to the remote question but 
realized
I don't really care anymore. The Amateur Radio that I grew up with, 
and loved,
is gone forever. Thanks to the ARRL and the FCC, it has been "dumbed 
down"

and deregulated to the point where it's just another Citizens Band.

73, Roger


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


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

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

[JC]

Hi Larry

You right, I sent my comments to the board. The main rule I would like to
see implemented it the one in place, or  almost in place I should say it. 

All 160m QSL cards are verified by a certified 160m DXCC holder. QSO's
during day time are  rejected.

However LOTW does not have a simple software routine to check day time QSO's
on 160m and validate them. I reported several day time QSO's on 160m from
few PY's well know, but because the way LOTW works, if the QSO match on the
files when those QSO's was uploaded. It mean's validated!! ... and  as valid
the DXCC credit was  just few dollars away!! Without the same QSL
verification on/for the paper QSL!

I don't think the DXCC board will protect Ham Radio service when ARRL opened
the door for commercial use of ham radio frequencies paid U$ per minute. 

I see nothing wrong with the love to implement a remote station or a DX club
remote station.  I really love the technology that we built , it is part of
our DNA

BUT !! and here is the BUT , when we welcome HRH to commercialize air time
per dollar using our HAM RADIO privilege frequencies, we are in risk to lose
our entire ham radio privilege. It has nothing to do with remote operation
at all. It is about the nature of our service.

We are allowing the change of the nature of our service! When we do so. It
is just a matter of who pay more, it become a price negotiation of the air
waves usage . No love or passion anymore , just pure money talk.

Just to be aware there is real invasion of new HF services hungry for
broadband digital communication. Some future discussion will be only about
revenue and not about public safety, innovation, love for radio, all things
we care and hold us together for the last century.

Regards
JC
N4IS 

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Larry
Burke
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 3:01 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for
input

I am fascinated by the enforceability argument. There are a number
unenforceable DXCC rules. And they JUST ADDED A NEW ONE in January ("For the
purpose of DXCC credit, all transmitters and receivers must be located
within a 500-meter diameter circle, excluding antennas"). At some point it
really does come down to honor. Some folks have it, some folks don't. 

The recent rules "tweaking" was accompanied by lots of words about ethics,
with little clarification of what that word means. While it seems simple,
many are equating "ethics" with "rules". They are not usually the same
thing. 

- Larry K5RK



-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of John
K9UWA
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 12:04 PM
To: 
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for
input

Although I agree with many who have posted to this thread I will only say
this. 

The ARRL can not create a DXCC rule that they have no ability to enforce. 

Other than some He Said She Said that Joe Doe's signal was coming from the
wrong direction so he wasn't transmitting from his home station. Even then
who is to say that Joe Doe wasn't off visiting some ham buddy on the other
side of the country? Then it is legal under current rules. And no one
complains about that type of operation. 

John k9uwa


John Goller, K9UWA & Jean Goller, N9PXF Antique Radio Restorations
k9...@arrl.net Visit our Web Site at:
http://www.JohnJeanAntiqueRadio.com
4836 Ranch Road
Leo, IN 46765
USA
1-260-637-6426

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

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

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

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

[Robert Harmon]

Jim,

Thanks, I have done the same.

You can give your opinion on this subject by contacting your ARRL division 
director.
Click on this webpage,  select your director, and send an email !

