[OKDXA] Remote operation

[D C _Mac_ Macdonald]

How about this? 
 
1) One remote site only.  Must be on licensee's license as a remote location.  All equipment must be owned by licensee.  
 
2) Any awards ONLY for operation from a given location (remote location OR the fixed "home" location).  I.E., No mixing of QSOs/operation from BOTH locations for awards.
 
* * * * * * * * * * * 
* 73 - Mac, K2GKK/5 * 
* (Since 30 Nov 53) * 
* k2gkk hotmail com * 
* Oklahoma City, OK * 
* USAF & FAA (Ret.) * 
* * * * * * * * * * * 
 

> From: rksimpson1 at cox.net
> To: okdxa at mailman.qth.net; okdxa at mailman.qth.net
> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 02:06:25 +0000
> Subject: Re: [OKDXA] Remote operation
> 
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<< FROM ROGER      K5RKS
> I think my view is the same as many of you that have commented. I think 
> remote operation should definitely be allowed. It is legal and it is 
> answering the need of people who live in CC&R restricted locations or 
> apartments, etc. However, I do think that we need some type of distance 
> limit between the remote transmitter/receiver location and the location 
> of the operator.
> 
> One reason this is needed is to insure fairness across different DX 
> entities.
> 
> Consider a guy who lives in a condo in St. Louis. Without some distance 
> restrictions he could run a remote station on Marin Headlands [Pt. Reyes 
> CA] or on Cape Cod depending upon where the DX is located and what is 
> going on with propagation depending upon the time of day and on the band 
> of interest.  He could work VU4 from both Coasts in a single 24 hr 
> period!!
> 
> Now consider a guy who lives in Manchester England. Without a distance 
> limitation he could only run remote within the "narrow confines" of 
> England because Scotland and Wales [and even the Channel Islands] are 
> separate DXCC entities.
> 
> We should allow remote operation but we should not give guys who live in 
> giant entities that span a whole continent (and many time zones -- such 
> as USA and Canada) a HUGE advantage compared to those running remote in 
> JA or EU for example.
> 
> It wouldn't be even "remotely "fair" {pun intended} if a guy in DL land 
> could run remote within an area the size of the USA state of Oregon 
> while the guy living in USA could run remote across an area over an 
> order of magnitude larger than Germany that spans a whole continent.
> 
> 
> 73    Roger   K5RKS
>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> 
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Rick Vidmar K9KK" <K9KK at atlinkwifi.com>
> To: "Oklahoma DX Association" <okdxa at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: 11/24/2014 4:41:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [OKDXA] Remote operation
> 
> >GARY
> >Very well said.
> >My Thinking EXACTLY.
> >K9KK, Rick
> >
> >On 11/24/2014 4:11 PM, Gary McCrorey wrote:
> >>      Myself, as long as the remote station is in the general location 
> >>of the operator it should be allowed. What I have a problem with is 
> >>stations on the west coast using stations on the east coast and vice 
> >>versa. Also, if a station is overseas etc, and using a remote station 
> >>here in the united states,, should not be allowed. We would not 
> >>actually be working the station from that country. I realize with all 
> >>the restrictions it is getting harder and harder to fine a place 
> >>allowing outside antenna's. I usually try to find someplace without 
> >>covernants, but this is getting more and more difficult. So, with 
> >>using remote within a couple of hundred miles, I am perfectly ok with, 
> >>but any further, should not be allowed.
> >>      This is just my opinion.
> >>Thanks,
> >>WQ5R Gary
> >>
> >>---