From: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...> On Behalf Of K4PI@...
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 16:04
To: ARRL-Awards@...
Subject: [ARRL-Awards] DXCC Distant Remotes

I just found out about this group and have tried several years to find a place to air my grievances concerning the use of "distant remotes" in the DXCC program. I have talked with past DXAC guys and my director but nothing ever happens This remote thing got stuffed down our throats several years ago without any fanfare or poll of what DXCC members thought. If there was I never got wind of it. Use of distant remotes has tarnished what was at one time the gold standard of DX awards.

How anyone can say that jumping 2500 miles from your home QTH to a remote transmitter site within your particular entity represents the spirit of DXCC is beyond me. I see no big problems with remotes within a given mileage like maybe 200 miles as this does not represent a large "propagation advantage". I am not talking about the rule of operating your station or a remote from within 200 miles of your station from any location in the world. You still gain no propagation advantage there as you are still transmitting and receiving within the 200 miles proposed circle. Example would be guys that live in FL during the winter and use their summer home station in the northern USA. That is not a violation of the 200 mile rule if one were adopted. But sitting each day and deciding okay I want to work Asia so I will go to Seattle and transmit from there and 10 minutes later deciding to work Europe and going to a Bangor ME remote to transmit and receive, then off to San Diego to work South Pacific No DXers I have talked to think that represent what DXCC stands for. Outside the DXCC program I don't care how people use "distant remotes". WAS and VUCC awards have very strict mileage rules on where QSOs can be made from. Yet not DXCC. DXCC totals would still transfer as the do now when you move FCC QTH's.

I know there is no way to police this kind of rule, but when I sign my name to a DXCC application I swear that I am abiding by the rules of the DXCC program and the rules of my governing communications authority. Not having a ruling means you think "distant remotes" are fair in the DXCC program. Every DXer and non DXer I have talked with think "distant remotes" have no place in the DXCC program. I think a poll of DXCC operators would show at least 75% agree.

73 Mike K4PI

I just found out about this group and have tried several years to find a place to air my grievances concerning the use of "distant remotes" in the DXCC program. I have talked with past DXAC guys and my director but nothing ever happens This remote thing got stuffed down our throats several years ago without any fanfare or poll of what DXCC members thought. If there was I never got wind of it. Use of distant remotes has tarnished what was at one time the gold standard of DX awards.

How anyone can say that jumping 2500 miles from your home QTH to a remote transmitter site within your particular entity represents the spirit of DXCC is beyond me. I see no big problems with remotes within a given mileage like maybe 200 miles as this does not represent a large "propagation advantage". I am not talking about the rule of operating your station or a remote from within 200 miles of your station from any location in the world. You still gain no propagation advantage there as you are still transmitting and receiving within the 200 miles proposed circle. Example would be guys that live in FL during the winter and use their summer home station in the northern USA. That is not a violation of the 200 mile rule if one were adopted. But sitting each day and deciding okay I want to work Asia so I will go to Seattle and transmit from there and 10 minutes later deciding to work Europe and going to a Bangor ME remote to transmit and receive, then off to San Diego to work South Pacific No DXers I have talked to think that represent what DXCC stands for. Outside the DXCC program I don't care how people use "distant remotes". WAS and VUCC awards have very strict mileage rules on where QSOs can be made from. Yet not DXCC. DXCC totals would still transfer as the do now when you move FCC QTH's.

I know there is no way to police this kind of rule, but when I sign my name to a DXCC application I swear that I am abiding by the rules of the DXCC program and the rules of my governing communications authority. Not having a ruling means you think "distant remotes" are fair in the DXCC program. Every DXer and non DXer I have talked with think "distant remotes" have no place in the DXCC program. I think a poll of DXCC operators would show at least 75% agree.

73 Mike K4PI

I just found out about this group and have tried several years to find a place to air my grievances concerning the use of "distant remotes" in the DXCC program. I have talked with past DXAC guys and my director but nothing ever happens This remote thing got stuffed down our throats several years ago without any fanfare or poll of what DXCC members thought. If there was I never got wind of it. Use of distant remotes has tarnished what was at one time the gold standard of DX awards.

