Well for one thing your $100,000 station doesn't magically appear anywhere in
the country just by selecting a new location on the computer screen because
where it's located at the moment ain't getting the job done....big difference!
I don't have any problem with remote ham radio for general ham radio
activities...want to get on the air and rag chew, operate to keep up with your
buddies from the nursing home, run a net from your condo...great...knock
yourself out...I don't think any one who takes issue with Remote Ham Radio and
systems like it would have any problems with that use of it at all...
I object as many do to bringing it into the competitive aspects of the hobby
and expecting to compete against it with a traditional Amateur Station
implementation....and I have no issue with that if its use is placed in its own
class.
Nuff said Mike...I'm clear..
Cecil
K5DL
Sent using recycled electrons.
> On Jul 12, 2015, at 5:56 PM, W0MU <w0mu@w0mu.com> wrote:
>
> So what is the difference if I build a station for $100,000 or I rent one for
> whatever it costs? Nothing. I guess the guy that can't climb towers who has
> to pay someone else to climb it and fix his stuff should be shoved into
> another category too?
>
> I must have missed what is the big prize for #1 Honor roll? A plaque? I
> hope that you feel good about yourself because of other things not because
> you managed to work them all. As I said before #1 has been at it longer, has
> better stuff and plays radio more and probably is located in a better
> location.
>
> CQ has a competition every year and I get that. It starts over every year
> and it is a rush to work as many as you can. Once again the winners will
> have great stations and tons of time. Congrats to the winners. I think
> Honor Roll #1 means much more to you that have decided to make this a strange
> competition that really doesn't have a start date or and end, then it does
> the majority of active hams.
>
> Bitch all you like about Remote Radio it is here to stay just like packet and
> the ARRL is certainly not going to exclude anyone.
>
> I could care less who is or is not using Remote radio. I hope more people do
> as we could use more activity on the bands. I would love to see old timers
> and most of the ham population are old timers now be able to operate from
> nursing homes, condo's, rv's etc. I guess you would rather them be shoved to
> the streets and ignored.
>
> What you are asking for is less competition in your competition which is a
> bit hypocritical isn't it? Removing players from the DXCC field waters down
> your victory doesn't it?
>
> Why would the rules change now after remotes being allowed for 50 years?
> Paying for a service is not even relevant to the conversation so lets not
> make it one. How I get on the air is really none of your business.
>
>
>
>
>> On 7/12/2015 2:47 PM, Cecil wrote:
>> It's obvious the DXCC award system is not important to you by your own
>> admission, which doesn't put you in the best of positions to be so vocal
>> about paid/shared remote station access and its impact on the award systems.
>>
>> Call it what you will it's very competitive...in an individualized sort of
>> way but competitive it is.
>>
>> It is a badge of honor for those passionate about such things. Yes the guy
>> with the $100,000 station most days has an advantage over the guy with 100
>> Watts and a wire...but some days the propagation Gods shine on the guy with
>> 100 Watts and he beats the big bucks station out..also operator skill levels
>> that playing field as well...you learn those things when that's all you have
>> for a station.
>>
>> Yes we have always faced those kind of challenges and no rule or class
>> changes were really needed. It was incentive to make your station the best
>> it could be within your means and to improve your operating skills.
>>
>> For contesters things were a bit better as the differences in station
>> capability was recognized and different competitive classes were
>> formed....so the guy with 100 Watts and a wire could feel a sense of
>> accomplishment by competing with guys generally equipped like him.
>>
>> In today's world where one could finally move into that swanky neighborhood
>> that the wife has always wanted to live but couldn't because hubby needed
>> space and acceptance to put up all those ugly wires, towers, antennas and
>> such....no worries! (That's my wife...and we still don't live there)
>>
>> We can pick up a radio front panel for a song and a smokin internet
>> connection and just dial up whatever superstation has propagation to where
>> the DX is today and bag em. Just think about being able to get in on that E
>> skip action anytime it happens just by dialing up a station that is in the
>> skip zone today...and 160 DXCC...just dial around until you find a station
>> that can hear that rare DX station that's on tonight. The wall paper is
>> piling up...
>>
>> What's a traditional station OP to do...he's been working hard for years,
>> building new antennas, buying commercial products and improving his station
>> whenever he can, staying up late nights or getting up early mornings. An
>> expected normal progression for Ham Radio....he is close to finishing his
>> DXCC on 160 and a guy that don't even own a station...or worse owns a small
>> station but doesn't use it to work the hard ones, lands his first 100 on 160
>> in his first year of being on the air.
>>
>> He throws up his hands and says what's the point...and certainly won't be
>> buying any more commercial products to try and improve his station....and
>> out of business go more of the commercial equipment makers.
>>
>> Now...
>>
>> I don't have a problem with technology and its advancement...I'm a technical
>> guy. But the advantages that paid or even shared remote station access
>> allows should dictate that these OPs compete in their own class with others
>> that are leveraging that advantage.
