Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 13 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: DXCC Advisory Committee Report  (Read 29371 times)
NU4B
Member

Posts: 2286




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: August 14, 2014, 10:39:51 AM »

I'm confused. If rule 9 says all contacts must be made from the same DXCC country, what's the purpose of having a distance limitation on a remote transmitter. The limit is already set - it has to be in the same DXCC entity.

There is nothing right now stopping me from traveling to 6 land and working all my needed Asian entities and counting them towards my DXCC totals. What does it matter if I set up a remote station there and do the same thing?

Maybe I misread the report.

Hello, fellow Knoxvillian!  Your reading of the proposed change is the same as mine, and if correct, it doesn't make sense for the reason you state among others.  I have no interest in RemoteHamRadio.com, but I will still be affected by this change if it goes through.  When I moved to California, I wound up on a 0.1 acre lot.  I put up a low-band station at my Dad's in Oak Ridge, the nearest place where I have any access to land, due to noise and antenna constraints here.  I am building my high-band station here in California.  Depending on what the actual final rule is, I could see my having to choose one station or the other exclusively (in which case I'd choose TN), or abandon the TN station altogether.  It'll be too bad for me, and I think for a lot of folks.

Hey Mike,
 Your  operation is a perfect example of why this makes no sense. The available property is farther away than the limit - but you could fly there, make some QSOs, then fly home to CA.
  I don't know what was so complicated to figure out, and then how do you come up with the wrong answer!?!?

 Don't know if you've been back this summer, but its been a strange one wx wise. 58 last night - in August?, tornadoes in July? and a lot of rain. I told a friend of mine that if I was a kid on summer vacation, I'd demand a refund.
 If I wanted this kind of crap weather.......I'd move to where Vince lives.  Grin Grin Grin Grin
Logged
AF3Y
Member

Posts: 3791




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: August 14, 2014, 01:02:08 PM »

I really should quit reading this blog.  Makes me mad as hell.

How many here actually NEED to use a remote station to make contacts to WHEREVER?

Or...... How many would use remote radio just to make it EASIER to make that contact to wherever?

Since starting chasing DX in 2006, I have yet to find an entity that I could not work, with a vertical and 1000 watts.  No, its certainly not easy, but should it be easy?

HOA restrictions would be the only way I see someone NEEDING to use remote radio. But.... I have restrictions here, thus a 31' vertical is the only antenna I have. I don't need remote radio.

How many of us on this forum REALLY NEED remote radio to make that contact?

I would hate to admit that my station was so damned puny that I could not work ANY entity.

Just an old guy's opinion.  We all have one, I guess.

73, Gene AF3Y
Logged
K7CO
Member

Posts: 344




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: August 14, 2014, 01:13:54 PM »

No yard where I live, third floor apartment. Remote is my only option at present. But yes I will admit even if I did have my own large station I would probably still remote because I am a techie and I like using technology. I also LOVE using a 6 over 6 over 6 stack at 100ft and 1.5kw on the east coast... it is a thrill and then I also get a thrill doing the same thing on a station in Portland on the west coast. Then as this winter is arriving I start to dream about the fun I am going to have with a full size 80m foursquare. Remote operation gives me the thrill and fun of a mega station from my itty bitty apartment. To each his own.  As I have said before, remotehamradio.com is what reactivated me and it also caused me to jump on a plane and give you an ATNO from VK9X Gene. It also is making me jump on a plane to 4W this October and then it is also getting me on a plane to _______ in 2015.  Let's embrace this technology as it brings about more HF activity and we need that. Don't take away my fun! Cheers and Beers

Jon
K7CO
Logged
KY6R
Member

Posts: 3236


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #33 on: August 14, 2014, 01:30:08 PM »

Just curious - if say, 50 operators across the US all wanted to run some remote station located in say New York State to work a very popular DX-pedition - like FT4TA, would there be a "pileup" just to take your turn to run the remote station? I see that RHR has 6 stations. So - say only one of these has the "propagational advantage" for FT4TA. What happens?



Logged
K7CO
Member

Posts: 344




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: August 14, 2014, 02:15:12 PM »

There are now 12+ stations available on RHR. The top 4 or 5 stations you will see users sharing, get in work the dx, get out. And then in the chat room share your experience.  Lots of camaraderie. There are plenty of anonymous users also, they never show up in the chat room, chat room is optional but I have made many friends there.

We also coordinate who is getting on the big station next via the chat room, it works most of the time.

I have never had an issue trying to get on a station , when one mega station is unavailable the others usually are. Of course as this grows, those wait times could increase but RHR tends to scale to meet demand. These antennas experts are amazing great people who are sharing their mega stations and other stations with the world.

and no I am not employed by them, I am a loyal user

Back to the report for a moment. There is a section about removing wording with regard to remote operation. The suggestion by NN1N is suggesting the antenna and radio are land based by the op need not be.  That would open up a lot of situations, for example operating from a boat to a transmitter on the island. It will be interesting to learn what the final outcome is from all of these suggestions.