How anyone can say that jumping 2500 miles from your home QTH to a remote transmitter site within your particular entity represents the spirit of DXCC is beyond me. I see no big problems with remotes within a given mileage like maybe 200 miles as this does not represent a large "propagation advantage". I am not talking about the rule of operating your station or a remote from within 200 miles of your station from any location in the world. You still gain no propagation advantage there as you are still transmitting and receiving within the 200 miles proposed circle. Example would be guys that live in FL during the winter and use their summer home station in the northern USA. That is not a violation of the 200 mile rule if one were adopted. But sitting each day and deciding okay I want to work Asia so I will go to Seattle and transmit from there and 10 minutes later deciding to work Europe and going to a Bangor ME remote to transmit and receive, then off to San Diego to work South Pacific No DXers I have talked to think that represent what DXCC stands for. Outside the DXCC program I don't care how people use "distant remotes". WAS and VUCC awards have very strict mileage rules on where QSOs can be made from. Yet not DXCC. DXCC totals would still transfer as the do now when you move FCC QTH's.

I know there is no way to police this kind of rule, but when I sign my name to a DXCC application I swear that I am abiding by the rules of the DXCC program and the rules of my governing communications authority. Not having a ruling means you think "distant remotes" are fair in the DXCC program. Every DXer and non DXer I have talked with think "distant remotes" have no place in the DXCC program. I think a poll of DXCC operators would show at least 75% agree.

73 Mike K4PI

In my opinion, people who use distant remotes are only cheating themselves.

I just found out about this group and have tried several years to find a place to air my grievances concerning the use of "distant remotes" in the DXCC program. I have talked with past DXAC guys and my director but nothing ever happens This remote thing got stuffed down our throats several years ago without any fanfare or poll of what DXCC members thought. If there was I never got wind of it. Use of distant remotes has tarnished what was at one time the gold standard of DX awards.

How anyone can say that jumping 2500 miles from your home QTH to a remote transmitter site within your particular entity represents the spirit of DXCC is beyond me. I see no big problems with remotes within a given mileage like maybe 200 miles as this does not represent a large "propagation advantage". I am not talking about the rule of operating your station or a remote from within 200 miles of your station from any location in the world. You still gain no propagation advantage there as you are still transmitting and receiving within the 200 miles proposed circle. Example would be guys that live in FL during the winter and use their summer home station in the northern USA. That is not a violation of the 200 mile rule if one were adopted. But sitting each day and deciding okay I want to work Asia so I will go to Seattle and transmit from there and 10 minutes later deciding to work Europe and going to a Bangor ME remote to transmit and receive, then off to San Diego to work South Pacific No DXers I have talked to think that represent what DXCC stands for. Outside the DXCC program I don't care how people use "distant remotes". WAS and VUCC awards have very strict mileage rules on where QSOs can be made from. Yet not DXCC. DXCC totals would still transfer as the do now when you move FCC QTH's.

I know there is no way to police this kind of rule, but when I sign my name to a DXCC application I swear that I am abiding by the rules of the DXCC program and the rules of my governing communications authority. Not having a ruling means you think "distant remotes" are fair in the DXCC program. Every DXer and non DXer I have talked with think "distant remotes" have no place in the DXCC program. I think a poll of DXCC operators would show at least 75% agree.

73 Mike K4PI

On November 11, 2019 at 3:41 PM ND9G Mike <mike.nd9g@...> wrote:

I just stopped looking at it like a competition. I see it as a challenging award to pursue for myself, not for others. If others choose to do the remote thing, it doesn't take away any of the accomplishment I feel for having earned the award. When I think about my amateur radio reputation, I want people to think that I am a good person, a good operator, a good ham, etc. Not how many I have confirmed for DXCC. 

If I someday make Honor Roll, I will be happy with myself. I'm sure there are many others that would be happy for me as well, but the award is for me, and me alone. I'm not racing anybody to get there. Most of us that haven't been licensed and active for 50 years couldn't race many hams to an award if we wanted to anyway.

Those that want to do the remote thing, or those that decide to bend the rules, are really only cheating themselves out of the sense of accomplishment.

I imagine I'm in the minority in this opinion, but that doesn't surprise me, as when I go to jut about any meeting of hams, I look around the room and immediately know I'm in the minority regarding mindset about many things..

73,

Mike ND9G

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:12 PM Rocco Conte < rconte41@...> wrote:

In my opinion, people who use distant remotes are only cheating themselves.

I don't think it should be allowed either and I agree that this tarnishes the reputation of the award.

I have a modest station and will probably never achieve the honor roll. However, if I do someday get on the honor roll, at least I will know that I did it the right way.

 I still don't understand how they can justify allowing remote operation for DXCC.

73,

Rocco -WU2M

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

-------- Original message --------

From: K4PI@...

Date: 11/8/19 5:04 PM (GMT-05:00)

To: ARRL-Awards@...