>>
>> The exception to this is the guy that has built his station on a remote site
>> on land he owns or leases for that purpose because he has noise issues he
>> can't overcome or he lives in the subdivision with an HOA that won't allow
>> his antennas, but he still wants to compete on the bands...that remote
>> station is his primary station...it's just a traditional station accessed
>> remotely by its owner...no problem....good use of today's technology.
>>
>> You own property on three different coasts and one remote island and have
>> stations on all of them....the new DXCC/Contesting class is ready made for
>> you too...
>>
>> I think new class structure language in the DXCC and various contest rules
>> is the only viable answer...
>>
>> Don't limit technology, adapt to it to allow its advancement but as it
>> evolves allow the traditional station owner to continue to practice his kind
>> of Ham Radio on a traditional playing field....fact is probably 90 percent
>> of stations are traditional styled operations anyway.
>>
>> Soap box mode OFF...
>>
>> Cecil
>> K5DL
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent using recycled electrons.
>>
>>> On Jul 12, 2015, at 2:16 PM, W0MU <w0mu@w0mu.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think much of the issue with RHR is people are bent out of shape that a
>>> group of people have jumped on this and appear to be doing quite well.
>>> Business must be booming as they are adding new stations constantly.
>>>
>>> Personally I have a decent station and am not interested in renting station
>>> time.
>>>
>>> In the end the challenge is personal. The award is whatever you make it.
>>>
>>> DXCC is DXCC. If you feel better that you worked it from the same location
>>> using wet noodles more power to you.
>>>
>>> If you are chasing DX to impress other people I think you are doing it
>>> wrong. When you focus on yourself and what you are doing then these little
>>> "issues" become non issues.
>>>
>>> My Dad told me a long time ago in business was to quit paying so much about
>>> the other guy and start focusing on my business and what my strength were.
>>>
>>> I have been a ham since 1978. Honor roll number 1 mean very little to me.
>>> What it says is that you have either been doing this longer than me, spend
>>> more time on the radio, have a better setup, etc. It doesn't mean that you
>>> are a better DXer. I hear so called big DXers in pileups calling endlessly
>>> with no clue about how pileups work etc. Lots of great DXers are in and
>>> out of a pileup before you know it. Many of those guys may or may not have
>>> DXCC. I waited for over 20 years to apply for DXCC and the award is still
>>> in the tube..........
>>>
>>> Be proud of yourself and what you have done. The watering down of the
>>> award is in your head.
>>>
>>>> On 7/12/2015 7:32 AM, nn4t@comcast.net wrote:
>>>> Good morning. I have followed with interest the discussion on this
>>>> subject. I enjoyed hearing both sides of the issue from my fellow DXers.
>>>> Most of the replies have been both thoughtful and respectful and I thank
>>>> you for that.
>>>> I thought you may find it interesting to hear a comment from the
>>>> perspective of an RHR user. Perhaps some of the others who comment also
>>>> used that service (which seems to have triggered this debate) but I don't
>>>> remember seeing that. I have been an RHR customer for two years. I have
>>>> been a DXer for the entire 42 years of my amateur career. Climbing the DX
>>>> Challenge ladder is my principal goal. I have a home station focused on 6,
>>>> 80 and 160. 93.5% of the entities I need for the Challenge are on these
>>>> three bands. I have a full sized quarter wave vertical for 160 (and 8 560
>>>> ' beverages), a 4 square for 80 and a 9 element M2 at 80' for 6. The
>>>> station works well and has been productive. But as you know from 160
>>>> propagation is finicky. And for those who have not spent time on 6, it is
>>>> even more so there. I rent the RHR stations because they give me more
>>>> opportunities to work new ones for the Challenge. It is simply another
>>>> tool I use to accomplish my goal. And unless the DXCC
r
> u
>> l
>>> es
>>>> change I will continue to do so. I appreciate, and respect, those who
>>>> feel this somehow violates the spirit of the DXCC program. I simply do not
>>>> agree.
>>>> Ham radio has always had a prickly relationship with technology. On one
>>>> hand we love the cool gadgets and the hobby would die without them. On the
>>>> other, it forces us to deal with change. Anyone remember the debate about
>>>> using packet clusters to work DX? "Shooting fish in a barrel" was a common
>>>> criticism of those who used that technology. Remember when there was a
>>>> move to ban from DXCC credit qsos made on a list?
>>>> I suspect remote technology is here to stay; the ARRL BOD has already
>>>> spoken once on that matter and were quite clear. What I would suggest is
>>>> view this technology as simply a tool; available to all willing to pay the
>>>> fee (just like our expensive radios, antennas, amps, etc.) . Use it or
>>>> don't use it. The choice is yours. Best, Steve, NN4T
>>>> _________________
>>>> 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
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|