Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
AND and this is the' ÄND not the end yet but very close. .RHR posted DXCC ARRL now allowing you to be anywhere and contact count for Award' I'm afraid we will lose our privileges, the only thing that protected us and make us unique to preserve the bands we have privilege is the nom -commercial nature of our service. Now that we allowed a commercial carrier to use our station we become a commercial service. Loosing this status we, our value and interest, will be judged as any other commercial interest. It is not about remote technology or use of or for DXCC, it is the change into a enterprise carrier service $/min or $/KW. ARRL is playing the full ! FCC soon we realize we have been lying about the nature of our service and rethink why OR NOT to give us air wave space. I think this is the END coming soon! Regards JC N4IS -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Larry Burke Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 9:48 PM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N It's actually worse than that, Jim. One doesn't even need a K3/0. All you need is a computer and an internet connection. RHR's advertising is aimed at the simplicity of it all -- $99 and you are on the air!, We will literally have you on the air within minutes of signup!. Interestingly, the advertising even suggests that RHR isn't even real ham radio -- For those who want a more 'authentic' radio experience, you can connect with a K3/0/10/100-Mini!. - Larry K5RK -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim Brown Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 8:41 PM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N Here's are a couple of quotes from the Remote Ham Radio Newsletter that showed up in my mailbox today. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = As we write this newsletter the K1N team is on the air with a BIG signal. We are happy to announce that many have already snagged them on 80M and 160M with ease using the RHR network. The experienced fifteen man team is planning a 14 day stay with around the clock operation, this will give operators plenty of time to get this ATNO before they depart. If you need NAVASSA, we have the tools to help you work them, RHR has a total of seventeen sites on the air with plenty of capacity to work this super rare DXpedition. EP6T Iran DXpedition worked on 9 bands from RHR sites including the top band. FT5ZM Amsterdam Island worked on 9 Bands from RHR sites including the top band. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = No need to build a station, just buy a K3/0 and rent one. Want a 160 or 80M QSO? No problem -- rent a superstation in one of the southern states to work Navassa, South America, and entities in the South Atlantic, in Maine for EU and EP6T. Rent one on the west coast to work Oceania and Asia. This comes as close to a box-top operation as I've seen yet. Absolutely disgusting. As I've posted here, I have NO problem with someone who is stuck with nasty RF noise and antenna restrictions building a remote station near his home QTH, or even using a single remote station close to his QTH, to chase awards and contest. But this is not what Remote Ham Radio is SELLING. Anyone who doesn't think this is cheating doesn't have a clue about the true spirit of ham radio. And I've been a ham long enough to remember what that was. 73, Jim K9YC _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
It is not about remote technology or use of or for DXCC, it is the change into a enterprise carrier service $/min or $/KW. Now, extrapolate the RHR business model to hundreds of similar paid remote services, all competing for customers to access what has been free spectrum regulated by the FCC (at least here in the U.S.) In a sense, and to JC's point, it's the start of a commercial common-carrier network. These equal access for all networks are otherwise heavily regulated in the U.S. The camel's nose is now in the tent, and the body is sure to follow. Rather than embracing this commercial abuse of free spectrum, the League should be scrambling to draft a Petition for Rulemaking to prohibit this form of paid spectrum access - and that should include all for profit and not-for-profit entities. What other countries do is their prerogative. Paul, W9AC _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
And let me counter with another quote: Edmund Burke said all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Doug -Original Message- What difference does it make? Who cares if someone else, rich or not, cheats? We should encourage them to work K1N as quickly as possible and then go away. I leave you with a Shakespeare quote, It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing. Tod, K0TO On Feb 4, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Joel Harrison w...@w5zn.org wrote: Dave - you are correct. That very statement was rather boldly made by a prominent 160 meter person right here. At the time I thought about throwing the flag on that one but decided, then, not to. I know the remote folks can track ISP addresses of those connected but do not know how they can verify a station outside the country where the remote is located is identifying correctly and lawfully. So, I'll make a bold statement hereThe remote folks don't care and will not control it as long as the are flowing in. Money talks and the rules can go to hell. Am I wrong?? Then prove me wrong and let's see some hammering down on this by the remote folks. 73 Joel W5ZN I mentioned last week that we would be seeing over seas stations using US based remotes stations to work K1N. It was mentioned here that this won't happen, and that the US remote station operators monitor this activity carefully and do not permit it. Well, it is happening. I have personally witnessed on IT9 station and one JA station using clearly NA based remote stations to work K1N on 160m. That's probably just the tip of the iceberg. It's rather obvious when they are on 160m and are 20 or 30 db stronger than the din of the DX stations calling. There will be more. Incidentally, they were not signing at /W#, /K#, etc. Realistically it's probably not preventable but saddening. In the meantime, I think the K1N ops are doing nothing short of a fabulous job. Excellent Q rates, good job managing the piles, deftly QSYing to dodge DQRM, all the while being quite cheerful and courteous. Bravo! 73. . . Dave, W0FLS --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
