Re: DXCC Rule 9.(c) - Contacts through Remote Stations


Steven Rutledge <steven.t.rutledge@...>
 

Tried to do what under darkness of night?  I might have missed that but can't find it in the thread.

Steve, N4JQQ, DXAC, Delta

On 8/3/2020 10:46 AM, W0MU wrote:

Well said Gerry!

We must look to the future not keep looking at the past.  It would be very difficult to determine who might be running remote.  Do we really want or need a group of self proclaimed vigilantes who attempt to root out and turn in their fellow ham?  This is not what ham radio is about.  We need less rules that are next to impossible to enforce.

Ham Radio is about pushing the envelope, change, improving skills, creating new technology like FTx, like it or not and moving forward, always.

Times changed where more people moved around the country and the DXCC rules were changed to allow you to continue with the Award even if you moved within the country instead of starting over.  Did that hurt anyone?  No!  Did the old rule hurt people?  Yes as they had to start over from scratch.  Why would you punish people because they needed to move?  Have we forgotten that this is a hobby we do for FUN?  Why would you want to attempt to punish people for using 2020 technology?  If anything the rules should have been changed to embrace this!

Who exactly is hurt or damaged by someone running a remote station and working on awards that are individual?  Where in the DXCC rules does it mention a race or competition?  A station owner/ham  that has lots of money can own homes and stations all across the country if they desired or stations that are 2nd to none but a person is unable to build a remote or remotes that essentially do the same thing?  Why is the ARRL trying to dictate how my funds are spent?  I should be allowed to spend my money building a station here at my house or use that same money to join a remote radio entity and avoid maintenance or HOA rules et al,  as I wish. 

How is this change good for the many and not for the few?  Why would the ARRL wish to "sell" fewer awards?  Is that money not used to keep the ARRL going and further the hobby?  Why would the ARRL wish to limit their awards in the matter spoken in the proposal?

Remotes are here to stay, just like packet, just like FTx, until it is replaced by something better, just like digital, just like SSB.  Nobody is forcing anyone to use a remote, nobody is forcing anyone to use a MIC or FTx.  You do what you like and I will do what I like.

What happened to all the transparency we were promised by the new directors and leadership?  Why are we hearing about this change through private emails and not from the ARRL asking for comments prior to developing rules that seem to cater the needs of the few? 

We have a whole group of young people watching and wishing to be more involved and desiring this technology.  Why is the ARRL so resistant to moving forward?  This is certainly not going inspire young people to want to become or continue to be members of the ARRL. 

That the PSC would have tried to do this under the darkness of night is quite disturbing.

Mike W0MU










On 8/3/2020 7:44 AM, Ria, N2RJ wrote:
Hi Gerry,

This:

 Since it's inception, DXers have traveled within their own entity to complete working entities they could not work from their own QTHs. If you could afford the travel, you used the size of your DXCC entity, like the United States, as a benefit.”

is wholly inaccurate.

The rule was: “All stations must be contacted from the same call area, where such areas exist, or from the same country in cases where there are no call areas. One exception is allowed to this rule: where a station is moved from one call area to another or from one country to another, all contacts must be made from within a radius of 150 miles of the original location.” (Ref. QST, March 1956, Page 74)

Therefore it is not true that the DXCC program “since its original inception” allowed one to travel anywhere in the DXCC entity and make valid contacts to count for the same award.

Just thought I would point it out, but it has no bearing on what I think of this whole issue.

73
Ria
N2RJ 


On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 8:29 AM Gerry Hull <gerry@...> wrote:
Our hobby has been around a very long time, and so has DXCC.

Since it's inception, DXers have traveled within their own entity to complete working entities they could not work from their own QTHs.
If you could afford the travel, you used the size of your DXCC entity, like the United States, as a benefit.

Every DXer knows the challenges they have faced getting to 100, 5-Band or 8-band DXCC.   Perhaps it was QRP, 100W, 20 elements on every band, or it was push-button on a remote.  Each is an important personal accomplishment.   The set of rules have been in place, and generally have worked well.   Sure, the rules are a living document, but why this change?

Now we have a political class of people bellyaching that remote operation is not in the spirit of the rules.  Why?   I challenge anyone to present a lucid thoughtful argument,
other than jealousy.   Your standings in the DXCC Honor Role, especially if you are near the top, are going to stay, and you are not "diminished" by some whipper-snapper who worked all the entities on push-button remote.   You see, we are a community, and people talk.   DXCC is much more than the honor role listing.  So your stature is safe and sound. 

Technology has changed, and is going to continue to change as we move forward in our hobby.  

I believe, that as long as the transmitter is in a given entity, and the transmitted call is from that entity, and everyone is licensed appropriately, the operator holding the call should get DXCC credit for QSOs made with that call.  Period.   Physical location within the entity should not matter -- even if the distance is 1000s of km.   The physical location of the control operator is irrelevant as well (and this has already been clarified).   It is the way it has been and I think it should stay this way.

I operate and maintain a few remote stations, and every year help many get them going.  They fall into all classes:  Contest Stations, HOA restricted ops who have no chance for a good station, and simply operators who cannot put any type of decent antenna at their home QTH.  Some are people who remote their main stations which they operate from other DXCC entities.    There are perhaps 100s or 1000s of private remote stations in the US; many of the remote operators "station swap."   Perhaps their primary skill is in operating, not building a station.   This makes them no more or less a ham.

DXCC is one of the greatest awards we have in Amateur Radio.    Let's keep it that way.   Restricting new hams access to DXCC because they cannot (or want) to do it the "old way" will simply diminish the luster of the award.

I think this change is not required.

Gerry, W1VE
(This is my personal opinion and may or may not reflect the opinions of others.)

Join ARRL-Awards@groups.arrl.org to automatically receive all group messages.