I would agree with a QTH radius rule.

The vast majority of amateurs who apply for and chase DXCC are unable to option several QTHs to achieve this award.  Some can afford to pay for the use of a commercial remote.  No one I know has any published data on the RHR clients and their utilization to work new entities.

DXCC Listings and totals are published by ARRL and, as such, makes the award competitive.  If ARRL doesn’t believe there is an undercurrent of competition generally associated with the award, then it SHOULD NOT publish the standings.  They wont…..due to the pecuniary benefit the DXCC award has in ARRL’s cash flow especially with the advent of LOTW.

Rules should be made to cover the majority; not be orchestrated or manipulated to serve the minority, of the participants.  DXCC has been highly touted and respected over the last 70 years.   ARRL has maintained it’s popularity by administering it by being particular to define and qualify the entities we all seek.  LOTW has facilitated the award and its endorsement program.

Nothing lasts forever.  It is patently obvious that a 2-3000 mile location advantage inexorably alters the ability to more easily add entities to one’s DXCC totals.  For the ARRL not to consider a QTH radius for the award will diminish it’s meaning and pride of achievement for the vast number of participants.

I hope an established QTH radius will serve to maintain the value of the award, and preserve the integrity of ARRL’s sponsorship in DXCC. 

73, enjoy your holidays

Val

N4RJ

A Ham for 63 years….I have not seen it all, but I have seen a lot

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Why is this a competition?

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 12:16:21 -0500, "Mickey Baker N4MB" <fishflorida@...> wrote:

Or, better: 

"No remote contact be allowed for DXCC where the transmitter and receiver is more than 200km from the operators permanent station location as defined by the address on their FCC license. Contacts conducted by an operator present at a temporary transmitter and receiver location within the same DXCC entity, within 500 meters of the operator are allowed at any distance from the operators permanent station location.

All contacts confirmed remotely until (the date of adoption of this rule) may be considered valid as confirmed." 

 

This allows for remote operation of a station where the operator is present - like some of us who have two homes and stations. This also provide incentive for the "remote station" operators to build out multiple locations throughout the country instead of concentrating them in one geographic region, and therefore is positive to the competitive market.

 

Mickey Baker, N4MB
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
"The servant-leader is servant first... It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead." Robert K. Greenleaf

 

On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 11:33 AM Mickey Baker N4MB via Groups.Arrl.Org <fishflorida=gmail.com@...> wrote:

So here's a suggestion:

Modify the rule so that from the date of adoption forward "no contact be allowed for DXCC where the transmitter and receiver is operated from a remote location more than 200km from the operator's physical location at the time of the contact unless the station is at the operators home QTH as defined by the address on their FCC license ."  
 
This allows for travellers, SOTA, etc. people with two or more residences, contacts where the operator remotes their own station, etc.

Thoughts?

73,

Mickey Baker
Director-elect, Southeastern Division

 

 

-- 

Bruce A. Manning

I would agree with a QTH radius rule.

The vast majority of amateurs who apply for and chase DXCC are unable to option several QTHs to achieve this award.  Some can afford to pay for the use of a commercial remote.  No one I know has any published data on the RHR clients and their utilization to work new entities.

DXCC Listings and totals are published by ARRL and, as such, makes the award competitive.  If ARRL doesn’t believe there is an undercurrent of competition generally associated with the award, then it SHOULD NOT publish the standings.  They wont…..due to the pecuniary benefit the DXCC award has in ARRL’s cash flow especially with the advent of LOTW.

Rules should be made to cover the majority; not be orchestrated or manipulated to serve the minority, of the participants.  DXCC has been highly touted and respected over the last 70 years.   ARRL has maintained it’s popularity by administering it by being particular to define and qualify the entities we all seek.  LOTW has facilitated the award and its endorsement program.

Nothing lasts forever.  It is patently obvious that a 2-3000 mile location advantage inexorably alters the ability to more easily add entities to one’s DXCC totals.  For the ARRL not to consider a QTH radius for the award will diminish it’s meaning and pride of achievement for the vast number of participants.

I hope an established QTH radius will serve to maintain the value of the award, and preserve the integrity of ARRL’s sponsorship in DXCC. 

73, enjoy your holidays

Val

N4RJ

A Ham for 63 years….I have not seen it all, but I have seen a lot

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Why is this a competition?

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 12:16:21 -0500, "Mickey Baker N4MB" <fishflorida@...> wrote:

Or, better: 

"No remote contact be allowed for DXCC where the transmitter and receiver is more than 200km from the operators permanent station location as defined by the address on their FCC license. Contacts conducted by an operator present at a temporary transmitter and receiver location within the same DXCC entity, within 500 meters of the operator are allowed at any distance from the operators permanent station location.

All contacts confirmed remotely until (the date of adoption of this rule) may be considered valid as confirmed." 

 

This allows for remote operation of a station where the operator is present - like some of us who have two homes and stations. This also provide incentive for the "remote station" operators to build out multiple locations throughout the country instead of concentrating them in one geographic region, and therefore is positive to the competitive market.

 

Mickey Baker, N4MB
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
"The servant-leader is servant first... It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead." Robert K. Greenleaf

 

On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 11:33 AM Mickey Baker N4MB via Groups.Arrl.Org <fishflorida=gmail.com@...> wrote:

So here's a suggestion:

Modify the rule so that from the date of adoption forward "no contact be allowed for DXCC where the transmitter and receiver is operated from a remote location more than 200km from the operator's physical location at the time of the contact unless the station is at the operators home QTH as defined by the address on their FCC license ."  
 
This allows for travellers, SOTA, etc. people with two or more residences, contacts where the operator remotes their own station, etc.

Thoughts?

73,

Mickey Baker
Director-elect, Southeastern Division

 

 

-- 

Bruce A. Manning

Now, you're getting somewhere, Hugh. There is no general competition. I do believe that our problem (not the League's problem) is the format that ARRL uses for publishing the standings; that is, by listing callsigns in the order of the number of countries confirmned. They have done this since the very first DXCC standings list in November, 1937, and those listings included callsigns from many stations in North America and Europe. Competition? All the DXCC program does is verify our QSOs as best it can - for individual award programs - and do us the courtesy of listing our totals. The listings should NOT suggest competition. Our Bad.

-- 

Bruce A. Manning