What difference does it make? Who cares if someone else, rich or not, cheats? We should encourage them to work K1N as quickly as possible and then go away. I leave you with a Shakespeare quote, It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing. Tod, K0TO Sent from my iPad air On Feb 4, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Joel Harrison w...@w5zn.org wrote: Dave - you are correct. That very statement was rather boldly made by a prominent 160 meter person right here. At the time I thought about throwing the flag on that one but decided, then, not to. I know the remote folks can track ISP addresses of those connected but do not know how they can verify a station outside the country where the remote is located is identifying correctly and lawfully. So, I'll make a bold statement hereThe remote folks don't care and will not control it as long as the are flowing in. Money talks and the rules can go to hell. Am I wrong?? Then prove me wrong and let's see some hammering down on this by the remote folks. 73 Joel W5ZN I mentioned last week that we would be seeing over seas stations using US based remotes stations to work K1N. It was mentioned here that this won't happen, and that the US remote station operators monitor this activity carefully and do not permit it. Well, it is happening. I have personally witnessed on IT9 station and one JA station using clearly NA based remote stations to work K1N on 160m. That's probably just the tip of the iceberg. It's rather obvious when they are on 160m and are 20 or 30 db stronger than the din of the DX stations calling. There will be more. Incidentally, they were not signing at /W#, /K#, etc. Realistically it's probably not preventable but saddening. In the meantime, I think the K1N ops are doing nothing short of a fabulous job. Excellent Q rates, good job managing the piles, deftly QSYing to dodge DQRM, all the while being quite cheerful and courteous. Bravo! 73. . . Dave, W0FLS _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband www.w5zn.org _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
'The KEY WORD is the COMMUNICATIONS².¹ Milt, We¹ve already addressed ³communications.² A definition needs to be added to Part 97.3. Absent a definition, there is no clear meaning of the term and is left to interpretation, and abuses of interpretation. IMHO, it is totally legal per written law, and does not require an exception, or a DR or other permission.² It is not totally legal per written law. If is was, we would see a codified definition. The definition is not decided by me, you or RHR¹s legal counsel. The interpretation is only decided by the Commission, or by court order. Paul, W9AC _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
Yes, Milt has it 100% correct ! Paul has chosen his legal (mis)interpretation of Part 97, the RHR guys and the ARRL have chosen their (correct) interpretation. If Paul doesn't agree with their interpretation, and thinks they should cease and desist, that is why we have the FCC, and failing that, the federal court system of the United States. 73, Steve, N2IC On 02/05/2015 09:59 AM, Milt -- N5IA wrote: Paul, IMHO you and others have failed to hit upon the KEY word, or term, in the Part 97 rules. The KEY WORD is the COMMUNICATIONS. The rule is written so that an amateur station cannot be legally used to transmit COMMUNICATION, that is, the actual information contained in the transmissions, for material compensation. To my knowledge, all COMMUNICATION via the remote controlled stations is HAM COMMUNICATION only. No BUSINESS COMMUNICATION is taking place; just AMATEUR RADIO COMMUNICATION. IMHO, it is totally legal per written law, and does not require an exception, or a DR or other permission. Hypothetically, HRO and AES could lease, loan, rent, time share or whatever radio systems, to include setting them up, maintaining, paying operation costs, etc., to any person who presented a valid amateur radio license. That would be no different from the business those two entities are currently involved in; that is selling radios and related equipment to any person who presents a valid amateur radio license. They just did not think of the 'remote for rent' first and act upon the concept. Likewise, many, many amateurs hire, pay, bribe with beer, whatever, other people to install and maintain their radios and antenna systems. Is this against the law as written? What about all those crane operators and professional tower climbers that make significant bucks from hams to set up and rig the ham towers and antennas? It doesn't matter if it is a one time situation, or on a contract, ongoing basis. If it were illegal, ??? VHF and UHF Repeaters are not significantly different than HF remote bases. Group owned, pay your dues required to use repeaters have been in use for nearly 50 years. Absolutely no difference. The only requirement, per FCC regulations, for the owner of a 'station for rent', whether it is locally controlled (the KP2 and KH6 rentals) or remotely controlled (the RHR Network or others) is, that including proper identification, the rules and regs are followed for the COMMUNICATION and communication method that emits from that station. It is what it is. Evolution of technology. Mis dos centavos. 73 de Milt, N5IA -Original Message- From: Paul Christensen Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 8:27 AM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N Quoting myself: 'Rather than embracing this commercial abuse of free spectrum, the League should be scrambling to draft a Petition for Rulemaking to prohibit this form of paid spectrum access - and that should include all for profit and not-for-profit entities. What other countries do is their prerogative' Taking a detailed look at Part 97, specifically, 97.113(a)(2): (a) No amateur station shall transmit: (2) Communications for hire or for material compensation, direct or indirect, paid or promised, except as otherwise provided in these rules; I see no exemption as otherwise provided for RHR's toll-based, income model. Note that the rule is specific to the amateur station as defined under 97.3(a)(5). 97.113(a)(3) (a) No amateur station shall transmit: (3) Communications in which the station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary interest, including communications on behalf of an employer, with the following exceptions: I still don't see an exemption here for RHR's toll-based business. Here, the entities affected by this subpart are the amateur station, station licensee, and/or control operator. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5645 / Virus Database: 4281/9061 - Release Date: 02/05/15 _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
If Paul doesn¹t agree with their interpretation, and thinks they should cease and desist, that is why we have the FCC, and failing that, the federal court system of the United States.² Steve, I¹m not going to argue the validity of anyone¹s (mis)interpretation unless it comes from the FCC or the court. I think I made that point this morning. What I believe makes sense is a change that includes either an added definition of ³communications,² in 97.3 where it¹s mentioned eleven times without a definition, or in the alternative, amending 97.113(a)(2) and (a)(3). I don't recall mentioning anything about a ³cease and desist² letter. Paul, W9AC _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
