Well Said, Dave.

Ria

N2RJ 

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 6:33 PM Dave AA6YQ <aa6yq@...> wrote:

+ AA6YQ comments below

I understand your point about factoring in everyone’s point of view but I think we need to loook at the effect of both opinions. Changing the rules would most likely hurt other operators ability to get DXCC and work good DX. Not changing the rules means that maybe a remote operator climbs pretty high in the rankings. I don’t think someone that has a realistic shot at becoming number one on the honor roll and truly wants it and puts in the effort, time and money to achieve that goal is going to be beat out by someone that exclusively operates remote.

+ One of the reasons that governments grant HF access to amateur radio operators is explicitly to advance the state-of-the-art in radio communications. Hams have been developing such advancements for more than 100 years. However, it is notable that each time the state-of-the-art gets advanced, a fraction of the amateur radio community contends that the new technology makes contesting or DXing too easy, dilutes the efforts of those who achieved milestones without using the new technology, and if adopted will unquestionably be the end of amateur radio.

+ Somehow, we survived the transition from spark to CW, from AM to SSB, from tubes to transistors, from manually-operated separate receivers and transmitters to transceivers with embedded microprocessors, and from RTTY to digital modes modulated/demodulated with computer soundcards, and from one-ringers and DX repeaters to internet-hosted DX clusters. These technologies have been so thoroughly digested that no one questions their use in contesting and DXing. Remote operation and the latest K1JT modes (FT4, FT8) are still causing severe indigestion.

+ Being a computer design engineer, I have approached amateur radio activities from the perspective of "how can I use modern technology to improve my performance?". In support of my DXing, I developed software that discovers activity patterns and propagation openings from the worldwide DX cluster network's spot stream and (recently) from instances of WSJT-X. 

+ The use of remote stations within one's DXCC entity is legal under current DXCC rules. A technology-oriented DXer ought to be developing a way to simultaneously monitor propagation in real time from multiple remote stations around their DXCC entity so that he or she can listen for a needed DX station at the right time and frequency (based on their activity pattern) and using the remote station with the best band opening to that need DX station. Why haven't I developed that? Because I've used a specific set of technologies to make most of my DX contacts, and would prefer to keep making them that way -- even though I know that a more effective approach is now technically possible. If someone constructs DXing software that manages multiple remote stations as I've described and uses it to get to the Top of the Honor Roll in half the time that I did, will I consider this a dilution of my accomplishments, and complain to my ARRL Director? No; I will congratulate the developer for significantly advancing the art and science of DXing.

+ I don't know this for certain, but I strongly suspect that the CW Honor Roll was created to pacify those operators who "worked them all the hard way" -- in CW, as opposed to in SSB. The SSB Honor Roll distinguishes those who made QSOs "themselves" from those who used machines (teletypes) or computers to make those QSOs. There's even a separate Honor Roll for using Satellites (talk about shooting fish in a barrel, hi!).

+ And so should there be a way to distinguish those who made their QSOs exclusively from their local area (with on-premises or remote stations) from those who used remote stations outside their local area. A "Single Area Endorsement" would provide that recognition,  while leaving the DXCC rules unchanged will encourage the next generation of technology drivers to do what amateur radio operators are expected to do: advance the state of the art in radio communications.

        73,

              Dave, AA6YQ