http://www.arrl.org/divisions 

73,
Bob
K6UJ





 
> On Jul 11, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Jim Brown  wrote:
> 
> On Fri,7/10/2015 7:09 AM, Tony K1AMF wrote:
>> Please e-mail N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions 
>> or comments.
> 
> Here's what I wrote to my Director, and to a few others who I know. My 
> Subject line was "DXCC Rules and Remote Operation."
> 
> =   =   =   =   =
> 
> In advance of a meeting where I expect this issue to be discussed, I want to 
> let you know how I feel about DXCC Rules and Remote Operation.
> 
> I am strongly opposed to the use of a remote station to give the operator a 
> geographical advantage over his licensed location for geographically based 
> awards like DXCC, WAS, VUCC. I also object to the use of rented stations for 
> this purpose, no matter where they are located. I have no objection to an 
> operator using a remote station that he has built with or without the 
> assistance of others within a few hundred miles of his home QTH.
> 
> I am also strongly opposed to the current DXCC Rules that allow credit for 
> QSOs made from a location anywhere in the continental United States. I favor 
> instead a rule similar to that for VUCC, which allows credit for QSOs made no 
> more than 200 km apart. For DXCC, 700 miles might be a more appropriate 
> distance. The existing rule greatly cheapens the award.
> 
> Having operated first from WV, then from Chicago, and now from Northern 
> California, I can testify that working DX on any band is very different 
> between W8/W9 and W6. I did not start over moving from WV to Chicago, but I 
> did when moving to CA 9 years ago. I would have felt that I was cheating if I 
> had not.
> 
> I have 135 countries confirmed on 160M and 201 on 80M since moving to W6 nine 
> years ago. Under the current rules, I could almost certainly add 50 countries 
> to each of those bands by renting a station in W1 for any contest weekend. 
> That stinks.
> 
> 73, Jim Brown K9YC
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

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

[wb6rse1]

It’s an easy problem to solve. Just change every country with districts into 
multiple DXCC entities. WØ-W9. Ten new countries. VE1, VE2, VK1 etc. Move to 
another “country,” start all over. And restart DXCC by band and mode from 
scratch. No grandfathered credits. How about on April 1, 2016? If you move from 
Phoenix to Seattle you keep your credits. Move a few hundred miles West to LA, 
too bad. From Pittsburgh to Cleveland, no dice. Great fun. Think of the 
possibilities. The pile ups, scheds, getting up in the wee hours of the night 
all over again just for an “ATNO.” Think of the money that could be raised to 
fund DXpeditions to re-activate wet rocks or islands with no indigenous 
population.

Now look in the mirror and ask yourself if your DXCC totals prove anything 
other than how old you are.

Steve WB6RSE
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

[Jim Brown]

On Fri,7/10/2015 7:09 AM, Tony K1AMF wrote:

Please e-mail N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions or 
comments.


Here's what I wrote to my Director, and to a few others who I know. My 
Subject line was "DXCC Rules and Remote Operation."


=   =   =   =   =

In advance of a meeting where I expect this issue to be discussed, I 
want to let you know how I feel about DXCC Rules and Remote Operation.


I am strongly opposed to the use of a remote station to give the 
operator a geographical advantage over his licensed location for 
geographically based awards like DXCC, WAS, VUCC. I also object to the 
use of rented stations for this purpose, no matter where they are 
located. I have no objection to an operator using a remote station that 
he has built with or without the assistance of others within a few 
hundred miles of his home QTH.


I am also strongly opposed to the current DXCC Rules that allow credit 
for QSOs made from a location anywhere in the continental United States. 
I favor instead a rule similar to that for VUCC, which allows credit for 
QSOs made no more than 200 km apart. For DXCC, 700 miles might be a more 
appropriate distance. The existing rule greatly cheapens the award.


Having operated first from WV, then from Chicago, and now from Northern 
California, I can testify that working DX on any band is very different 
between W8/W9 and W6. I did not start over moving from WV to Chicago, 
but I did when moving to CA 9 years ago. I would have felt that I was 
cheating if I had not.


I have 135 countries confirmed on 160M and 201 on 80M since moving to W6 
nine years ago. Under the current rules, I could almost certainly add 50 
countries to each of those bands by renting a station in W1 for any 
contest weekend. That stinks.


73, Jim Brown K9YC
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

[KE1F Lou]

Cheer up.

"dumbed down" way is the only way to increase the number of available 
customers for QST and the hardware manufacturer's products.


Enjoy it while you still can.

73 Lou  KE1F


On 7/11/2015 12:09 PM, Roger D Johnson wrote:
I sat down to write an intelligent response to the remote question but 
realized
I don't really care anymore. The Amateur Radio that I grew up with, 
and loved,
is gone forever. Thanks to the ARRL and the FCC, it has been "dumbed 
down"

and deregulated to the point where it's just another Citizens Band.

73, Roger


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



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

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

[Larry Burke]

I am fascinated by the enforceability argument. There are a number
unenforceable DXCC rules. And they JUST ADDED A NEW ONE in January ("For the
purpose of DXCC credit, all transmitters and receivers must be located
within a 500-meter diameter circle, excluding antennas"). At some point it
really does come down to honor. Some folks have it, some folks don't. 

