Re: Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC


Hugh Valentine <N4RJ@...>
 

Amen, Ria

 

As far as I am concerned, Open the door and stop publishing these “Reports”.  Because you are essentially changing the award with the Remote technology…that makes no sense.

Problem is: I predict a significant number of those on that list…There are Thousands…..will drop out of ARRL…(Think of the DX stations outside of the USA would simply say forget it)….Revenue affected through the program and LOTW will decline…..

 

Propagation Shopping is a very real and significant issue on 6 and 160 meters..those of us who are sick(Ham O Holics) enough to stay in the shack with our radios on can testify…so can QSLs…It is sad to see those deny that issue.  It is either that they are not very active or that they need to say that to support their cause.

 

DXCC evolved because of technologic advances to become Mixed/CW/Phone/By Band and Digital in the award and in endorsements….I see no issue with issuing DXCC/R to indicate such…I can’t think of a more realistic solution to the much discussed topics.  It has nothing to do with age.  Why would anyone be opposed to that notion?  It would open up a new world of operators who would swarm to it.   RHR should support that, shouldn’t they?

Let it evolve into DXCC/R  .  Another benefit is that it would give the youth something to start on where they would be Equal footing to the Old Timers….a Fresh beginning.  Wouldn’t feel left behind….

 

Val

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Ria, N2RJ
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 12:32 PM
To: ARRL-Awards@...
Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC

 

As long as we have our names in descending order listed by the League
in the yearbook and on the website, people do care how people attain
their positions on that list.

Also, the East Coast advantage is somewhat of a myth in DXing. Sure,
we can easily work Europe, but working Europe, if you compare it to
car racing it is like a trip to the grocery store. A lot of the rare
ones are more easily worked out West - North Korea, Minami Torishima,
Myanmar, Pratas etc.

Ria
N2RJ


On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 12:01, W0MU <w0mu@...> wrote:
>
> Who cares and why does it matter what I do go chase my awards?  Please explain how what I do impacts your chance to work DX or your award?
>
> I love being in the west and some big gun guy on the east coast guy breaks a big pileup and I hear him/her say good to work you for the X time.  While denying others the chance to work the DX.  You know what we have all been told to do?  Move!  Now that remotes are here and we can "move" the "East Coast Cabal" is mad and wants to limit others from working their DX!
>
> People have spent a lot of money building big stations and now remotes are building bigger and better stations.  This is not about the award this is about EGO.  Those superstation owners liked their built in advantages and now that is changing.
>
> Limiting remotes or how people desire to operate is not good for the hobby.  There was similar talk about FT8.  There is still much talk and complaining on the 160 reflector about too much FT8 and not enough CW or SSB by people that continually disparage FT8.  If you want to work DX you go to where the DX is.  That is why many of us upgraded to EXTRA because lots of DX was on the bottom of the CW bands.  Just because some don't like FT8 or remotes does not make it bad.
>
> Remotes allow people to use our bands more fully.  Is this not a goal of the ARRL and a way to use our bands so that we don't lose them or has that been forgotten?  More ways for people to play radio is better for the hobby.
>
>
> W0MU
>
>
>
>
> On 8/10/2020 9:44 AM, Joel Harrison wrote:
>
> Conner - I did NOT say that and you are trying to change the topic of my email and what I said.
>
> I simply stated that propagation shopping does occur on 160 meters, noted the current rules do allow that and offered my position on Dave's proposal. That is all.
>
> I did not say anything about banning remotes or penalizing young hams whatsoever.
>
> Please reread my post.
>
> GL es DX
>
> 73 Joel W5ZN
>
>
> On 2020-08-10 09:39, Connor W4IPC wrote:
>
> So we are going to ban remote usage which benefits thousands upon thousands of hams AND YOUNG HAMS due to one band and a select few that are bad eggs?
> --
>
> Connor W4IPC - Youth
>
>
>

 

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