Steven Rutledge <steven.t.rutledge@...>
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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
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.
On 8/3/2020 7:44 AM, Ria, N2RJ wrote:
“ 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,
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.
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at
8:29 AM Gerry Hull <gerry@...
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
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
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
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.
(This is my personal opinion and may or may not reflect
the opinions of others.)