The recent rules "tweaking" was accompanied by lots of words about ethics,
with little clarification of what that word means. While it seems simple,
many are equating "ethics" with "rules". They are not usually the same
thing. 

- Larry K5RK



-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of John
K9UWA
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 12:04 PM
To: 
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for
input

Although I agree with many who have posted to this thread I will only say
this. 

The ARRL can not create a DXCC rule that they have no ability to enforce. 

Other than some He Said She Said that Joe Doe's signal was coming from the
wrong direction so he wasn't transmitting from his home station. Even then
who is to say that Joe Doe wasn't off visiting some ham buddy on the other
side of the country? Then it is legal under current rules. And no one
complains about that type of operation. 

John k9uwa


John Goller, K9UWA & Jean Goller, N9PXF Antique Radio Restorations
k9...@arrl.net Visit our Web Site at:
http://www.JohnJeanAntiqueRadio.com
4836 Ranch Road
Leo, IN 46765
USA
1-260-637-6426

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

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

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

[Dave AA6YQ]

What's the ethical difference between an NA east coast op who uses an NA west 
coast remote to work 160m Asian DX, and an NA east
coast op who flies to a friend's NA west coast QTH for a  week to work 160m 
Asian DX?

What's the ethical difference between paying someone to assemble and maintain a 
station in your home QTH, and using a remote station
~5 miles away?

A DXer can submit a QSL card or LoTW confirmation to the DXCC desk as evidence 
of a QSO, but there is no practical way for the DXer
to prove that he or she was operating from a particular location when that QSO 
was made. So while a "single QTH" endorsement sounds
appealing, it would be entirely based on the honor system.

The ARRL has established DXCC rules it can (mostly) enforce. "Operator 
location" isn't one of those rules, so it's up to each DXer
to choose how he or she will operate. 

   73,

  Dave, AA6YQ


-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of John K9UWA
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 1:04 PM
To: 
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input

Although I agree with many who have posted to this thread I will only say this. 

The ARRL can not create a DXCC rule that they have no ability to enforce. 

Other than some He Said She Said that Joe Doe's signal was coming from the 
wrong direction so he wasn't transmitting from his home
station. Even then who is to say that Joe Doe wasn't off visiting some ham 
buddy on the other side of the country? Then it is legal
under current rules. And no one complains about that type of operation. 

John k9uwa


John Goller, K9UWA & Jean Goller, N9PXF Antique Radio Restorations 
k9...@arrl.net Visit our Web Site at:
http://www.JohnJeanAntiqueRadio.com
4836 Ranch Road
Leo, IN 46765
USA
1-260-637-6426

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

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

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

[John K9UWA]

Although I agree with many who have posted to this thread I will only say 
this. 

The ARRL can not create a DXCC rule that they have no ability to enforce. 

Other than some He Said She Said that Joe Doe's signal was coming from 
the wrong direction so he wasn't transmitting from his home station. Even 
then who is to say that Joe Doe wasn't off visiting some ham buddy on the 
other side of the country? Then it is legal under current rules. And no one 
complains about that type of operation. 

John k9uwa


John Goller, K9UWA & Jean Goller, N9PXF 
Antique Radio Restorations
k9...@arrl.net
Visit our Web Site at:
http://www.JohnJeanAntiqueRadio.com
4836 Ranch Road
Leo, IN 46765
USA
1-260-637-6426

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

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

[Chortek, Robert L]

People should be free to operate any way they please - within the rules.  I 
understand this discussion is about what the rules "should" be. 

It's all about having fun!  It's also about striking a reasonable balance 
between the many benefits of remote operation (discussed here multiple times) 
and the "disruption" caused by the rapid expansion of remote operation (also 
discussed here).  
 
To each his own I say and don't worry about the "other guy".  Be satisfied with 
what you accomplished - in the way you chose to do it.

Let's put this into perspective- People are dying out there.  This issue is 
really not important.

