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


W0MU
 

There was a change made to the rules a few years ago that allowed remotes and until now, nobody seemed to care.  Why do they care now all of a sudden.  Why don't those pushing this actually come out and speak up?  Why are they hiding behind the curtains, pulling on their puppets strings?

LOTW believes what I it.  If I say I am in NY that is what gets into the database.  If I should happen to overwrite my location by accident and re upload my contacts.........Guess what?  All those contacts that said NY now Say something else.  LOTW does not require much proof.

The ARRL needs to simplfy not make things more difficult to administer.  There is almost no way to know who is operating remote.  I would really hate to see a a bunch of remote vigilantes running around the bands.  That is not what ham radio is about.

W0MU





On 8/10/2020 12:07 PM, Sterling Mann wrote:

I can't say I've read every word of this thread, and pardon my naivety (I'm not an avid DXer) but skimming through it I haven't seen this idea come up: What if instead of being granted to the operator, DXCC is instead (or in addition) granted to the operator's station?

LoTW already requires contacts to be assigned to a particular station location, so this seems like a native possibility. It alleviates the concerns of propagation shopping, unfair ethics, etc.

Additional levels or modifiers for DXCC can be made i.e. DXCC Unlimited means the operator attained DXCC using any number of stations anywhere within a particular DX entity, whether they were personal remotes, RHR, driven or flown to, guest stations, etc. DXCC Limited means the operator attained it from contacts made from only one single station...and so on and so forth.

It might be a worthwhile thought experiment to ponder something like handicaps for individual stations too; big guns like RHR premium stations ought to be held in a different echelon than a vertical in my noisy backyard when contesting and operating for awards, not unlike golfing.

73,
Sterling N0SSC

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 12:36 PM Ria, N2RJ <rjairam@...> wrote:
I don't think that anyone is denying that remotes exist, nor want to
ban their use. I run a remote station, I use my remote and I am
thankful that I can use my station remotely.

Where I draw the line is being able to use the Internet to make up a
deficiency in propagation. We don't allow repeater contacts for this
reason, and we separate satellite contacts for this reason. Is there a
reason that internet remotes are somehow different? It doesn't seem
that way.

Ria
N2RJ

On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 13:33, Abrams, Saul (DHSES) via groups.arrl.org
<saul.abrams=dhses.ny.gov@...> wrote:
>
> It appears that we have devolved into nit-picking over specific facts/comments made in our discussions that are merely tangential or explanatory to our overall discussion.
>
> The real issue is this:  Remote operations are becoming very popular (not just paid remotes) because of need, convenience, or simply technical innovation.  They are here to stay.  They cannot be legislated into oblivion by those who don’t like it.  Hams will use remotes as they like notwithstanding any rules trying to limit their use.  The question is whether we embrace those who use remotes and invite them into our DXCC homes or we treat them as outcasts and try to hobble/denigrate their achievements as unworthy of note.  The League membership is merely a small fraction of US licensed hams.  Why?  Is it because what the League offers in services is not relevant or cost beneficial to their ham experience.  An annual membership costs more than the handheld radios many have as their only station.  How many active members/life members would the League have if it weren’t for contesters and dxers and the services the league provides them?  A lot fewer.  Even though the actual number of hams is increasing each year, fewer are active and our hobby is shrinking of old age and lifestyle changes.  We cannot afford to alienate anyone merely because they use ham radio differently than we do.  What I do does not impact what you do, and should not impact the pleasure you get from you activities.   We should all encourage each other in their favorite activities.   73  Saul  K2XA
>
>
>
> ,_._,_
>
>
> --
> 73, Saul  K2XA
>




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