Marty, A second point is we SHOULD NOT have to waste time and effort refuting any potential arguments that could be brought forth from this ad. Again, this is reckless and I look forward to seeing the June CQ ad - probably by September when it lands in my mailbox. 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division ARRL The National Association for Amateur RadioTM -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Marty Woll Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 8:16 AM To: 'Chris Imlay'; 'David Norris' Cc: 'arrl-odv' Subject: [arrl-odv:24317] Re: RHR ad in CQ The types of on-the-air activity supported by RHR, namely contesting and DX’ing, are not at the core of our justification for relief from private deed restrictions. Hams are not, as far as I know, using RHR to check into local or regional nets or to take part in public-service communications, all of which can be hampered by the lack of an effective antenna. We can also make a reasonable case that the cost to use commercial remote-station services is beyond what many Hams can afford. I would not get too worked up about the ad. We can, without much difficulty, counter any suggestion that the existence of remote stations (which, btw, have been around in other forms for decades) obviates the need for the relief we seek in HR-1301. 73, Marty N6VI