73,

Bob AA6VB
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

[Roger D Johnson]

I sat down to write an intelligent response to the remote question but realized
I don't really care anymore. The Amateur Radio that I grew up with, and loved,
is gone forever. Thanks to the ARRL and the FCC, it has been "dumbed down"
and deregulated to the point where it's just another Citizens Band.

73, Roger


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

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

[Robert Harmon]

Larry,
I agree with Cecil. very good points. !

Bob
K6UJ





> On Jul 11, 2015, at 7:44 AM, Cecil  wrote:
> 
> All excellent points and very well stated Larry
> 
> Cecil
> K5DL
> 
> Sent using recycled electrons.
> 
>> On Jul 11, 2015, at 6:48 AM, Larry Burke  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> This issue is actually bigger than the farce it is making of the ARRL awards
>> programs. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> When you write your Division Director you might also ask him "at what point
>> will the League consider 'for rent' commercial remotes -- which are already
>> in operation today -- an affront to the amateur spectrum?" At what point
>> will these stations be indistinguishable from common carrier networks, which
>> are highly regulated in the US? If Verizon Wireless wakes up one day and
>> realizes they have much of the infrastructure in place (towers, internet
>> connections, backup generators, billing systems) would the League be
>> receptive to them dotting both coasts with remotes? At what point will the
>> amateur community finally object? The barriers to entry into this game are
>> really not that high for the right player. The more "commercial" the Amateur
>> Service becomes, the more vulnerable it becomes at spectrum allocation time.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> You might also ask your Director how the League's support of commercial
>> remotes is consistent with their very prominent push of HR 1301 and S 1685
>> (The Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2015). Why would lawmakers want to provide
>> relief from antenna restrictions if all a ham has to do is sign up for
>> RemoteHamRadio.com or similar to get on the air? Years of ARRL efforts in
>> this arena can disappear pretty quickly, and it wouldn't take a very bright
>> lobbyist for an association of HOAs to figure this out. All they'd have to
>> do is point to the RemoteHamRadio.com ad on the page facing the April 2015
>> editorial in QST the editorial that announces the January Board decision
>> and arguably supports commercial remotes.  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Larry K5RK
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

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

[Cecil]

All excellent points and very well stated Larry

Cecil
K5DL

Sent using recycled electrons.

> On Jul 11, 2015, at 6:48 AM, Larry Burke  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> This issue is actually bigger than the farce it is making of the ARRL awards
> programs. 
> 
> 
> 
> When you write your Division Director you might also ask him "at what point
> will the League consider 'for rent' commercial remotes -- which are already
> in operation today -- an affront to the amateur spectrum?" At what point
> will these stations be indistinguishable from common carrier networks, which
> are highly regulated in the US? If Verizon Wireless wakes up one day and
> realizes they have much of the infrastructure in place (towers, internet
> connections, backup generators, billing systems) would the League be
> receptive to them dotting both coasts with remotes? At what point will the
> amateur community finally object? The barriers to entry into this game are
> really not that high for the right player. The more "commercial" the Amateur
> Service becomes, the more vulnerable it becomes at spectrum allocation time.
> 
> 
> 
> You might also ask your Director how the League's support of commercial
> remotes is consistent with their very prominent push of HR 1301 and S 1685
> (The Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2015). Why would lawmakers want to provide
> relief from antenna restrictions if all a ham has to do is sign up for
> RemoteHamRadio.com or similar to get on the air? Years of ARRL efforts in
> this arena can disappear pretty quickly, and it wouldn't take a very bright
> lobbyist for an association of HOAs to figure this out. All they'd have to
> do is point to the RemoteHamRadio.com ad on the page facing the April 2015
> editorial in QST the editorial that announces the January Board decision
> and arguably supports commercial remotes.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Larry K5RK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

[Larry Burke]

 

This issue is actually bigger than the farce it is making of the ARRL awards
programs. 

 

When you write your Division Director you might also ask him "at what point
will the League consider 'for rent' commercial remotes -- which are already
in operation today -- an affront to the amateur spectrum?" At what point
will these stations be indistinguishable from common carrier networks, which
are highly regulated in the US? If Verizon Wireless wakes up one day and
realizes they have much of the infrastructure in place (towers, internet
connections, backup generators, billing systems) would the League be
receptive to them dotting both coasts with remotes? At what point will the
amateur community finally object? The barriers to entry into this game are
really not that high for the right player. The more "commercial" the Amateur
Service becomes, the more vulnerable it becomes at spectrum allocation time.