Paul, IMHO you and others have failed to hit upon the KEY word, or term, in the Part 97 rules. The KEY WORD is the COMMUNICATIONS. The rule is written so that an amateur station cannot be legally used to transmit COMMUNICATION, that is, the actual information contained in the transmissions, for material compensation. To my knowledge, all COMMUNICATION via the remote controlled stations is HAM COMMUNICATION only. No BUSINESS COMMUNICATION is taking place; just AMATEUR RADIO COMMUNICATION. IMHO, it is totally legal per written law, and does not require an exception, or a DR or other permission. Hypothetically, HRO and AES could lease, loan, rent, time share or whatever radio systems, to include setting them up, maintaining, paying operation costs, etc., to any person who presented a valid amateur radio license. That would be no different from the business those two entities are currently involved in; that is selling radios and related equipment to any person who presents a valid amateur radio license. They just did not think of the 'remote for rent' first and act upon the concept. Likewise, many, many amateurs hire, pay, bribe with beer, whatever, other people to install and maintain their radios and antenna systems. Is this against the law as written? What about all those crane operators and professional tower climbers that make significant bucks from hams to set up and rig the ham towers and antennas? It doesn't matter if it is a one time situation, or on a contract, ongoing basis. If it were illegal, ??? VHF and UHF Repeaters are not significantly different than HF remote bases. Group owned, pay your dues required to use repeaters have been in use for nearly 50 years. Absolutely no difference. The only requirement, per FCC regulations, for the owner of a 'station for rent', whether it is locally controlled (the KP2 and KH6 rentals) or remotely controlled (the RHR Network or others) is, that including proper identification, the rules and regs are followed for the COMMUNICATION and communication method that emits from that station. It is what it is. Evolution of technology. Mis dos centavos. 73 de Milt, N5IA -Original Message- From: Paul Christensen Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 8:27 AM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N Quoting myself: 'Rather than embracing this commercial abuse of free spectrum, the League should be scrambling to draft a Petition for Rulemaking to prohibit this form of paid spectrum access - and that should include all for profit and not-for-profit entities. What other countries do is their prerogative' Taking a detailed look at Part 97, specifically, 97.113(a)(2): (a) No amateur station shall transmit: (2) Communications for hire or for material compensation, direct or indirect, paid or promised, except as otherwise provided in these rules; I see no exemption as otherwise provided for RHR's toll-based, income model. Note that the rule is specific to the amateur station as defined under 97.3(a)(5). 97.113(a)(3) (a) No amateur station shall transmit: (3) Communications in which the station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary interest, including communications on behalf of an employer, with the following exceptions: I still don't see an exemption here for RHR's toll-based business. Here, the entities affected by this subpart are the amateur station, station licensee, and/or control operator. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5645 / Virus Database: 4281/9061 - Release Date: 02/05/15 _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.) Keep in mind that radio communication already has a statutory definition; incorporating it into Part 97 might make Part 97 clearer...but I think it would take an act of Congress to actually change the definition for amateur radio purposes. From 47 U.S. Code § 153: +++ (40) Radio communication The term radio communication or communication by radio means the transmission by radio of writing, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds of all kinds, including all instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus, and services (among other things, the receipt, forwarding, and delivery of communications) incidental to such transmission. -- Michael Adams | N1EN | m...@n1en.org -Original Message de W9AC- Apart from that, one could otherwise make the legal argument in Part 97 that communication is not only the message but the act of information transfer. I specifically mention Part 97 because otherwise, the interpretation would have far-reaching implications in other wireless services. Back to my original post: It's definitely time for a PRM, and to add a clear definition of communication in 97.3. Today, that definition does not exist in Part 97. _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
http://www.remotehamradio.com/the-stations/ 73 Peter -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Paul Christensen Sent: Donnerstag, 5. Februar 2015 17:10 To: topband Subject: Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N I'm sure you realize this, because people just never complain without actually knowing how things really work, but RHR isn't the only site. There are a dozen others, and some are completely free and unsupervised. What RHR member stations in the U.S. provide 160m access? Paul, W9AC _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
Peter, Tnx. Call signs of the member stations that serve 160m? Paul -Original Message- From: Peter Voelpel dj...@t-online.de Date: Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 1:39 PM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N http://www.remotehamradio.com/the-stations/ 73 Peter -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Paul Christensen Sent: Donnerstag, 5. Februar 2015 17:10 To: topband Subject: Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N I'm sure you realize this, because people just never complain without actually knowing how things really work, but RHR isn't the only site. There are a dozen others, and some are completely free and unsupervised. What RHR member stations in the U.S. provide 160m access? Paul, W9AC _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
...which happens daily. -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tom W8JI Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 1:10 PM To: David Raymond; TopBand Subject: Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N I mentioned last week that we would be seeing over seas stations using US based remotes stations to work K1N. It was mentioned here that this won't happen, and that the US remote station operators monitor this activity carefully and do not permit it. Well, it is happening. Dave, How do you know it was a remote, and not someone using someone else's call or someone using someone's station and not signing legally? Were you watching the Internet, like the NSA? Maybe it was that KK6 fellow everyone was trashing? :) 73 Tom _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
