Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC
|
Jack Roberts - KD9OPV
I might’ve said some unprofessional things before, but that, that’s just plain rude. Mocking us youth because we don’t want to be pushed around by people protecting their egos. This message is uncalled for and is nothing, NOTHING like anything that any of us youth or supporters of youth have said. We aren’t whining. We are literally just asking to not get thrown around by hams who can afford to could $1M superstations. We aren’t asking to affect every new technology, we never did. People like you are going to kill the hobby. In 20 years when the hobby is on its last and y’all are wondering why it’s dying, think back to when you pushed away all of the young hams because you didn’t want to be rivaled.
|
|
|
|
Hugh Valentine
I’m not up to snuff with DMR, sounds like another sandbox to play in and would be great for someone with limited resources, great idea. If it is free, then why should anyone not want to use it? Does ARRL give credit for this and do the users exchange QSLs? By God, they should…it’s new technology.
Sounds like free and easy technology. Great entry level DXing for youth, or anyone. No Code tests, quick learning curve. Next DMR guys will be complaining about RHR being expensive…possibly a problem. That entity (DMR) knocks out the following whining points: Age, money, waiting in line to use free stuff…RHR has a competitor…..did not know that. Is Skype international? Would be a good revenue source for SKYPE…DX Awards….New Technology that might give everyone a hobby to use…..I like it. Actually SEE your DX….Use voice Recognition to dial ‘em up. Brave New world. They even could issue an award called DXCC(DX See See) Now, 3 year olds can work DX…..using this proposed “New Technology”…mothers everywhere could use it for babysitting……I remember when K4RID (now W4ZV) worked the first DXCC as a teen….Who will be the first 3 year old? At least I may die before I get passed by a 3 or 4 year old on 160 credits…. Now I have something else to think about…Could this concept replace our diatribes about remoting? I kinda hope so……this Hoss is dying fast….
73 and 88
Val
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Javan Miller
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 9:36 AM To: ARRL-Awards@... Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC
I haven’t commented at all, but have to add this.
“I worked Australia on DMR! It is RF with the assistance of the internet.
From: Jack Roberts - KD9OPV
Are you claiming that RHR isn’t RF? Because last time I checked, it still uses real radios transmitting real RF. Functionally it is the same as having a really really long mic cord, it’s still RF. The majority of people who use services such as RHR don’t use it to gain a propagation advantage. They use it to overcome restrictions such as money, HOA restrictions, age, etc. This entire group clearly shows that the only reason why this is even an issue is because the OMs just want to feel better about themselves and their awards by making it more difficult for newer hams.
|
|
|
|
Hugh Valentine
Do they have awards? Probably no. Great place for those who want to chat. My neighbor uses that.
Val
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Javan Miller
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 9:36 AM To: ARRL-Awards@... Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC
I haven’t commented at all, but have to add this.
“I worked Australia on DMR! It is RF with the assistance of the internet.
From: Jack Roberts - KD9OPV
Are you claiming that RHR isn’t RF? Because last time I checked, it still uses real radios transmitting real RF. Functionally it is the same as having a really really long mic cord, it’s still RF. The majority of people who use services such as RHR don’t use it to gain a propagation advantage. They use it to overcome restrictions such as money, HOA restrictions, age, etc. This entire group clearly shows that the only reason why this is even an issue is because the OMs just want to feel better about themselves and their awards by making it more difficult for newer hams.
|
|
|
|
Barry Porter <barryp13@...>
Really Ria? a control operator is a control operator, whether sitting in front
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
of a radio or controlling it remotely. What you are almost implying is that repeat control operators need to be physically at the repeater to properly control the radio, use of wires is not showing real control. The idea is to get on the air, operate, and enjoy it, regardless how. This is the bedrock “problem”. Many of my older colleagues are frightened out of their minds by younger hams, who know a lot more about technology than they do, and they unjustifiably feel threatened. They like the way it is now, they do not want any more hams on HF, remotely or not. These folks want to restrict any growth, even if it means loosing our spectrum. That being said, the proposed endorsement is a great solution that can be lived with, and without changing the rules. As to the above mentioned “problem”, it needs serious work by all of us. We have already lost 1 generation. If we don’t get serious, we will loose another generation, and amateur radio will then fade into the dustbin of history, and it won’t make any difference what we do. Barry Porter, KB1PA
|
|
|
|
Javan Miller <javan@...>
I haven’t commented at all, but have to add this.
“I worked Australia on DMR! It is RF with the assistance of the internet.