Subject: [ARRL-Awards] DXCC Distant Remotes

I just found out about this group and have tried several years to find a place to air my grievances concerning the use of "distant remotes" in the DXCC program. I have talked with past DXAC guys and my director but nothing ever happens This remote thing got stuffed down our throats several years ago without any fanfare or poll of what DXCC members thought. If there was I never got wind of it. Use of distant remotes has tarnished what was at one time the gold standard of DX awards.

How anyone can say that jumping 2500 miles from your home QTH to a remote transmitter site within your particular entity represents the spirit of DXCC is beyond me. I see no big problems with remotes within a given mileage like maybe 200 miles as this does not represent a large "propagation advantage". I am not talking about the rule of operating your station or a remote from within 200 miles of your station from any location in the world. You still gain no propagation advantage there as you are still transmitting and receiving within the 200 miles proposed circle. Example would be guys that live in FL during the winter and use their summer home station in the northern USA. That is not a violation of the 200 mile rule if one were adopted. But sitting each day and deciding okay I want to work Asia so I will go to Seattle and transmit from there and 10 minutes later deciding to work Europe and going to a Bangor ME remote to transmit and receive, then off to San Diego to work South Pacific No DXers I have talked to think that represent what DXCC stands for. Outside the DXCC program I don't care how people use "distant remotes". WAS and VUCC awards have very strict mileage rules on where QSOs can be made from. Yet not DXCC. DXCC totals would still transfer as the do now when you move FCC QTH's.

I know there is no way to police this kind of rule, but when I sign my name to a DXCC application I swear that I am abiding by the rules of the DXCC program and the rules of my governing communications authority. Not having a ruling means you think "distant remotes" are fair in the DXCC program. Every DXer and non DXer I have talked with think "distant remotes" have no place in the DXCC program. I think a poll of DXCC operators would show at least 75% agree.

73 Mike K4PI

 

 

For what it's worth, a distance limit of 200 miles was proposed by DXAC:

http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About%20ARRL/Committee%20Reports/2014/July/Doc_27.pdf

Then there was a blog post in opposition by an engineer employed by
one of the pay per minute remote service owners:
http://ww1x.com/opinion/2014/08/14/in-defense-of-remote-dxcc.html

A post from Wayne Mills:
https://n7ng.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/remote-control-dxing-and-dxcc/

KB6NU sums it up nicely:
https://www.kb6nu.com/dx-advisory-committee-wants-to-put-the-screws-to-remote-operation/

In the end ARRL just let all operation within the same entity count
for credit which is where we are today and is in line with the DXCC
rules, more or less.

But this was hotly debated at the time.

Don't take this for me endorsing this kind of operation. If you look
around, I am on record as strongly opposing it. I can see it helping
some people in bad housing situations stay on the air, but I think the
distance limit would have been sensible. PIck one QTH and settle on
it. But that genie is out of the bottle and I personally don't see it
going back.

73
Ria, N2RJ


On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 08:22, <K4PI@...> wrote:

I just found out about this group and have tried several years to find a place to air my grievances concerning the use of "distant remotes" in the DXCC program. I have talked with past DXAC guys and my director but nothing ever happens This remote thing got stuffed down our throats several years ago without any fanfare or poll of what DXCC members thought. If there was I never got wind of it. Use of distant remotes has tarnished what was at one time the gold standard of DX awards.

How anyone can say that jumping 2500 miles from your home QTH to a remote transmitter site within your particular entity represents the spirit of DXCC is beyond me. I see no big problems with remotes within a given mileage like maybe 200 miles as this does not represent a large "propagation advantage". I am not talking about the rule of operating your station or a remote from within 200 miles of your station from any location in the world. You still gain no propagation advantage there as you are still transmitting and receiving within the 200 miles proposed circle. Example would be guys that live in FL during the winter and use their summer home station in the northern USA. That is not a violation of the 200 mile rule if one were adopted. But sitting each day and deciding okay I want to work Asia so I will go to Seattle and transmit from there and 10 minutes later deciding to work Europe and going to a Bangor ME remote to transmit and receive, then off to San Diego to work South Pacific No DXers I have talked to think that represent what DXCC stands for. Outside the DXCC program I don't care how people use "distant remotes". WAS and VUCC awards have very strict mileage rules on where QSOs can be made from. Yet not DXCC. DXCC totals would still transfer as the do now when you move FCC QTH's.