On 2015-02-04, at 12:45 PM, David Raymond wrote: I mentioned last week that we would be seeing over seas stations using US based remotes stations to work K1N. It was mentioned here that this won't happen, and that the US remote station operators monitor this activity carefully and do not permit it. Well, it is happening. I have personally witnessed on IT9 station and one JA station using clearly NA based remote stations to work K1N on 160m. That's probably just the tip of the iceberg. It's rather obvious when they are on 160m and are 20 or 30 db stronger than the din of the DX stations calling. There will be more. Incidentally, they were not signing at /W#, /K#, etc. Realistically it's probably not preventable but saddening. Why not just get rid of the radios entirely, instead, have some sort of an on-line chat fest, similar to the old Dr. DX computer add-on of some 30 years ago...?! Senor, we doan neet yoor steenkeeng propagation heer, annaways...!!! ~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
Dave - you are correct. That very statement was rather boldly made by a prominent 160 meter person right here. At the time I thought about throwing the flag on that one but decided, then, not to. I know the remote folks can track ISP addresses of those connected but do not know how they can verify a station outside the country where the remote is located is identifying correctly and lawfully. So, I'll make a bold statement hereThe remote folks don't care and will not control it as long as the are flowing in. Money talks and the rules can go to hell. Am I wrong?? Then prove me wrong and let's see some hammering down on this by the remote folks. 73 Joel W5ZN I mentioned last week that we would be seeing over seas stations using US based remotes stations to work K1N. It was mentioned here that this won't happen, and that the US remote station operators monitor this activity carefully and do not permit it. Well, it is happening. I have personally witnessed on IT9 station and one JA station using clearly NA based remote stations to work K1N on 160m. That's probably just the tip of the iceberg. It's rather obvious when they are on 160m and are 20 or 30 db stronger than the din of the DX stations calling. There will be more. Incidentally, they were not signing at /W#, /K#, etc. Realistically it's probably not preventable but saddening. In the meantime, I think the K1N ops are doing nothing short of a fabulous job. Excellent Q rates, good job managing the piles, deftly QSYing to dodge DQRM, all the while being quite cheerful and courteous. Bravo! 73. . . Dave, W0FLS _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband www.w5zn.org _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
I mentioned last week that we would be seeing over seas stations using US based remotes stations to work K1N. It was mentioned here that this won't happen, and that the US remote station operators monitor this activity carefully and do not permit it. Well, it is happening. Dave, How do you know it was a remote, and not someone using someone else's call or someone using someone's station and not signing legally? Were you watching the Internet, like the NSA? Maybe it was that KK6 fellow everyone was trashing? :) 73 Tom _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
Ethical issues aside, a EU station working through a USA remote without signing a USA callsign indicator is illegal under FCC rules. Someone is legally responsible for the operation of an FCC licensed station. If such illegal operation is occurring, who is the responsible party? Hats off the K1N operation. First class ops all the way. 73 Chas N8RR From: daraym...@iowatelecom.net To: topband@contesting.com Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 11:45:06 -0600 Subject: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N I mentioned last week that we would be seeing over seas stations using US based remotes stations to work K1N. It was mentioned here that this won't happen, and that the US remote station operators monitor this activity carefully and do not permit it. Well, it is happening. I have personally witnessed on IT9 station and one JA station using clearly NA based remote stations to work K1N on 160m. That's probably just the tip of the iceberg. It's rather obvious when they are on 160m and are 20 or 30 db stronger than the din of the DX stations calling. There will be more. Incidentally, they were not signing at /W#, /K#, etc. Realistically it's probably not preventable but saddening. In the meantime, I think the K1N ops are doing nothing short of a fabulous job. Excellent Q rates, good job managing the piles, deftly QSYing to dodge DQRM, all the while being quite cheerful and courteous. Bravo! 73. . . Dave, W0FLS _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
This is easily found out without the NSA, just look at who paid for the minutes used at a remote station and it would show who used it and when, Can guarantee that wont be forth coming. Reminds me of the ole joke: The first chicken that cackles, laid the egg. 73 Merv K9FD/KH6, I mentioned last week that we would be seeing over seas stations using US based remotes stations to work K1N. It was mentioned here that this won't happen, and that the US remote station operators monitor this activity carefully and do not permit it. Well, it is happening. Dave, How do you know it was a remote, and not someone using someone else's call or someone using someone's station and not signing legally? Were you watching the Internet, like the NSA? Maybe it was that KK6 fellow everyone was trashing? :) 73 Tom _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband . _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
You still haven't proven me wrong!! :-)) Dave - you are correct. That very statement was rather boldly made by a prominent 160 meter person right here. That was me. It was a statement of fact. RHR requires a log in name, password, and they watch IPs. After some early abuse, they started checking to be sure the name and password come from the same IP or IP pool as the user name and password combo. When it is a foreign user, of which there are a limited number, the traffic is watched. It is highly unlikely someone used RHR, unless Dave knows of some flaw in the system. If Dave does, or if you do Joel, you should do something constructive and point out the flaw. At the time I thought about throwing the flag on that one but decided, then, not to. I know the remote folks can track ISP addresses of those connected but do not know how they can verify a station outside the country where the remote is located is identifying correctly and lawfully. RHR is getting the heat here when, factually, Dave probably hasn't the faintest idea who or what was being used and/or where the station was coming from. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Someone makes a doomsday prediction. Hearing something funny, the conclusion is it had to be via RHR. Then Joel decides if Dave said it, it must be right. W8JI has to be wrong, because Dave knows more about RHR procedures and can monitor the system better then Tom can, looking at site operation data. :-) We are not only so clairvoyant as a group that we know everything that happened with ZM enough to publically lynch him, we now are such experts on remote radio we know what system it came from. So, I'll make a bold statement hereThe remote folks don't care and will not control it as long as the are flowing in. Money talks and the rules can go to hell. What a bizarre statement! Am I wrong?? Then prove me wrong and let's see some hammering down on this by the remote folks. Unfortunately, no one can correct what is in someone else's imagination or opinion. Facts will never overcome good old fashioned emotional-driven opinions. 73 Tom _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband www.w5zn.org _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