  
« Last Edit: August 14, 2014, 02:17:20 PM by K7CO » Logged
KJ4Z
Member

Posts: 174




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: August 14, 2014, 03:27:50 PM »

Don't know if you've been back this summer, but its been a strange one wx wise. 58 last night - in August?, tornadoes in July? and a lot of rain. I told a friend of mine that if I was a kid on summer vacation, I'd demand a refund.
 If I wanted this kind of crap weather.......I'd move to where Vince lives.  Grin Grin Grin Grin

Yeah, the weather actually affected my remote station quite a bit.  I put up the ropes for my dipole on a survey visit in April, and by the time I got back to do the installation in late June, the storm that did this (http://imgur.com/r/Knoxville/AdyYpA0) had knocked down one of the trees and I had to start all over.  Then I hadn't been back in California a week when Dad's power lines got hit by lightning and the power was out three days.  I was actually on the air (around 9 PM PDT) when it happened.  I was very lucky my equipment wasn't hurt.  I have now modified my procedure to check the weather in TN before operating.  I guess I also need to put up a second antenna as a backup, because I have a feeling at this rate the first one is gonna get knocked down or something.  Remote operating is no cakewalk! Smiley
Logged
KW4CQ
Member

Posts: 132




Ignore
« Reply #36 on: August 15, 2014, 05:51:40 AM »

QUOTE FROM:   47 CFR §97 - Rules of the Amateur Radio Service
(updated January, 2014)
Subpart A—General Provisions
§97.1 Basis and purpose.
The rules and regulations in this part are designed to provide an amateur radio service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the following
principles:
(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly
with respect to providing emergency communications.


QUESTION:  How is a pay-for-use remote radio service NOT "non-commercial"?  Even though the ham operator at home doesn't monetarily profit from using of the remote service the remote site service operator may in fact be profiting.  Granted they need to recover their investment and operating costs but are they operating as a for-profit or as a non-profit commercial enterprise?  Doesn't this go counter to the FCC's rule against "noncommercial" communications? 

The FAQs on the RemotHamRadio.com web site refer to discussions which took place between themselves and the FCC, as a result of which the FCC gave their approval.  Have those meeting notes ever been made public?  Did this question ever come up for discussion during the DXAC meeting?
Logged
NU4B
Member

Posts: 2286




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: August 15, 2014, 06:43:02 AM »

They are talking about using the airwaves in a commercial vs. noncommercial manner. While you may charge someone to your facilities, you cannot use your facilities to broadcast ads or advertise for yourself in a commercial manner.
Logged
KW4CQ
Member

Posts: 132




Ignore
« Reply #38 on: August 15, 2014, 08:42:01 AM »

They are talking about using the airwaves in a commercial vs. noncommercial manner. While you may charge someone to your facilities, you cannot use your facilities to broadcast ads or advertise for yourself in a commercial manner.

I understand that particular interpretation Larry but the rule doesn't say anything about "airwaves".  It specifically address "service", which also seems to me to include one's personal station and any commercially operated "pay-for-use" remote station.  I feel that once this "remote" thing becomes popular it will change the whole landscape of amateur radio and the DXCC world as we know it today.  For better or worse I would have voted "no" had I been on the DXAC committee.  Just a personal opinion from a guy with 61 years in this great hobby of ours.

73, Bob KW4CQ
Logged
NU4B
Member

Posts: 2286




Ignore
« Reply #39 on: August 15, 2014, 01:03:39 PM »

I should have added - or conduct any other commercial business on the air. (not just advertising).

Hey Bob,
I personally have never thought it any other way than referring to the airwaves, but that's just me. I thought there were shack rentals in some of the off mainland islands in the Pacific and Caribbean. Maybe I'm wrong. But if a rental shack is allowed, I can't see much difference in accessing a station remotely.

I'm not sure I'm a fan of remote operation for profit or not. But I might be in the future if it turns out that's the only way to get on the air. And I certainly don't see anything wrong with a ham purchasing some property, setting up a station, and accessing it remotely for himself (or herself). To me that sounds like a great idea. For instance, here in the city I don't have a place for a good 160 antenna. But my parents do. So why can't I put up a 160 antenna there and access it remotely. And in the context of the DXCC rules, given rule 9, what's the difference in driving there and making a QSO or doing it remotely? I just don't see the difference.

And remember in the Robert's Court - antennas are people too.  Grin Grin Grin or is it... people are antennas? I don't know, its a confusing world out there.  Grin Grin Grin
Logged
AA7RX
Member

Posts: 41




Ignore
« Reply #40 on: August 15, 2014, 03:05:35 PM »

They are talking about using the airwaves in a commercial vs. noncommercial manner. While you may charge someone to your facilities, you cannot use your facilities to broadcast ads or advertise for yourself in a commercial manner.

I understand that particular interpretation Larry but the rule doesn't say anything about "airwaves".  It specifically address "service", which also seems to me to include one's personal station and any commercially operated "pay-for-use" remote station.  I feel that once this "remote" thing becomes popular it will change the whole landscape of amateur radio and the DXCC world as we know it today.  For better or worse I would have voted "no" had I been on the DXAC committee.  Just a personal opinion from a guy with 61 years in this great hobby of ours.

