remote radio


Bill Williams
 

I am surprised no one has straighted this out yet.  I am not very knowledgeable on the subject but I do know remote operating is addressed in all the awards.  Awards like WAS and DXCC are "location" awards.  The transmitter must be within 50 miles of your defined station to count.  The defined station for most of us is our home station.  Here in Florida I know several who have two defined stations, one at home up North and one here for the winter home.  If you have a vacation home in another location then you must have two defined locations and can get the award for either or both but all contacts must be made from within 50 miles of that location.  I assume you could also get the award from a remote control station could but all contacts for that award would have to be made from that remote station or within 50 miles of the remote station location.

The 070 club awards are different in that the awards are not specified as location awards but contact of specific places or people.  No station location is specified except for the distance away from home you must be for the APE award.

Since I have not a wall paper seeker, except 070 awards!, I only know this as general ham knowledge.  There has to be at least one member who is intimate with all the rules.  Jump in here and state chapter and verse so this line can end.

73,
BIll
AG4QX
#398


cessnaflyer42
 

It's not nearly so simple.

DXCC, for instance, does not have the 50-mile rule.  For DXCC, all contacts must be made from the same DX entity.  Remote operation is allowed as long as transmitter and receiver are located in the same DXCC entity. (DXCC Rule 9)

WAS has a 50-mile rule (Rule 3), but it is common to earn WAS by starting from scratch if you move or have a station outside your original 50-mile circle.  There is nothing in the WAS rules to prevent you from earning WAS while using a remote station within 50 miles of your home or other station, or making a separate application for WAS completed entirely by remote sites within 50 miles of each other.

ARRL has studied the issue extensively and has specifically not prohibited remote operating in its contests.  There are rules about "remote receive sites", but these refer to sites that are remote from the operating station, not the operator's location.  As long as the rule that "All transmitters and receivers must be located within a 500-meter diameter circle, excluding antennas." is followed, there is no reason you can't operate an ARRL contest from a remote station.

I am inclined to disagree with the folks who oppose use of remote stations.  While the idea of "paying for QSOs" is a nice sound bite for opponents, please consider:
* Not every ham has the ability to put up their own station.  (eg, apartment dwellers, college students, HOA victims)
* Club stations are often made available to members for personal use, and their use (under a personal call) has not drawn such objections, even though the club station may be much better equipped than the ham's home station.
* Remote operating includes not just the heavy-weight stations that are subject to hourly rental, but also club shacks that are more modest and made available to members over the Internet.
* Remote operating also includes operating ones own station via the Internet, perhaps while out of town.  (I, for one, have been known to operate my own station remotely this way.)
* Finally, "paying for QSOs" by renting time at a huge contest site is very little different from buying the best gear, the best antennas, property at the best location, etc.  Those with funds to spend have that advantage over others regardless of the way those funds are spent (locally vs remotely).  Having a huge, expensive contest station at your home doesn't mean you are particularly skilled, and likewise, paying for use of a remote station doesn't mean you lack the skill.  It's simply a question of how you allocate your resources.

For what it's worth, I don't operate stations other than my own remotely, but I do sometimes use my own call at my club's station (which is permitted by the club).  Having been in circumstances where I couldn't set up my own station (and I still don't have the station I really want), I am very sympathetic to those who want to rent the facility from others.

73,
James NF8I


David Westbrook
 

Very well written James on all points ...  110% agree!

A large part of ham radio is about experimentation and innovation --  remote use and internet integration is an excellent example of that!

--david
KJ4IZW

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 9:55 AM, nf8i@... [070] <070@...> wrote:
 

It's not nearly so simple.

DXCC, for instance, does not have the 50-mile rule.  For DXCC, all contacts must be made from the same DX entity.  Remote operation is allowed as long as transmitter and receiver are located in the same DXCC entity. (DXCC Rule 9)

WAS has a 50-mile rule (Rule 3), but it is common to earn WAS by starting from scratch if you move or have a station outside your original 50-mile circle.  There is nothing in the WAS rules to prevent you from earning WAS while using a remote station within 50 miles of your home or other station, or making a separate application for WAS completed entirely by remote sites within 50 miles of each other.

ARRL has studied the issue extensively and has specifically not prohibited remote operating in its contests.  There are rules about "remote receive sites", but these refer to sites that are remote from the operating station, not the operator's location.  As long as the rule that "All transmitters and receivers must be located within a 500-meter diameter circle, excluding antennas." is followed, there is no reason you can't operate an ARRL contest from a remote station.

