Remoting Contacts FINALLY COUNT for DXCC - Sales Opportunity for V2.0 WAN

KY6LA_Howard

I knew it would happen eventually. The ARRL has upgraded DXCC rules to 21st century technological reality. You can now remote FROM anywhere thru a land station and have it could towards DXCC For me it means that hundreds of DX contacts I have made sitting in bars around the world finally count.... They gave hams the discretion as to how they wanted. To claim contacts. This is now a huge sales opportunity for V2.0 WAN Here is what the ARRL said The DXCC Rules changes, which affect Section I, subsections 8 and 9, explain and extend how contacts with remotely controlled stations now may be applied toward the DXCC award. According to ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ, the changes are subtle but significant. The modified rules make clear that contacts with legally licensed, land-based, remotely controlled stations count for DXCC, but the control point -- the operator's location -- of a remotely controlled station no longer has to be land based; the operator can be literally anywhere. "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." Transmitter location continues to define a station's location, and, for DXCC purposes, all transmitters and receivers must be located within a 500 meter diameter circle, excluding Under the old rules, if either station was operated from a control point in anotherDXCC entity, the contact did not count for DXCC foreither station. "This was unenforceable unless someone was transparent about what they were doing," Sumner said. The Board further adopted a new rule, now Subsection 11 (subsequent rules have been renumbered accordingly), that acknowledges the reality of the technology enabling remote operation, and it puts greater responsibility on individuals when it comes to applying that technology ethically and responsibly. "Issues concerning remotely controlled operating and DXCC are best dealt with by each individual carefully considering the ethical limits that he/she will accept for his/her DXCC and other operating awards," the new rule states. It adds, in part, "the owner of these achievements needs to be comfortable standing behind his/her award and numbers. Peer attention has always been a part of awards chasing, of course, but in these times with so many awards and so many players, it is more important than ever to 'play the game ethically.'" Subsection 11 acknowledges that technological advances "add to the difficulty in defining rules for DXCC," but stresses that the intent of the rules is what's important. "It will continue to be up to the operator to decide what types of legal remote control operating he/she will use (if any) to contribute to an operating award," the new rule concludes.

Jim Gilliam

You are a man after my own heart. Short of chasing women in bars, what could be more fun than racking up a country per 807!

Jim

KY6LA_Howard

Since the XYL might be listening. Working DX from a bar is more fun than chasing women. BTW. Counterintuitively The Q rate increases exponentially with the number of 807's u imbibe

Jim Gilliam

There is no doubt that you are a man blessed with infallible logic!

Larry Loen WO7R

It's hard to read exactly what they mean by all this, but it seems clear to me that if you are building your own remote station with (say) a Flex Signature Series radio, you are going to be just fine.

I expect some traditionalists to be upset for a while, but life moves on and amateur radio _is_ a technical undertaking.  Truth is, the league is ahead of where I expected them to come out on this.  Well done, ARRL!

L.Kubis

But weren't we always told that WAN was a small niche market and to forget it!!

I'll bet that WAN becomes a substantial market for Flex that will differentiate it from all it's competitors.

It's been greatly overlooked just like the panadaptor feature was and now everyone wants it!

Lloyd
VE3ERQ 

KY6LA_Howard

It's pretty obvious that the 6000 series was designed for WAN. But they need to finish 1. 4 and 1.5 before they can devote resources to 2.0 WAN which will likely consume a lot of man hours to get right.

Jim Gilliam

I'd like to put my 2 cents (dos centavos?) on this idea of remoting Flex. First of all, the first thing that bothers me about the approach Flex is taking is the remoting of the power on and off. There is no "soft" on and off. A remote should have the stand-alone ability to do all functions including the on/off. For my Flex, I had to purchase an I/P remote relay system to I could remotely turn it on and off with my client computer. This would apply both on the LAN as well as the projected use with the WAN. Second, there is always the possibility the radio could lock on in transmit because the firmware, Internet link or computer failed. Again, one should have the ability remotely turn the power on and off. Again, I had to purchase a unit that would remotely remove the power to the power supply running the SDR. It even includes a telephone interface where I can turn the power on and off if the Internet should fail.

That is the reason I have been strong on  using DNS services or some other device to continually monitor the I/P address from the ISP as to have a "complete" remote system all the above mentioned safeguards should be employed in a reliable remote system. From the indications I have inferred, no such safeguards or remoting the on/off has been discussed. Perhaps these issues are on the way or, at least, should be contemplated before selling the unit as remotable.

Jim, K6QE

Peter K1PGV

I dunno,Jim.  First of all, it's not entirely clear to me that the radio doesn't include the necessary hardware to support some sort of Wake On LAN or remote power on.  We know it's not supported today, but has Flex told us if it has the capability?

Regardless, though, the radio is only one part of the equation in my book. You still have to build-out a well engineered remote station to be able to use the radio effectively.  There are likely to be things other than just the radio at your remote (rotator control, amplifier, etc) that need power. Might just as well spend a few extra bucks (OK, an extra hundred plus bucks) and get a nice remote power switch with a web interface that allows you to control multiple power outlets and even monitor the current draw on each.

Just the way I see it,

Peter K1PGV

k3Tim

Plus lighting protection...

Larry Loen WO7R

Wake on LAN is not needed for the radio.  There is an RCA plug in the back which, when enabled, boots the radio.  As long as you have some other remote capability for turning the 12v power on and off, that's all you will ever need to remote the 6xxx series from a physical power control and boot up standpoint.  If only my PC was set up so nicely.

There is a very nice gadget which lets me control 8 ac  power plugs with an internet addressable device.  It's pretty much enough to run the radio if you build a simple circuit to run a reed relay to toggle the RCA input.  There is more, but it's now pretty much off the shelf.

George KF2T

I'm looking forward to that remote operation from the Moon. The DXCC ruling sounds like a good thing, for the most part. Until someone airdrops a remote rig in a box on a rare entity and runs it from home all day and night. Technically okay, but not quite the spirit, eh?