From: Jack Roberts - KD9OPV
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2020 2:04 PM To: ARRL-Awards@... Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC
Are you claiming that RHR isn’t RF? Because last time I checked, it still uses real radios transmitting real RF. Functionally it is the same as having a really really long mic cord, it’s still RF. The majority of people who use services such as RHR don’t use it to gain a propagation advantage. They use it to overcome restrictions such as money, HOA restrictions, age, etc. This entire group clearly shows that the only reason why this is even an issue is because the OMs just want to feel better about themselves and their awards by making it more difficult for newer hams.
|
|
|
|
Steve Wuelfing <cqdxk8bz@...>
If the accomplishment is truly, "in the doing", which I don't necessarily disagree with, then why should anyone who has that belief about any accomplishment care what so ever about more specific criteria any other group chooses to apply to recognize an achievement however they as a group see fit? If you want to achieve 9 band DXCC completely from accessing remote super stations located anywhere in the continental US then kudos to you. Enjoy your accomplishment you achieved "in the doing". If others feel that part of the accomplishment should involve other effort and skills to receive their own recognition, then what skin is it off your nose? Go ahead and enjoy your accomplishment as it suits you and let others enjoy theirs as it suits them. On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 12:33 AM H Hans Brakob <hbrakob@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
All great questions and points Steve,
The email thread induced so much unnecessary noise and "trollery" that the original proposals for change as well as the arguments against change were lost in a total S/N meltdown. I am glad Ria and a few others (thanks to each you) have calmly restated where they are coming from and let it ride. I hope that the issues are solved in a way that does not involve an FTC restraint suit. That would be totally unwarranted. Thanks to all for keeping it civil, good DX es 73, -- Jack Spitznagel, DDS, PhD KD4IZ Life Member ARRL, AMSAT, ECARS, yada-yada FM19oo |
|
|
|
Jack Roberts - KD9OPV
No it is an issue, because it’s absurd that a rule change is even being talked about. It’s also absurd that every ham that uses a remote station are being generalized as “propagation shoppers”.
Any rule that would allow “remote operation while limiting propagation shopping” would inevitably defeat the purpose of using a remote. An example is the ‘250 mile radius rule proposal’, if the transmitter was on the east coast in New York and I live in Indiana, I wouldn’t be able to use it because it’s outside of my 250 mile radius. Another proposed solution was to have 1 other location besides your home. This wouldn’t work because very frequently on RHR the station that I prefer to use is busy, so I just use a different station in a different location, this rule would prevent that. Jack, KD9OPV |
|
|
|
Steven R Daniel, D.D.S.
I apologize Ria. The merits are the League, and the Board, have looked at this in 2014 and 2017 and decided not only to leave things alone but to reiterate the League's position on remote operation. I believe David Sumner, in his monthly op-ed in QST said remote operation from the dark side of the moon is fine if you can carry it off. Why continue to beat this dead horse?
I have requested from the Programs and Services committee all background information on this proposal. I am especially interested in the number of members expressing concern. Is this a few? Or hundreds and hundreds.
The DXCC list is long. Therefore the list of stakeholders is long. Is this being driven be only a few disgruntled individuals who do not wish to invest in this available technology? Because if what you say is true, that people feel their accomplishments are diminished by this new technology, then the argument is not valid. Amateur radio exists solely because our technology and capabilities continue to improve. It is easier to work DX today, for reasons I mentioned in a previous post, than it was a decade ago. Much less 47 years ago when I began. You either invest in new skills and new technologies or you do not. After all, this is a hobby, not a vocation.
But do not force your self-imposed limitations on me.
And do denigrate my accomplishments because I followed a different path to achieve them.
|
|
|
|
“ The majority of people who use services such as RHR don’t use it to gain a propagation advantage. They use it to overcome restrictions such as money, HOA restrictions, age, etc. ” Then a rule like this that allows Remote operation while limiting propagation shopping should be no issue then, no? Ria N2RJ On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 2:04 PM Jack Roberts - KD9OPV <kd9opv@...> wrote: are we showing them what we can kinda do with RF with the assistance of the phone company to overcome what RF cannot do? |
|
|
|
Jack, if you work Europe from W6 using a remote in Maine you’re using the phone company (Internet) for approximately 3500 miles of that distance and thus using non amateur means to overcome propagational disadvantages. Likewise if I connect to a remote in Washington and work Asia. Ria N2RJ On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 2:04 PM Jack Roberts - KD9OPV <kd9opv@...> wrote: are we showing them what we can kinda do with RF with the assistance of the phone company to overcome what RF cannot do? |
|
|
|
Your guess is factually incorrect and my name is not Rita. Quite simply put, this never became an issue before because there was never the scale before these remote “ham radio wireless carriers” came into being. Remote operation was a such a rare thing that it didn’t present much of an issue. This is the common story of how formerly minor issues warrant a deeper look. Argue the merits and not the personalities. Ria (no T) N2RJ On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 1:53 PM STEVE DANIEL <nn4t@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Jack Roberts - KD9OPV
are we showing them what we can kinda do with RF with the assistance of the phone company to overcome what RF cannot do? Are you claiming that RHR isn’t RF? Because last time I checked, it still uses real radios transmitting real RF. Functionally it is the same as having a really really long mic cord, it’s still RF. The majority of people who use services such as RHR don’t use it to gain a propagation advantage. They use it to overcome restrictions such as money, HOA restrictions, age, etc. This entire group clearly shows that the only reason why this is even an issue is because the OMs just want to feel better about themselves and their awards by making it more difficult for newer hams.
|
|
|
|
Steven R Daniel, D.D.S.