Dave - you are correct. That very statement was rather boldly made by a prominent 160 meter person right here. That was me. It was a statement of fact. RHR requires a log in name, password, and they watch IPs. After some early abuse, they started checking to be sure the name and password come from the same IP or IP pool as the user name and password combo. When it is a foreign user, of which there are a limited number, the traffic is watched. It is highly unlikely someone used RHR, unless Dave knows of some flaw in the system. If Dave does, or if you do Joel, you should do something constructive and point out the flaw. At the time I thought about throwing the flag on that one but decided, then, not to. I know the remote folks can track ISP addresses of those connected but do not know how they can verify a station outside the country where the remote is located is identifying correctly and lawfully. RHR is getting the heat here when, factually, Dave probably hasn't the faintest idea who or what was being used and/or where the station was coming from. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Someone makes a doomsday prediction. Hearing something funny, the conclusion is it had to be via RHR. Then Joel decides if Dave said it, it must be right. W8JI has to be wrong, because Dave knows more about RHR procedures and can monitor the system better then Tom can, looking at site operation data. :-) We are not only so clairvoyant as a group that we know everything that happened with ZM enough to publically lynch him, we now are such experts on remote radio we know what system it came from. So, I'll make a bold statement hereThe remote folks don't care and will not control it as long as the are flowing in. Money talks and the rules can go to hell. What a bizarre statement! Am I wrong?? Then prove me wrong and let's see some hammering down on this by the remote folks. Unfortunately, no one can correct what is in someone else's imagination or opinion. Facts will never overcome good old fashioned emotional-driven opinions. 73 Tom _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
We could do a letter writing campaign and demand some or all the changes Larry discussed I for one am bothered greatly that all the work and effort into learning how to try to operate on the low bands now all I need is to pick the closest station to the rare DX and rent it and make the QSO I don't need to get up for sunrise and be there at sunset just get on when the dx station is on and work-em hey even if my QTH is in sunlight who cares that remote station is close so in darkness it'll count no need to do the right thing it is meaningless now and so what if there is no propagation from me to JA,BV,BY,HL etc on 6 meters I'll just pop on the closest RHR and before you know it I'll have more countries worked on 6 that anyone. Beside all that I always thought we weren't supposed to do this hobby for money,all this being said these are my opinions I am sure some shared some not Sam -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Doug Renwick Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 10:29 PM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N I've said this before. Let's just get rid of all this foolishness with RHR, etc. and just send the dxpedition a couple hundred dollar bills for confirmation on bands, all modes. Essentially that is what DXing is becoming for some. Yes the 'Rise and Fall of DXCC' before our vary eyes. Doug -Original Message- Here's are a couple of quotes from the Remote Ham Radio Newsletter that showed up in my mailbox today. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = As we write this newsletter the K1N team is on the air with a BIG signal. We are happy to announce that many have already snagged them on 80M and 160M with ease using the RHR network. The experienced fifteen man team is planning a 14 day stay with around the clock operation, this will give operators plenty of time to get this ATNO before they depart. If you need NAVASSA, we have the tools to help you work them, RHR has a total of seventeen sites on the air with plenty of capacity to work this super rare DXpedition. EP6T Iran DXpedition worked on 9 bands from RHR sites including the top band. FT5ZM Amsterdam Island worked on 9 Bands from RHR sites including the top band. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = No need to build a station, just buy a K3/0 and rent one. Want a 160 or 80M QSO? No problem -- rent a superstation in one of the southern states to work Navassa, South America, and entities in the South Atlantic, in Maine for EU and EP6T. Rent one on the west coast to work Oceania and Asia. This comes as close to a box-top operation as I've seen yet. Absolutely disgusting. As I've posted here, I have NO problem with someone who is stuck with nasty RF noise and antenna restrictions building a remote station near his home QTH, or even using a single remote station close to his QTH, to chase awards and contest. But this is not what Remote Ham Radio is SELLING. Anyone who doesn't think this is cheating doesn't have a clue about the true spirit of ham radio. And I've been a ham long enough to remember what that was. 73, Jim K9YC --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
Just curious, not knowing anymore than I do about RHRhow do they verify that a paid user even holds a ticket. It would also be alarming to find that RHR sites are being used to stage DQRM attacks during DXpeditions. I guess crazier things have been dreamt up Cecil Sent using recycled electrons. On Feb 4, 2015, at 6:44 PM, JC n...@comcast.net wrote: RHR requires a log in name, password, and they watch IPs. After some early abuse, they started checking to be sure the name and password come from the same IP or IP pool as the user name and password combo. When it is a foreign user, of which there are a limited number, the traffic is watched. Hi Tom Yes. Everything is so clear and controlled by RHR that no one will use the remote station to work a new DXCC because they/he/she must use /p or /W4 , That use of /remote call sign makes the QSO invalid for DXCC. So, why not published the call sign of all RHR users and send it to DXCC desk! Let's make this clear and transparent. DXCC can create a new category for RHR DXCC users? Is this IT9 is a RHR customer? Regards JC N4IS _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