 

You might also ask your Director how the League's support of commercial
remotes is consistent with their very prominent push of HR 1301 and S 1685
(The Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2015). Why would lawmakers want to provide
relief from antenna restrictions if all a ham has to do is sign up for
RemoteHamRadio.com or similar to get on the air? Years of ARRL efforts in
this arena can disappear pretty quickly, and it wouldn't take a very bright
lobbyist for an association of HOAs to figure this out. All they'd have to
do is point to the RemoteHamRadio.com ad on the page facing the April 2015
editorial in QST the editorial that announces the January Board decision
and arguably supports commercial remotes.  

 

 

Larry K5RK

 

 

 

 

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

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

[Herbert Schoenbohm]

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  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-cunning...@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-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tony
K1AMF
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM
To: topband@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 
Date: 07/09/2015  7:01 PM  (GMT-05:00)
To: k1...@live.com
Subject: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for in

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

[Ed Stallman]

Remote Ham Radio

Ed N5DG

On 7/10/2015 9:50 PM, Charles Cu nningham wrote:

Excuse my ignorance, Ed, what's "RHR"?


-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ed
Stallman
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 9:34 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for
input

Please get an email off to your ARRL Division Director , they do want to
hear from you !
The West Gulf Coast Director let me know that he is also receiving email's
from op's that think RHR is the best thing since slice bread .

Ed N5DG



On 7/10/2015 8:09 PM, Larry Burke wrote:

Guys, the feedback needs go to your ARRL Division Director, not the
Topband Reflector -- the ARRL is not reading this list. Feedback needs
to be received prior to next Wednesday, July 15. You can find your
Director and his contact information here:
http://www.arrl.org/divisions

- Larry K5RK

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Robert Harmon
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 7:42 PM
To: topband
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking
for input

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

 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-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Tony K1AMF
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM
To: topband@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 
Date: 07/09/2015  7:01 PM  (GMT-05:00)
To: k1...@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
n2...@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



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus sof

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

[Charles Cu nningham]

Excuse my ignorance, Ed, what's "RHR"?


-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ed
Stallman
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 9:34 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for
input

Please get an email off to your ARRL Division Director , they do want to
hear from you !
The West Gulf Coast Director let me know that he is also receiving email's
from op's that think RHR is the best thing since slice bread .

Ed N5DG



On 7/10/2015 8:09 PM, Larry Burke wrote:
> Guys, the feedback needs go to your ARRL Division Director, not the 
> Topband Reflector -- the ARRL is not reading this list. Feedback needs 
> to be received prior to next Wednesday, July 15. You can find your 
> Director and his contact information here: 
> http://www.arrl.org/divisions
>
> - Larry K5RK
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of 
> Robert Harmon
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 7:42 PM
> To: topband
> Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking 
> for input
>
> 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
>  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-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of 
>> Tony K1AMF
>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM
>> To: topband@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 
>> Date: 07/09/2015  7:01 PM  (GMT-05:00)
>> To: k1...@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
>>
>> ---

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

[Charles Cu nningham]

'Scuze me, guys!  I had to take a break for something to eat!  Larry -
important point!  I'll forward my comments to ARRL. Greg, I don't have a
problem at all if you are operating your own station remotely, using the
same antennas, radios etc. What I would object to would be if you were
operating  "Super Station" in the Phillppines to gain some advantage into
Asia, the Indian Ocean, VK/ZL etc.  I do know of a JA that does exactly that
with a "Super Station" in the Phillippines. I won't mention his JA or DU
call here, but I have worked him from here in NC on 17m, when the band
should NOT have been open into DU!!

All good points guys - but, of course the ARRL willdo whatever they and the
"Old Boys' Club" damn well pleases, just as they have always done!

At this point I have worked all but P5 and I missed KH8,Swain's Island when
it was active. But with work pressures etc., I was sort of haphazard with my
QSLchoresover the years and now I'm trying to round up 4 more cards for CW
DXCC Honor Roll and I need to submit some 80m cards for 8-band CWDXCC.  Hope
I get those last 4 soon!