One needs only check the date when this first came to the League. It was within a year of so of RHR starting up. Again, this issue is not simply remote stations. Those have existed for decades and no one said "boo". When RHR put remotes within the reach of anyone is when the problem, ie. the envy, started.
There may be other companies who see RHR's success and plan to join the fray. Fine. But this has always been about RHR.
If our Board is acting as proper fiduciaries then they are trying to minimize the risk of a lawsuit against the League for restraint of trade. My guess is the League's attorney, or at least Rick, told them all to make sure no one says anything about RHR for that purpose. And Rita is doing just that.
But being judicious and prudent does not change the past. It is all in the minutes and they are open to any League member.
Steve, NN4T
|
|
|
|
There are some who are in development have contacted me privately. Publicly there are a couple others in beta, one such example is beloud.us. Your choice of words “bruised egos” is telling. It’s not about that. It’s about what the award represents - are we showing people what we can do with RF, or are we showing them what we can kinda do with RF with the assistance of the phone company to overcome what RF cannot do? Ria N2RJ On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 1:16 PM Lou Laderman W0FK <lladerman@...> wrote: On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 06:51 PM, Ria, N2RJ wrote:It's not aimed specifically at RHR, the company. There are a few |
|
|
|
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 06:51 PM, Ria, N2RJ wrote:
It's not aimed specifically at RHR, the company. There are a fewWhat are the other companies RIa? I have done an extensive search on the Internet, and can find no other such company. If you're referencing RemoteHams.com, that's not anything like RHR. Perhaps I am a lousy searcher, but perhaps there are none. I will be the first to say I was incorrect in my assertion if proven wrong. Failing that, my point stands. In other words, it is not out of spite. It is in fact a request fromI fail to see why "some DXers" who apparently are suffering bruised egos should be a driving force behind scrapping rules that have been evaluated twice before, in 2014 and 2017, with no changes affecting remote operations. It's pointless to try and change how the landscape has evolved over that period of time. I can only speak for myself, nothing can diminish or devalue my achievement of an aggregate of 356 countries confirmed (Mixed). I know what it took to get there. Each person's accomplishments are meaningful to them, and they should remain proud of what they have achieved. 73, Lou, W0FK |
|
|
|
The accomplishment is in the “doing”. It is a personal sense of accomplishment.
The paperwork out of Newington is just that – paperwork.
Frank Sinatra expressed it best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w019MzRosmk
You did what you did, how you did it. Somebody else doing it a different way doesn’t devalue what you did. ARRL needs to get out of the “stroking old guys ego” business, or when the old guys are gone, so is ARRL.
73, de Hans, K0HB Old Guy ARRL Diamond Club Member
From: Ria, N2RJ
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 23:51 To: ARRL-Awards@... Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC
It's not aimed specifically at RHR, the company. There are a few companies offering this service. It would affect all of them.
In other words, it is not out of spite. It is in fact a request from some DXers who feel that the rules allowing this kind of operation have devalued their achievements of achieving high levels in the DXCC program.
Ria N2RJ
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 7:16 PM Lou Laderman W0FK <lladerman@...> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 02:07 PM, Ria, N2RJ wrote: > > There is no targeted persecution of RHR. Not from me, not from anyone. N4MB brought this issue up when he was campaigning and later on, at the PSC level. It’s something he’s gotten feedback from some DXers on. > > Maybe not “persecution” but RHR was clearly the focus of the proposal. The stated reason behind the proposed change was very clearly stated. > > Quoting N4MB in the opening post: > > Many active and successful DX Operators who have been long time supporters of the ARRL have complained that the current rule, Section 1, Rule 9, allows stations to “shop propagation” from moment to moment using services that rent or otherwise share a number of remotely controlled stations geographically diverse stations located throughout the same DX Entity; > > > > I am unaware of any other entity or group that provided “services that rent or otherwise share a number of remotely controlled stations geographically diverse stations located throughout the same DX Entity....” > > The discussion has evolved, and the arguments of those few who are for the proposal have shifted. There are more reasons to NOT change the rule than to change it. > > 73, Lou W0FK >
-- 73, de Hans, K0HB "Just a Boy and His Radio"™ |
|
|
|
Hugh Valentine <N4RJ@...>
Ria, you are young as you want to be. I choose not to feel nor think 78. I remember an old saying back in the 60s….”Maybe the best man for the job is a woman” a sign I observed behind the desk of a female GA Power manager.” She would not be intimidated, 60 years ago….
