From: WarmSpgs@aol.com
Message-ID: <b2.264768.28fc7723@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:30:11 EDT
Subject: Re: LF: Re: Farewell, LFers
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

In a message dated 10/15/01 4:46:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
rik.strobbe@fys.kuleuven.ac.be writes:

<< I'm a bit surprised that a 'gadget' like a 136kHz - 144MHz transponder
 creates that much reactions and even makes some of us to dismantle their LF
 antennas. ...snip... >>

My thoughts, for what little they're worth, closely parallel Rik's and 
perhaps also Walter's thoughts.  A simple one-way translator (American usage) 
of this sort is a rather democratic notion, making the band available to 
users within a limited geographical region who --due to local interference-- 
would either be unable to use 136kHz at all; or who, still worse, would spend 
a lot of time calling without realizing they have no chance of hearing any 
replies from outside their own neighborhood.  This project strikes me as a 
worthy experiment.

Conversely, I could also understand objections if the idea were extended to a 
full-fledged cross-band repeater.  Seems to me, that's where the appliance 
operator concept would come into play.

As Walter noted, it's a simple matter to declare that use of a transponder 
does not constitute DX, if one wishes to preserve the purity of DX records.

Dave's reservations about the use--or, I believe his point was, the potential 
abuse--of the technology also seem well founded, though.  Deception, 
intentional or not, is a risk with something like this when personal-best or 
DX records are involved.

(FWIW, I don't understand the fuss over Dave's use of the phrase "probably 
OK" when describing use of a private remote control link to a transmitter and 
receiver at the same location, which is indeed a very different situation 
from use of a public transponder.  In a case where the awards committee ruled 
that an exchange of traansmissions over two weeks, coordinated through "I'm 
on the air/I'm not on the air/I heard you" communications via e-mail or 
telephone, constitutes a QSO, I don't think anyone would quibble over remote 
control even if the link is on another band.  I don't see that "probably OK" 
is perjorative in the context in which it was used.)

In short, it seems to me that the current experiment has generated more 
anxiety than is justified at this point.  I would urge all LFers to examine 
the net results first before making any decisions about their own future on 
the band.

73,
John KD4IDY