[OKDXA] Remote operation- 2 CLASSES

Tue Nov 25 15:41:12 EST 2014

Rick - now you're talking. More bookeeping but no intermingling of fair unfairexcept for remote ops who has small purses for airtime fees. Actually I thinkthe service cropping up that charges fees may not be a grand money maker.A lot of "Just for the Fun of it" - to borrow an OKDXA saying, remote operations are already on the air financed by station owners like myself with costs thatequal those of fairly simple accessory items.
Starting up here I already had high speed iNet, my K3 radio and a Tokyo ampI've had around for a while.  So I just bought the MicroBit black boxes - roughly $500. They were shipped in with a full set of cables to hook up the K3. After a few hoursof reading and trying various settings things came alive. Adding the rotator unitthe WebSwitch they call it, cost another couple hundred. I am rebuilding my SO2Rsetup here but plan on placing this entire remote setup over to the side whereit can be on line at all times except during contests where I will take full controlof antennas at my SO2R console.
Another WebSwitch will be purchased for rotator #2 a Prosistel PST61 I haveon tower #2. So for roughly a thousand dollars I will have quite a robust remoteset up for city dwelling solar powered living friends to enjoy. I even have theluxury of having a 15KW natural gas generator that fires up in the event ofelectrical failure. Life is good.
I like the separation of operational types as you suggest but still would like to seemaybe a 500 mile rope length on remote station location to accomodate folkswho are primarily hampered by city and or restricted living quarters.
73 - Jerry K5YAA

     On Monday, November 24, 2014 8:54 PM, Rick Vidmar <K9KK at atlinkwifi.com> wrote:

 Why not 2-Classes.....??????
1. Remote
2. Home/Base,  STATION.
Remote then can have it's own and new definitions.
Home/Base stays as it is and,
unchanged to maintain the continuity of the existing Awards.....
REMOTE, would have a new set of definitions,
  and it's own/new Award system.
There is NO need to have both classes compete with each other.
Then everyone should be happy.
Or so it would/might seem ????
Rick/K9KK

,
On 11/24/2014 8:06 PM, Roger Simpson wrote:
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<< 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
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
>>> protection is active.
>>> http://www.avast.com
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> OKDXA mailing list
>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/okdxa
>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>> Post: mailto:OKDXA at mailman.qth.net
>>>
>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> OKDXA mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/okdxa
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:OKDXA at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> OKDXA mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/okdxa
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:OKDXA at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

______________________________________________________________
OKDXA mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/okdxa
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:OKDXA at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html