GM OM/YL, Breaking News: ARRL Board Okays Changes to DXCC Program ARRL VOTES ON DXCC and REMOTE RULES We would like to applaud the ARRL for seeing the big picture and understanding how important the role of remote technology will play in the future of our hobby. The recommended DXAC 200km limit has been completely squashed, and the ARRL went one step further. The ARRL has lifted the ban on the requirement for a operator to be in the same DXCC entity as the transmitter for his QSO's to count! This means that if you are traveling outside the U.S. or actively serving overseas in our military, you can remote into a transmitter in the U.S. and those contacts will count towards your U.S. DXCC award. Here is a paragraph from the CEO of the ARRL Dave Sumner: It has always been permitted for a QSO to count for both stations, if either station was operated remotely from a control point within the same DXCC entity, Sumner explained. Now the location of the operator doesn't matter; the operator could be on the far side of the Moon if he or she could figure out how to remotely control a station on land back on Earth from there. Hey Dave, we are working on that! _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
AA6YQ comments below -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Doug Renwick Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 8:58 PM To: 'Tom W8JI'; 'JC'; w...@w5zn.org; 'TopBand' Subject: Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N Well thanks Tom for adding another nail to the coffin. I guess the old saying if you can't beat them, then join them got to you. You are right on one point. The abolishment of the mileage limit helped destroy the DXCC. When was the mileage limit abolished? I'm just wondering for how long DXCC has been destroyed. 73, Dave, AA6YQ _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
Here's are a couple of quotes from the Remote Ham Radio Newsletter that showed up in my mailbox today. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = As we write this newsletter the K1N team is on the air with a BIG signal. We are happy to announce that many have already snagged them on 80M and 160M with ease using the RHR network. The experienced fifteen man team is planning a 14 day stay with around the clock operation, this will give operators plenty of time to get this ATNO before they depart. If you need NAVASSA, we have the tools to help you work them, RHR has a total of seventeen sites on the air with plenty of capacity to work this super rare DXpedition. EP6T Iran DXpedition worked on 9 bands from RHR sites including the top band. FT5ZM Amsterdam Island worked on 9 Bands from RHR sites including the top band. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = No need to build a station, just buy a K3/0 and rent one. Want a 160 or 80M QSO? No problem -- rent a superstation in one of the southern states to work Navassa, South America, and entities in the South Atlantic, in Maine for EU and EP6T. Rent one on the west coast to work Oceania and Asia. This comes as close to a box-top operation as I've seen yet. Absolutely disgusting. As I've posted here, I have NO problem with someone who is stuck with nasty RF noise and antenna restrictions building a remote station near his home QTH, or even using a single remote station close to his QTH, to chase awards and contest. But this is not what Remote Ham Radio is SELLING. Anyone who doesn't think this is cheating doesn't have a clue about the true spirit of ham radio. And I've been a ham long enough to remember what that was. 73, Jim K9YC _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
Tom - Fair enough. I'll confess I don't know how this is controlled but since your station, the W8JI station is one of the RHR Premium stations that RHR subscribers can pay to use I will take it at face value that all is well. I am very curious though (seriously) if you, as the station owner, are aware when someone is using your station via a remote connection and if you, as the station owner, knows who that individual is?? The answer to that question may help clear up some of the misunderstanding that exists regarding controls related to remote operation. 73 Joel W5ZN Dave - you are correct. That very statement was rather boldly made by a prominent 160 meter person right here. That was me. It was a statement of fact. RHR requires a log in name, password, and they watch IPs. After some early abuse, they started checking to be sure the name and password come from the same IP or IP pool as the user name and password combo. When it is a foreign user, of which there are a limited number, the traffic is watched. It is highly unlikely someone used RHR, unless Dave knows of some flaw in the system. If Dave does, or if you do Joel, you should do something constructive and point out the flaw. At the time I thought about throwing the flag on that one but decided, then, not to. I know the remote folks can track ISP addresses of those connected but do not know how they can verify a station outside the country where the remote is located is identifying correctly and lawfully. RHR is getting the heat here when, factually, Dave probably hasn't the faintest idea who or what was being used and/or where the station was coming from. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Someone makes a doomsday prediction. Hearing something funny, the conclusion is it had to be via RHR. Then Joel decides if Dave said it, it must be right. W8JI has to be wrong, because Dave knows more about RHR procedures and can monitor the system better then Tom can, looking at site operation data. :-) We are not only so clairvoyant as a group that we know everything that happened with ZM enough to publically lynch him, we now are such experts on remote radio we know what system it came from. So, I'll make a bold statement hereThe remote folks don't care and will not control it as long as the are flowing in. Money talks and the rules can go to hell. What a bizarre statement! Am I wrong?? Then prove me wrong and let's see some hammering down on this by the remote folks. Unfortunately, no one can correct what is in someone else's imagination or opinion. Facts will never overcome good old fashioned emotional-driven opinions. 73 Tom www.w5zn.org _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
