Re: remote radio
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
The internet and computers has been a mixed blessing for Ham radio. As the technology increases in future there will no doubt be more situations to straighten out.
There could be some benefits though. Many of the rare DX islands could have remote stations; so, it would be possible to work some rare DX spots through the remotes without the high expenses of actually going there. Many of those islands/entities are extremely difficult to access due to having to cross reefs and deal with bad weather. Some are only accesible by helicopter. Some are nature preserves with limited access only by special permission. One inland is full of unexploded ordinance (things that go BOOM !). Many hams don't realize the problems in getting to these islands/entities. Several years ago, a group of hams went to a spot in South China Sea and were attacked by a gun boat ...there was loss of life.
Dxpeditions are dangerous unless the place has a Holiday Inn.
Remote stations could change some of that, but then there is the problem of maintenance. Every new technology brings challenges.
From: "Bill Garwood n4gbk@... " <070@...>
To: "070@..." <070@...>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 5:58 PM
Subject: RE:  re: remote radio
Interesting what is happening to our beloved hobby due to the Internet. I worked a guy the other day that was at his office during lunch remote controlling his home PSK31 station using his smart phone. Who'd of thunk that would have been possible years ago? So much has changed. Now you can go to a website and click on a link that will automatically switch your radio to the frequency that a DX station is operating. Then there is the problem of awards and multiple remote stations accessed via the web. As mentioned in this thread, the various groups are trying to come up with some sort of solution. I read somewhere that maybe there will be different levels of awards depending on distance.. operating a station within xx miles of your licensed QTH would be a different category than operation that exceeded xx miles.
I have had QSOs with 4J3DJ on PSK31. Logged as Azerbaijan. But if you go to his QRZ page, he is in Russia and the ham station is at his parent's home in Azerbaijan. I expect this will be more prevalent in the future as the technology and internet speeds improve world-wide. What about operating a US station by a foreign operator that does not have a reciprocal license with the US. Is that something the FCC might become involved with if the remote operator of a US transmitter is not in the US? Could a North Korean or Iranian or other "Axis of Evil" person operate a US station via remote control without getting into the hair of the state department. Yikes! Makes my head hurt...
Have fun and I'll see you on the waterfall. 73
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 14:30:04 -0800
Subject: Re:  re: remote radio
Unfortunately , a discussion like this can open up a whole can of worms in various circles. The camps are pretty well divided among pro & con. Think that's why ARRL and other awards groups have not been willing to take a real stand on the subject. They have various groups to try to please and they try to appeal to the vast majority. I know that 10-10 organization has had their struggles with the subject and I'm sure others have as well. Guess it's hard to try to please everyone without some group or another feeling disenfranchised.
Ray's comments on using several remote stations during the course of a day pretty much sums up what most of us fear. Some of the newer crowd seem to think they can do whatever they want whenever they want with regard for rules and that's just simply not going to work. We have rules to keep everyone on an even playing field.
There was an operator recently who believed he was okay running an AM signal that was 20 kHz wide when the rules only allow for 6 kHz. , but he thought he could get away with it. Of course, he interfered with many stations across the band. This might be like someone deciding it's okay to drive on opposite side of road.
We all have to decide for ourselves where to draw lines in our operating practices. The 070 group seems to have many good operators who take pride in the stations and operating. I believe that why this club appeals to me and many others.
From: "'Ray Clements' r.clements@... " <070@...>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 2:57 PM
Subject: Re:  re: remote radio
I have no problem with someone traveling to a distant location and using a rental shack or club station. I also do not have a problem with someone operating a remote station from home, if that is the normal mode of operation.
What I would object to would be someone who works a remote East Coast station in the morning hours to catch European stations, works a remote station in Florida or Texas to work South America and Africa in the afternoon and then works a West Coast station in the evening to work Asia. That would give them a completely unfair advantage over someone working from a single location.
------ Original Message ------
Received: 02:34 PM CST, 01/13/2015
From: "w3hf@... " <070@...>
Subject:  re: remote radio
I also agree completely with what you've said. Part of my concern and perspective on this topic is the treatment of my own portable operations, as I've operated portable from at least seven states within CONUS (not including KH2, KH6, and VQ9). Some of these used an existing club station, one used another ham's personal station, some were all my own equipment brought from home, and some were a hybrid.
What really gets to me is the inconsistent treatment that can be applied, and you highlighted some of those. Let me add that if I can travel to Colorado and count contacts I make there, but I can't remote login to the same Colorado station and count those contacts, then there's an illogical inconsistency, regardless of whether that station is someone else's (either a club or a rental or someone else's personal station) or one I bought and paid for. (FWIW, this is purely hypothetical--the Colorado club station I use does not currently support remote operation.)
---In 070@..., wrote :
It's not nearly so simple.