[Elecraft] K3/0

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

On 1/16/2012 9:36 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
 >
> Oh give me a break. Can you honestly tell me that there is a
> significant difference between driving your car over to a decked out
> club station to operate a contest versus doing the same thing via a
> remote link? Seriously??

Absolutely - the human interaction (multi-multi with every operator in
his own home?).

> There are already people using remote receivers while claiming
> operation from a home QTH. Those folks are cheats, but they're no
> different than the many more cheats who operate excess power, or
> claim unassisted while using the spotting clusters, or have their
> buddy on the other coast work a tough station for them for DXCC.

I knew "big name" DXers who had a buddy in Western Washington hold the
phone to the speaker of his receiver so the guy in Ohio or Michigan,
or Pennsylvania, etc. could hear the XZ or A5 or S2 on 80 meters then
call with an Alpha 77DX or home brew 8171 running everything it would
produce back in the 70's.  Sure it's "cheating" ... nothing's changed
morally challenged individuals will do unethical things but I don't
have to like it and I don't have to remain silent about it.

> And no particular definition of ham radio makes it "unique". The
> great value of this hobby is that it covers such a wide range of
> interests and capabilities, and the spectrum of technology within it
> is continuous, not discrete.

True, there is no one definition that makes it unique but there are
some definitions in both US law and international treaty that provide
a rather clear picture - non-commercial, person to person, innovation
in the radio art, "wireless", etc.  I certainly don't find anything
that makes it a common carrier or a wired - even in part - service.