I am inclined to disagree with the folks who oppose use of remote stations.  While the idea of "paying for QSOs" is a nice sound bite for opponents, please consider:
* Not every ham has the ability to put up their own station.  (eg, apartment dwellers, college students, HOA victims)
* Club stations are often made available to members for personal use, and their use (under a personal call) has not drawn such objections, even though the club station may be much better equipped than the ham's home station.
* Remote operating includes not just the heavy-weight stations that are subject to hourly rental, but also club shacks that are more modest and made available to members over the Internet.
* Remote operating also includes operating ones own station via the Internet, perhaps while out of town.  (I, for one, have been known to operate my own station remotely this way.)
* Finally, "paying for QSOs" by renting time at a huge contest site is very little different from buying the best gear, the best antennas, property at the best location, etc.  Those with funds to spend have that advantage over others regardless of the way those funds are spent (locally vs remotely).  Having a huge, expensive contest station at your home doesn't mean you are particularly skilled, and likewise, paying for use of a remote station doesn't mean you lack the skill.  It's simply a question of how you allocate your resources.

For what it's worth, I don't operate stations other than my own remotely, but I do sometimes use my own call at my club's station (which is permitted by the club).  Having been in circumstances where I couldn't set up my own station (and I still don't have the station I really want), I am very sympathetic to those who want to rent the facility from others.

73,
James NF8I



Steve W3HF
 

James -

 

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.)

 

Steve

W3HF


---In 070@..., <nf8i@...> wrote :
 
It's not nearly so simple.

...

73,
James NF8I


Jerry N9AVY
 

I'm one of those guilty of using a club station to make contacts, but the club station is  30 miles East of my QTH and has only been used for DXCC contacts when my station was down or QRN levels were too high here.  I won't regard thing as an unfair advantage.

When it comes to DX and those who are on DXpeditions, many hams have been known to leave a key to their station for a friend to work them from his station.  Let's face it, when someone spends a lot of $$$$$ to go to some rare DX QTH, WHY should he be penalized for making that DX QTH available to thousands in DX community by going without ?

What it all come down to is "personal integrity"  and we really don't need "rules" to cover the how and why of operating. After all, there are many out there who thinks rules were made to be broken.

Jerry  N9AVY


From: "w3hf@... [070]" <070@...>
To: 070@...
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 2:33 PM
Subject: [070] re: remote radio

 
James -
 
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.)
 
Steve
W3HF

---In 070@..., wrote :
 
It's not nearly so simple.

...

73,
James NF8I



Ray Clements
 

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.  


Ray N9RWC


------ Original Message ------
Received: 02:34 PM CST, 01/13/2015
From: "w3hf@... [070]" <070@...>
To: <070@...>
Subject: [070] re: remote radio



Jerry N9AVY
 

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.


Jerry  N9AVY





From: "'Ray Clements' r.clements@... [070]" <070@...>
To: 070@...
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: [070] 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.  


Ray N9RWC




------ Original Message ------
Received: 02:34 PM CST, 01/13/2015
From: "w3hf@... [070]" <070@...>
To: <070@...>
Subject: [070] re: remote radio


 
James -
 
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.)
 
Steve
W3HF

---In 070@...,  
It's not nearly so simple.

...

73,
James NF8I





Bill Garwood
 

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
 
Bill N4GBK
 
 
 
 

 

To: 070@...
From: 070@...
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 14:30:04 -0800
Subject: Re: [070] 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.


Jerry  N9AVY





From: "'Ray Clements' r.clements@... [070]" <070@...>
To: 070@...
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: [070] 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.  


Ray N9RWC




------ Original Message ------
Received: 02:34 PM CST, 01/13/2015
From: "w3hf@... [070]" <070@...>
To: <070@...>
Subject: [070] re: remote radio


 
James -
 
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.)
 
Steve
W3HF

---In 070@..., wrote :
 
It's not nearly so simple.

...

73,
James NF8I






Jerry N9AVY
 

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.

jerry  N9AVY


From: "Bill Garwood n4gbk@... [070]" <070@...>
To: "070@..." <070@...>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 5:58 PM
Subject: RE: [070] 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
 
Bill N4GBK
 
 
 
 

 



To: 070@...
From: 070@...
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 14:30:04 -0800
Subject: Re: [070] 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.


Jerry  N9AVY





From: "'Ray Clements' r.clements@... [070]" <070@...>
To: 070@...
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: [070] 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.  


Ray N9RWC




------ Original Message ------
Received: 02:34 PM CST, 01/13/2015
From: "w3hf@... [070]" <070@...>
To: <070@...>
Subject: [070] re: remote radio


 
James -
 
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.)
 
Steve
W3HF

---In 070@..., wrote :
 
It's not nearly so simple.

...

73,
James NF8I