RHR requires a log in name, password, and they watch IPs. After some early abuse, they started checking to be sure the name and password come from the same IP or IP pool as the user name and password combo. When it is a foreign user, of which there are a limited number, the traffic is watched. Hi Tom Yes. Everything is so clear and controlled by RHR that no one will use the remote station to work a new DXCC because they/he/she must use /p or /W4 , That use of /remote call sign makes the QSO invalid for DXCC. So, why not published the call sign of all RHR users and send it to DXCC desk! Let's make this clear and transparent. DXCC can create a new category for RHR DXCC users? Is this IT9 is a RHR customer? I wouldn't know who their customers are, or how many customers they have. I only care how someone can use my station. I don't really understand the fuss. The last good DXCC's were when we had a mileage limit. Even then, someone could use a second site. It was actually common to use second sites. W1BU did it from a swamp, even W1BB had two stations. People used BC towers, it wasn't their stuff. One guy used a VOA antenna system. Everyone used to admire that. People would go to other stations as far back as I can remember. People come here and operate all the time. They work new countries. Now, suddenly, it is so unfair. How can we survive? 73 Tom _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
Here is one statement posted at a RHR website ◦100% anonymous operation How is someone going to get around that? Doug -Original Message- RHR requires a log in name, password, and they watch IPs. After some early abuse, they started checking to be sure the name and password come from the same IP or IP pool as the user name and password combo. When it is a foreign user, of which there are a limited number, the traffic is watched. Hi Tom Yes. Everything is so clear and controlled by RHR that no one will use the remote station to work a new DXCC because they/he/she must use /p or /W4 , That use of /remote call sign makes the QSO invalid for DXCC. So, why not published the call sign of all RHR users and send it to DXCC desk! Let's make this clear and transparent. DXCC can create a new category for RHR DXCC users? Is this IT9 is a RHR customer? Regards JC N4IS --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
W8JI: The last good DXCC's were when we had a mileage limit. Even then, someone could use a second site. It was actually common to use second sites. W1BU did it from a swamp, even W1BB had two stations. Just for the record, it is true that W1BB had two stations, but they were in the same town (Winthrop, MA) and literally minutes apart. One station was at his home, which was on a tiny, postage stamp lot. He did most, if not all, of his serious 160m DXing from the famous water tower location overlooking the ocean. I had the good fortune to visit Stew and see both places back in the 1970's when he was active. The times I heard him operating on 160 from the water tower QTH, he would sign W1BB/1 to indicate he was not at the home station. 73, John W1FV _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
Yes I couldn't agree more. Most interesting was seeing the call signs belonging to the lynch mob posted here and in private mailings to me. And believe me, some were of well known DXers. Doug I wasn't born in Saskatchewan, but I got here as soon as I could. -Original Message- snip I don't like where this reflector has headed. I don't care what ZM appeared to have done, ripping someone apart here is just as tasteless as anything ZM might have done. 73 Tom --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
On Wed,2/4/2015 5:48 PM, Tom W8JI wrote: Where were the complaints when the radius rule was dropped, I was inactive, running my consulting biz and having a family life. 73, Jim K9YC _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
Now, suddenly, it is so unfair. There have always been the ethically-challenged among us. No one is denying that. What I sense is a realization by many that DXCC, a program that some of us naively believed was a credible accomplishment worth investing time and energy in, has spun totally and permanently out of control. This is something that has been building for a long time -- There WERE complaints when the radius rule was dropped -- and the concept of commercial remotes was the straw that broke the camel's back for many. Tom, you indicate you are not that passionate about chasing awards. Some people are. Will they die tomorrow if the rules don't go their way? No. But please don't belittle them with comments like I think anyone who bases their success or value in life by how they rank in something as silly as a national DXCC list, or worrying about someone making 50 more contacts in a contest, deserves all the angst and distress worrying about others creates for them. All anyone is trying to do here is come to a reasonably equitable solution to maintaining some degree of integrity for the awards program. It is truly unfortunate that the DXAC's recommendation seems to have been ignored and the most recent decision was made by the Board -- most of whom are not serious DXers -- without substantial input from the DXing community. - Larry K5RK (no affiliation with a commercial remote business) _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
Dave... I actually addressed most of this with a proposal earlier today on how DXCC could be changed to accommodate these situations. If you didn't see it, I can forward you a copy. - Larry K5RK -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dave AA6YQ Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 9:00 PM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N Remote operation was made legal for DXCC in 1998. At that time, the distance constraint established was within the same DXCC entity. 17 years later, tightening the distance constraint would be challenging. What do you say to the DXer who is legally or topographically unable to establish a useful station on his or her home property and so spent thousands of dollars to acquire land and setup a remote station, possibly based on how to articles in ARRL publications? No matter what distance limit you now choose, some of those ops would no longer be able to use their remote stations. There is also the issue of QSOs made with remote stations beyond the tightened distance limit during the past 17 years. Are they invalidated, with awards retracted? Or are they grandfathered, creating a new fairness issue. In the absence of a time machine, our only recourse is to move forward. Some DXers pursue DXCC awards with QRO, while others use QRP. Some use digital modes like RTTY, while others (who enjoy watching paint dry) use the incredibly sensitive JT modes. The DXCC playing field has never been remotely level, and freezing technology at any point in time won't level it. Internet-based remote stations are just another option that some DXers will use and others will not. The op who worked them all with QRP and wire antennas from a shack beneath the auroral oval in Northern Canada will always have bragging rights over the op did so using a big amp with stacked monobanders and low-band receiving arrays from a QTH on the geomagnetic equator. Internet-based remote operation won't change that. 73, Dave, AA6YQ _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