I know there is no way to police this kind of rule, but when I sign my name to a DXCC application I swear that I am abiding by the rules of the DXCC program and the rules of my governing communications authority. Not having a ruling means you think "distant remotes" are fair in the DXCC program. Every DXer and non DXer I have talked with think "distant remotes" have no place in the DXCC program. I think a poll of DXCC operators would show at least 75% agree.

73 Mike K4PI

I struggle to see, for DXCC purposes, how consensus could be found in labeling these options:

* My home station in New England
* Remoting into my home station in New England
* Operating in-person a friend's/family member's little pistol station in New England
* Remoting into a friend's/family member's little pistol station in New England
* Operating in-person a friend's/club's super-station in New England 
* Remoting into a friend's/club's super-station in New England
* Remoting into a commercial superstation in New England

as "acceptable" or "unacceptable", and how a rule codifying that could be enforced.

However, it is much easier to see how it makes sense that contacts made from a station in New England ought not count for the same DXCC-like award as contacts made from the Pacific Northwest.

I think it's probably too late to make that distinction within DXCC itself, however, given that awards/endorsements/credit has been given without such differentiation.  I think there would need to be a different award or award-family if the perception of "fairness" were being sought.

Any station location within the same DXCC entity IS fair game within the DXCC rules.  The award recognizes 100 or more contacts from your home DXCC entity to others.

Should the person who lives on the East Coast and then moves to the West Coast have to start over on award progress?
Should a person who operates while on vacation or a business trip away from their home have those contacts disallowed for award purposes?
Should a person who is offered the use of a station that is not their own be required to not count contacts made while using it for award purposes?

The rules answer the questions above by not requiring those actions.

The "spirit" of the DXCC award seems to be what is being debated here.  It's my opinion that the use of technology which compresses the amount of time and/or expense with operating from different locations within a DXCC entity beneficial to participation in the program and doesn't detract from the recognition of having contacted 100 or more DXCC entities from your home entity without the use of relays, re-transmissions, or boosters.

Is the issue people have with distant remotes or making contacts away from home (200 mile rule)?

Should the contacts I made to stations when I lived in Utah not count towards DXCC equally with the ones I have made from here in Florida?

I can respectfully disagree with the argument if it is one of distance (all contacts for DXCC from a set radius of 200 miles let’s say). But I absolutely disagree with the idea that remotes are bad but it is OK if I make contacts from when I lived on each coast or while visiting a friend’s station on the other coast. If you single out remotes, then it is very hard to see that argument as anything other than sour grapes.

Put another way, for all those in favor of a 200 mile limit, can I also make contacts from a pay-per-minute remote that is 150 miles from my home? If not, then your issue is one of someone paying for a station as a utility versus “I had to build the station so you should too". Do we then have different classes for those that do their own tower climbing and those that have to pay a tower installer? What about computer setup? Do we state that those that made QSOs before the era of DXClusters or packet clusters should be in a different class than today? Technology changes and we change with it. Otherwise, where do we draw that line? I submit we draw the line where it is right now and leave the rules as they are.

Regards,

Tom NY4I

In response to the moving QTHs,, Nothing is being proposed in regard to that.  You move QTHs your credits go with you and you 200 Mile zone moves to your new location.  That stay the same as it is now.

If you operate out of your 200 miles zone on vacation or whatever doesnt count for DXCC.    If you remote back to your home station that is fine or a station in that 200 miles as long as it is still within your entity and no propagation advantage.

Operating from someone else's station no problem as long as it is within the 200 mile circle. 

It is all about "propagation advantage.  200 Miles does not make a major difference in propagation but jumping 2500 miles does every time you can't cut the mustard and work some DX station.  Jumping to locations all over your entity to gain propagation advantage makes no sense to me.

It does detract from the DXCC award that you can move closer to the DX if you can't work  them from your own operating area. 

Any station location within the same DXCC entity IS fair game within the DXCC rules.  The award recognizes 100 or more contacts from your home DXCC entity to others.

Should the person who lives on the East Coast and then moves to the West Coast have to start over on award progress?
Should a person who operates while on vacation or a business trip away from their home have those contacts disallowed for award purposes?
Should a person who is offered the use of a station that is not their own be required to not count contacts made while using it for award purposes?

The rules answer the questions above by not requiring those actions.

The "spirit" of the DXCC award seems to be what is being debated here.  It's my opinion that the use of technology which compresses the amount of time and/or expense with operating from different locations within a DXCC entity beneficial to participation in the program and doesn't detract from the recognition of having contacted 100 or more DXCC entities from your home entity without the use of relays, re-transmissions, or boosters.