However, this is getting rather far afield.  The argument that wired
"remote operation" is a necessity for success and enjoyment of ham
radio in HOA and antenna limited conditions simply does not pass the
smell test.  It is possible to make all kinds of excuses for wired
remote but in my book they are just that - excuses.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 1/16/2012 9:36 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>
> Oh give me a break. Can you honestly tell me that there is a significant
> difference between driving your car over to a decked out club station to
> operate a contest versus doing the same thing via a remote link?
> Seriously??
>
> I get really, really tired of some of you folks telling everyone else
> what they should be willing to live with, or what they should be doing
> in order to be legitimate. If the FCC says it's OK and the event sponsor
> (contest, DXCC) says it's OK, who are you to say it isn't?
>
> There are already people using remote receivers while claiming operation
> from a home QTH. Those folks are cheats, but they're no different than
> the many more cheats who operate excess power, or claim unassisted while
> using the spotting clusters, or have their buddy on the other coast work
> a tough station for them for DXCC. We're not talking about people who
> operate from Aruba while sitting in New York, but even if we were what's
> the problem? Your RF traveled to Aruba and their RF came back to you
> from Aruba. You worked Aruba, period.
>
> The argument about regulators and commercial interests using remote
> stations as evidence that amateur radio can be supplanted by online
> links is truly bogus. Of course ham radio can be supplanted by online
> links. Anybody who doesn't already believe that hasn't been paying
> attention.
>
> And no particular definition of ham radio makes it "unique". The great
> value of this hobby is that it covers such a wide range of interests and
> capabilities, and the spectrum of technology within it is continuous,
> not discrete. Here's an example. Hand key CW --> bug key CW -->
> electronic keyer CW --> memory keyer CW --> logging program CW (auto
> fills on report, callsign, etc).
>
> This hobby really needs fewer intolerant and narrow minded old men ...
> and probably fewer old men like me who get all riled up about stupid stuff.
>
> Dave AB7E
>
>
>
> On 1/16/2012 6:51 PM, Don Wilhelm wrote:
>> Joe,
>>
>> I support and applaud your position.
>> There are those who will support "contacts at any cost", and that is
>> just not ham radio to me - if you can buy contacts for dollars (or
>> pounds or pesos), then it is no longer ham radio.
>> One of the main rules of ham radio for me is the "no pecuniary
>> interest" rule. That says to me that ham radio is all about sharing,
>> and not for personal gain. When we begin to talk about "stations for
>> hire", that is when my interest wanes. Many of us take pride in our
>> stations and our operating skills, and strive to improve on our
>> previous 'score' in the same contest from last year. We do not all
>> have to be "top dogs" in order to have satisfaction.
>> This is a hobby, enjoy it in what ever way you are able - there are
>> many, many facets, and you do not have to excel in all of them - pick
>> what appeals to you and 'just do it'.
>>
>> If HOAs restrict you to attic antennas, so be it, you can still work
>> DXCC with that attic antenna, and be rightfully proud of your
>> accomplishment. Sure, you will not do it in a weekend like those with
>> monster antennas and 1.5kW transmitters, but you can still do it and
>> stand proud of your accomplishment.
>>
>> 73,
>> Don W3FPR
>>
>> On 1/16/2012 8:33 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>>> > Joe said it "smells" and I'm just really curious why.
>>>
>>> You misquote me ... I said that argument that remote operation was a
>>> necessary answer to HOAs/other antenna restrictions and the only way
>>> to get on the air did not pass the smell test.
>>>
>>> As far as I am concerned, remote operation changes the character of
>>> amateur radio from over the air "amateur radio" to "landline based
>>> commercial communication" at least in part. When the operator is not
>>> present at the station (transmitting/receiving site) the "radio" part
>>> of the communications path can become infinitesimal - nothing more
>>> than a hand-held link to the nearest access point.
>>>
>>> That eliminates everything that makes amateur radio unique. Taking
>>> that one step further ... if the mode is digital, one might as well
>>> be using keyboard chat on the internet.
>>>
>>> In my career as an amateur I've seen repeaters go from something
>>> built in the garage/shack to multi-site, statewide linked, trunked
>>> communications systems. I have watched packet radio go from a random
>>> network of individual stations to nothing more than the equivalent of
>>> wireless access points linked by commercial wired networks (internet).
>>>
>>> I don't want to see HF devolve to the point that "amateurs" will need
>>> to pay for membership in and access to a series of "mega stations" in
>>> northeast Maine, southern Florida, northwest Washington and southern
>>> California to have the best shot at DX ... or even worse Radio Arcla
>>> class facilities all over the world just to be able to "chat" with
>>> any amateur, anywhere without regard to propagation, local conditions
>>> and time of day.
>>>
>>> I've already seen evidence of individuals working a DX contest from
>>> KP2 or other locations in the Caribbean while setting at home in New
>>> York or Boston or San Francisco, etc. I'd rather *never* work a P5
>>> than "work" someone operating a multi-band remote transmitter located
>>> on the roof of a PyongYang hotel (or cell-phone factory) with operators
>>> in Oakland, Atlanta, London, Berlin and Helsinki.
>>>
>>> Is remote technology "fun"? Is it an engineering challenge? Yes.
>>> Is it appropriate for amateur radio? Not in my book (even though
>>> that opinion may be contrary to my own bank account before long)!
>>>
>>> Remote operation/remote technology offers a huge opportunity for
>>> regulators and those commercial interests (primarily messaging
>>> and remote sensing companies) who would like to acquire amateur
>>> spectrum to argue that "amateur radio" can be accommodated entirely
>>> on-line rather than continue to occupy more than 15% of the spectrum
>>> below 30 MHz.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> ... Joe, W4TV
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/16/2012 7:11 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>>>> Although I've never had to deal with an HOA, I lived for thirty
>>>> years in
>>>> a neighborhood that "frowned" upon any kind of tower, and the lot was
>>>> small enough that I didn't want one to dominate everything anyway. I
>>>> worked over 300 countries with simple homebrew verticals and had
>>>> lots of
>>>> fun doing so, but for you or anyone else to tell me that I should just
>>>> be content to live with those restrictions is beyond your pay grade.
>>>>
>>>> Antenna restrictions are not the only limitation some folks have to
>>>> live
>>>> with. Local QRN can be a real issue for some, and trust me ... it is a
>>>> LOT more fun to be able to hear stations than it is not to hear them.
>>>> Ask any contester how much fun it is to endlessly call stations only to
>>>> have most of your RF end up as heat loss in the ground or a nearby
>>>> building.
>>>>
>>>> I now have a tower with excellent antennas on a nice hillside lot. Very
>>>> few people get to enjoy what I experience during a contest, where I can
>>>> run a frequency for hours and not have to rely solely on S&P. Remote
>>>> operation potentially gives some folks that opportunity and I can't see
>>>> a thing wrong with it. Joe said it "smells" and I'm just really
>>>> curious why.
>>>>
>>>> Dave AB7E
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/16/2012 4:27 PM, Phil Hystad wrote:
>>>>> I will guess that Joe is suggesting that remote operation should
>>>>> not be needed to enjoy ham radio from any location. Maybe, I am
>>>>> just guessing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 16, 2012, at 3:25 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So ... what exactly about that "smells"? You figure they're trying to
>>>>>> cheat in some way? What else would you have against somebody doing
>>>>>> that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave AB7E
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/16/2012 2:09 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>>>>>>>> I have thought for many years that it would be a great feature if a
>>>>>>>> radio club could set up a super station and offer remote access
>>>>>>>> to its
>>>>>>>> apartment-bound members.
>>>>>>> I keep hearing this - and the "HOA limitation" - as justification
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> remote operation. As far as I'm concerned both just don't "pass the
>>>>>>> smell test."
>