73,
Charlie, K4OTV




-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Greg
Zenger
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 9:11 PM
To: topband
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for
input

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  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-cunning...@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-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of 
> > Tony K1AMF
> > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM
> &

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

[Robert Harmon]

Hi Greg,

I think we have a little misunderstanding.  None of these arguments 
are against remote operation !
I am all for remote operation  even from space, what ever floats your boat.  
The issue is DXCC award entitlement.  
A proposal was suggested to have separate DXCC award categories for home vs 
remote.  
That way everyone can pursue DXCC to their hearts content and in each category 
there is a level playing field.
(that is the crux of the issue)


73,
Bob
K6UJ




> On Jul 10, 2015, at 6:11 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  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-cunning...@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-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tony
>>> K1AMF
>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM
>>> To: topband@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 
>>> Date: 07/09/2015  7:01 PM  (GMT-05:00)
>>> To: k1...@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

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

[Dave Blaschke, w5un]

Greg,
 I consider this type of operation totally legitimate. The station 
never moves around.

Dave, W5UN
p.s. guys, send your arguments for or against  to your ARRL director 
before Wednesday

p.p.s. lets get this resolved

On 7/11/2015 1:11 AM, 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  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-cunning...@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-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tony
K1AMF
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM
To: topband@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 
Date: 07/09/2015  7:01 PM  (GMT-05:00)
To: k1...@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
n2...@arrl.org


To unsubscribe from messages, go to:
http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/9f9aac45c9716441c7caaf5957d1c686
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
To

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

[Ed Stallman]

Please get an email off to your ARRL Division Director , they do want to 
hear from you !
The West Gulf Coast Director let me know that he is also receiving 
email's from op's that think RHR is the best thing since slice bread .


Ed N5DG



On 7/10/2015 8:09 PM, Larry Burke wrote:

Guys, the feedback needs go to your ARRL Division Director, not the Topband
Reflector -- the ARRL is not reading this list. Feedback needs to be
received prior to next Wednesday, July 15. You can find your Director and
his contact information here: http://www.arrl.org/divisions

- Larry K5RK

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert
Harmon
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 7:42 PM
To: topband
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for
input

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

 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-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Tony K1AMF
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM
To: topband@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 
Date: 07/09/2015  7:01 PM  (GMT-05:00)
To: k1...@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
n2...@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




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

[Greg Zenger]

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  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-cunning...@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-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tony
> > K1AMF
> > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM
> > To: topband@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 
> > Date: 07/09/2015  7:01 PM  (GMT-05:00)
> > To: k1...@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
> > n2...@arrl.org
> > 
> >
> > To unsubscribe from messages, go to:
> > http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/9f9aac45c9716441c7caaf5957d1c686
> > _
> > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_t

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

[Larry Burke]

Guys, the feedback needs go to your ARRL Division Director, not the Topband
Reflector -- the ARRL is not reading this list. Feedback needs to be
received prior to next Wednesday, July 15. You can find your Director and
his contact information here: http://www.arrl.org/divisions

- Larry K5RK

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert
Harmon
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 7:42 PM
To: topband
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for
input

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
 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-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of 
> Tony K1AMF
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM
> To: topband@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 
> Date: 07/09/2015  7:01 PM  (GMT-05:00)
> To: k1...@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
> n2...@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

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

[Doug Renwick]

I am in complete agreement with Bob and Charlie.  The ARRL has dumbed down
the DXCC award to the point where it is nearly meaningless.

Doug

I wasn't born in Saskatchewan, but I got here as soon as I could.

-Original Message-

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
 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-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tony
> K1AMF
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM
> To: topband@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 
> Date: 07/09/2015  7:01 PM  (GMT-05:00)
> To: k1...@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
> n2...@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


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

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

[Robert Harmon]

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 
>  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-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tony
> K1AMF
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM
> To: topband@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 
> Date: 07/09/2015  7:01 PM  (GMT-05:00)
> To: k1...@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
> n2...@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

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

[Charles Cu nningham]

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-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tony
K1AMF
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:10 AM
To: topband@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 
Date: 07/09/2015  7:01 PM  (GMT-05:00)
To: k1...@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
n2...@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