73, Bob KW4CQ

People make a profit off of amateur radio all of the time. This is just a new way of supporting our hobby.

To me, operating remotely is no different than renting a shack in the Caribbean for a week or having an antenna farm far from a ham's HOA-restricted home.
Logged
AA7RX
Member

Posts: 41




Ignore
« Reply #41 on: August 15, 2014, 03:08:41 PM »

I really should quit reading this blog.  Makes me mad as hell.

How many here actually NEED to use a remote station to make contacts to WHEREVER?

Or...... How many would use remote radio just to make it EASIER to make that contact to wherever?

Since starting chasing DX in 2006, I have yet to find an entity that I could not work, with a vertical and 1000 watts.  No, its certainly not easy, but should it be easy?

HOA restrictions would be the only way I see someone NEEDING to use remote radio. But.... I have restrictions here, thus a 31' vertical is the only antenna I have. I don't need remote radio.

How many of us on this forum REALLY NEED remote radio to make that contact?

I would hate to admit that my station was so damned puny that I could not work ANY entity.

Just an old guy's opinion.  We all have one, I guess.

73, Gene AF3Y

Personally, I'm going to use it this winter, while my radio equipment is on a slow boat to Hawaii.
Logged
NU4B
Member

Posts: 2286




Ignore
« Reply #42 on: August 15, 2014, 03:50:40 PM »

I guess the question arises is what happens if I end up in an assisted living facility and/or in a situation I can't physically get a station on the air. I'd go crazy just laying around. But maybe the ability to DX will add some sanity into the situation. (assuming DX'ing and sanity are 2 concepts that fit into the same thought.  Grin) I could see accessing a remote station and becoming NU4B/*.

Or maybe I should open up an assisted living facility for DX'ers....with rigs....and amps....and towers...........and plenty of Valium for when the pile ups get huge.  Grin Grin Grin How else to handle 100 grumpy old DX'ers  Huh......hmmmmm  Huh.....maybe not such a good idea.  Grin
Logged
G3RZP
Member

Posts: 4719




Ignore
« Reply #43 on: August 17, 2014, 02:47:23 AM »

Kosovo is interesting in that R1 of IARU have forwarded for vote by IARU an application from the Kosovan Society for membership. They appear to have S6 calls, but I don't believe that the ITU has allocated that callsign block. So will the Russian Federation vote against giving Kosovo IARU membership, and if Kosovo is granted membership, will ARRL put it on the DXCC list even if ITU don't recognise it?
Logged
W2IRT
Member

Posts: 2705


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #44 on: August 17, 2014, 08:16:26 AM »

I think the new proposal strikes the right balance, since it makes neither side particularly happy. And in a no-win situation that's probably about the best you can do. I'm vehemently opposed to allowing remote operation to count for DXCC or contesting but I can see a 200km restriction being fair and I would grudgingly accept it.

There are a few key elements to my opposition, and propagation advantage is one of the biggest ones. If you want east coast propagation, get your behind to the east coast. If I want an easy-peasy shot to Heard or Pratas, then I'd get my ample rump out to W6 land and do likewise. I'm desperate to get zones 18, 23, 24 and 26 on 80m to complete my 5B-WAZ, but not desperate enough to cheat by remoting from halfway across the country. If remoting has to be allowed, I'd agree with a 200km limit which would take out these marked propagation advantages on 10, 12, 80 and 160m.

The concept of someone selling operating time -- at rates only affordable to the top 1%ers at that -- is also abhorrent to me and in my own personal opinion is ethically questionable. I would like to see the League consider having a stipulation that in any remote operation, the operator must be a station owner or co-owner. And not in the way of a co-op, either, but a principal property or equipment owner, name on deed, etc. I could see a group of local hams getting together, pooling their money and putting up a station in a rural area away from CC&Rs. That wouldn't bother me as much as the RHR guys.

And while the concept of a Caribbean rental QTH is also somewhat problematic to me, there's also an issue of paying taxes and physical upkeep of the building, etc, and to me, I equate such situations with renting a house in a nice place that just happens to have a station in it.

But strip aside all the whys and wherefores and it comes down to one inescapable fact. Any QSOs made via remotes are not made solely via amateur radio, and to count those QSOs toward awards is cheating, to my way of looking at things. The instant you involve the public telecommunication infrastructure--i.e. the Internet--it ceases to be amateur radio. I wish I could recall the exact phrasing the old Canadian Department of Communications used to refer to the nature of amateur radio contacts. Something along the lines of it being for a communications of a personal or technical nature such that recourse to the public telecommunications infrastructure is not warranted. That last bit is the key for me.

If remoting were to be allowed then the stipulation should be made that the entire path from the operator to the receiver and transmitter, including control of ancillary devices, must be made solely and exclusively by means of amateur radio.
Logged

www.facebook.com/W2IRT
Night gathers and now my watch begins. It shall not end until I reach Top of the Honor Roll.
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 13 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!