RHR itself is not the reason people want to level the playing field. In fact, creating a separate award tier would cause a major income stream to be realized by that organization…and ARRL…some cannot grasp that and it appears that RHR participants’ paranoia is blocking the neuronal synapses of that group.
The salient fact remains…it is easier to Log rare DX using propagational advantages. And that is the crux of the matter. Age, RHR, HOAs, intimidation, individual histories and stories and choices don’t change that. If one denies that fact(easier) he/she has a selfish motive or has inexperience doing it the hard way.
An endorsement for remoting would open up a whole world for those who want to remote…and let young hams get a fresh start. I haven’t seen many talk about the Legality of Remoting either….maybe I missed that in the discussion. When the FCC changed from Location License to Operator license that allows remote operation.
As far as how RHR “certifies” power outputs, spurious emissions, operator certifications, etc., that may be something the FCC would inspect one day. I’m pretty sure they would be able to prove some of those. But that is not the issue at hand.
6 meters is a different animal relative to stateside hams being aware of who is using remotes…but 160 is telling. Most of us Ham O Holics who hang out 24/7 on that band know what is happening there and it matters not to most of us who take pride in what we accomplish from our one-location stations. It is comforting when I see someone who has surpassed my totals to know it was done under vastly different propagation than what I could ever expect. Makes me try harder too when it comes to antenna building, noise reduction practices, increasing operating skills…Not trying to put anyone else down…just makes me try harder.
I am very proud of my personal achievement and after 62 years of amassing my totals I’m satisfied with that history. So, whatever happens with the current embroligo I will be fine with it. But let’s all get honest…if nothing else, using stations up to 3,000 mi apart makes it easier.
When we all look at the issue and try to configure a Win-Win-Win adjustment, ARRL, RHR, most hams would be served.
73
Val N4RJ (another RJ)
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Ria, N2RJ
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 3:07 PM To: ARRL-Awards@... Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC
This is not an issue about being young. I won’t say my age only that I am the youngest director on the board.
First:
There is no targeted persecution of RHR. Not from me, not from anyone. N4MB brought this issue up when he was campaigning and later on, at the PSC level. It’s something he’s gotten feedback from some DXers on.
Several board members are RHR subscribers/customers. So I doubt they want to kill it off either.
Personally I’ve been attacked by one of the owners of RHR repeatedly, often privately to my friends and sometimes publicly. Thankfully one of the other owners isn’t that way and has had a few cordial discussions with me. With that said, that has absolutely NO bearing on what my opinions are.
Frankly if Ray would just talk with me he would realize we have more in common. But he holds this grudge. No sweat no tears. I’m a big girl and I hold my own.
My opinion:
There really isn’t reason to tamper with current DXCC rules even if they were reinterpreted/modified to accommodate pay for play remote.
I do absolutely support a separate endorsement and that recognizes the struggle and achievement that those who did it the hard way.
Achievement, competition, whatever. You do compare your numbers among your peers.
And guess what? That’s always been my position from day 1 back in 2009-2010 or so.
I’ve given many presentations on remote operation, I’m friends with several remote owners, Ive written software to enable and enhance remote operation and I’m even close friends with the owners and senior execs of FlexRadio whose main business model now is easy remote operation.
So don’t misunderstand me at all. I may be an easy target but some understanding is in order.
73 Ria N2RJ
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 2:36 PM <nn4t@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
It's not aimed specifically at RHR, the company. There are a few
companies offering this service. It would affect all of them. In other words, it is not out of spite. It is in fact a request from some DXers who feel that the rules allowing this kind of operation have devalued their achievements of achieving high levels in the DXCC program. Ria N2RJ On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 7:16 PM Lou Laderman W0FK <lladerman@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 02:07 PM, Ria, N2RJ wrote:
There is no targeted persecution of RHR. Not from me, not from anyone. N4MB brought this issue up when he was campaigning and later on, at the PSC level. It’s something he’s gotten feedback from some DXers on.Maybe not “persecution” but RHR was clearly the focus of the proposal. The stated reason behind the proposed change was very clearly stated. Quoting N4MB in the opening post: Many active and successful DX Operators who have been long time supporters of the ARRL have complained that the current rule, Section 1, Rule 9, allows stations to “shop propagation” from moment to moment using services that rent or otherwise share a number of remotely controlled stations geographically diverse stations located throughout the same DX Entity; I am unaware of any other entity or group that provided “services that rent or otherwise share a number of remotely controlled stations geographically diverse stations located throughout the same DX Entity....” The discussion has evolved, and the arguments of those few who are for the proposal have shifted. There are more reasons to NOT change the rule than to change it. 73, Lou W0FK |
|
|