By using Tor or Vidalia which provides total anonymity to internet users, It is free and it also provides protection form illicit IP tracking. Herb, KV4FZ On 2/4/2015 9:19 PM, Doug Renwick wrote: Here is one statement posted at a RHR website ◦100% anonymous operation How is someone going to get around that? Doug -Original Message- RHR requires a log in name, password, and they watch IPs. After some early abuse, they started checking to be sure the name and password come from the same IP or IP pool as the user name and password combo. When it is a foreign user, of which there are a limited number, the traffic is watched. Hi Tom Yes. Everything is so clear and controlled by RHR that no one will use the remote station to work a new DXCC because they/he/she must use /p or /W4 , That use of /remote call sign makes the QSO invalid for DXCC. So, why not published the call sign of all RHR users and send it to DXCC desk! Let's make this clear and transparent. DXCC can create a new category for RHR DXCC users? Is this IT9 is a RHR customer? Regards JC N4IS --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
Well thanks Tom for adding another nail to the coffin. I guess the old saying if you can't beat them, then join them got to you. You are right on one point. The abolishment of the mileage limit helped destroy the DXCC. Doug -Original Message- I wouldn't know who their customers are, or how many customers they have. I only care how someone can use my station. I don't really understand the fuss. The last good DXCC's were when we had a mileage limit. Even then, someone could use a second site. It was actually common to use second sites. W1BU did it from a swamp, even W1BB had two stations. People used BC towers, it wasn't their stuff. One guy used a VOA antenna system. Everyone used to admire that. People would go to other stations as far back as I can remember. People come here and operate all the time. They work new countries. Now, suddenly, it is so unfair. How can we survive? 73 Tom --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
I've said this before. Let's just get rid of all this foolishness with RHR, etc. and just send the dxpedition a couple hundred dollar bills for confirmation on bands, all modes. Essentially that is what DXing is becoming for some. Yes the 'Rise and Fall of DXCC' before our vary eyes. Doug -Original Message- Here's are a couple of quotes from the Remote Ham Radio Newsletter that showed up in my mailbox today. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = As we write this newsletter the K1N team is on the air with a BIG signal. We are happy to announce that many have already snagged them on 80M and 160M with ease using the RHR network. The experienced fifteen man team is planning a 14 day stay with around the clock operation, this will give operators plenty of time to get this ATNO before they depart. If you need NAVASSA, we have the tools to help you work them, RHR has a total of seventeen sites on the air with plenty of capacity to work this super rare DXpedition. EP6T Iran DXpedition worked on 9 bands from RHR sites including the top band. FT5ZM Amsterdam Island worked on 9 Bands from RHR sites including the top band. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = No need to build a station, just buy a K3/0 and rent one. Want a 160 or 80M QSO? No problem -- rent a superstation in one of the southern states to work Navassa, South America, and entities in the South Atlantic, in Maine for EU and EP6T. Rent one on the west coast to work Oceania and Asia. This comes as close to a box-top operation as I've seen yet. Absolutely disgusting. As I've posted here, I have NO problem with someone who is stuck with nasty RF noise and antenna restrictions building a remote station near his home QTH, or even using a single remote station close to his QTH, to chase awards and contest. But this is not what Remote Ham Radio is SELLING. Anyone who doesn't think this is cheating doesn't have a clue about the true spirit of ham radio. And I've been a ham long enough to remember what that was. 73, Jim K9YC --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N
I don't have a dog in this hunt, I haven't used RHR but reading some of the comments got me to thinking that things seem to progress on a logical plane; If you control your radio from your computer say with N1MM during a contest or use one of the SDR radios with software guiding the radio, are you not running your radio remotely? If one wants to say it is OK to use N1MM or any other software to control your radio if it's inside your house then you are agreeing that distance from the rig itself is acceptable, the disagreement then is to define how much distance is too much. I'm sure there are many purists who feel using computers ruined contesting and surely there are those who feel computers ruined the essence of DXCC. Obviously achieving DXCC has changed as anyone doing so for years understands. When I made my first 100, all was done by coming on the DX on my own, some guys got calls from a phone tree but I had no tree I was part of. Then there came packet and Bulletin boards. Later Internet Relay Chatrooms later came the internet with spotting networks. With today's radios, internet DSP and improved Rx technology, it's obviously far easier today to work DXCC than ever before. How many of us today wait for our tube receivers to warm up before listening? It's simply not the same and won't be the same again. So to me, I take the grumbling I'm hearing being more like sour grapes from those who paid a lot of sweat and failures to get the eventual successes they earned after years of hard work. The idea of other hams using available technology to do what they took years to do is offensive and to them, seen as cheapening the goal. Honestly, if you were a millionaire back when or today and wanted to build a shack and antenna farm to be better than 99.99% of the guys out there, you could do it all along. The rest of us couldn't do it and envied the big guns, got angry at them for dining at the DX table before the rest of us could go after the leftovers. It's always been unfair to the little guy, always will be, that's life. To me, if a signal comes from anywhere in the continental USA, it's a USA contact. If it comes from one island or the other in Hawaii, it's a KH6 contact. I personally don't care how the person makes the contact. As to DX calling from one country and pretending to be at their home QTH, there have always been fatuous liars and cheats, that too is human nature. Those people are to be pitied, they know what their illegal QSO is worth and what their illegal DXCC credit is worth, some people want letters associated with their name and they don't care how they get them. IMHO they should get called for that transgression, That's life too. MY DXCC chase is my joy, I don't gauge it by anyone else's expectations any more than they give a rats patoot about my opinion. My 2 cents. 73, Gary KA1J --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
