[OKDXA] Remote operation- 2 CLASSES

Tue Nov 25 22:40:32 EST 2014

Indeed - the proceedings you forwarded here take me back to the movie Blazing Saddles - the scene where the Governor says "Can I get a Harruumph?" and all but apparently one guys says "Harruumph" - the Governor says "I didn't get a Harruumph from that fellow" after which Hedley Lamar says to the fellow "Give the Governor a Harruumph!" What a hoot that Governor was in his formal underwear missing his ink well with every effort to put his ink pen back in. 

Obviously quite formal proceedings the Governor was holding similar to these DXCC matters in your attached paragraphs, so yes, it would be good to know in what direction we should send our Harruumphs. Possibly some of the statements we are bandying back and forth on this reflector will be gathered by our regional people and passed along as fodder for the "Official" gathering and big doins on January 15, 2015.

May the remote race to the top of the new Remote DXCC Honor Roll begin!

Can I get a Harruumph on that?

73, Jerry K5YAA

iPhone Generated

On Nov 25, 2014, at 8:42 PM, Rick Vidmar <K9KK at atlinkwifi.com> wrote:

> Jerry
> WELL, it seems this issue is now being addressed by the
> ARRL board of directors.
> It would be nice to know who we send input to.
> AND, a survey would be appropriate,
> to provide input for their Jan, 2015 meeting.
> This is an excerpt from their July, 2014 meeting minutes.
> 
> 35. On motion of Mr. Norris, seconded by Mr. Widin, the following was ADOPTED:
> WHEREAS the DX Century Club (DXCC) is the premier ARRL award program, and has
> amateur operator participants worldwide; and
> WHEREAS remote controlled stations are becoming more popular and represent new
> advancements in computer and radio technologies; and
> WHEREAS remote controlled stations both commercial “for hire/rent” and private pose
> both opportunities and challenges within the DXCC program;
> NOW BE IT RESOLVED that the ARRL Board of Directors hereby tasks the Programs
> and Services Committee to closely examine this issue and consider the possible
> advantages, disadvantages and any potential ethical issues as it relates strictly to the
> DXCC program. The PSC should report its findings and any recommendations back to
> the ARRL Board no later than the January 2015 Annual Meeting of the ARRL Board of
> Directors.
> 
> On 11/25/2014 2:41 PM, Jerry Chouinard via OKDXA wrote:
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>>    ______________________________________________________________
>> 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
> 