Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC
|
Please note that these are proposed changes, posted here for polite pubic comment.
This has gone to the DX Advisory Committee Chairman and the DXAC is charged with review. At the end of the text below, you will find links to the complete DXAC reports that recommend much more severe policies that the ones contained herein. Please remember that the DXCC award is one of the oldest and most prestigious awards in amateur radio and let's have dialogue that is respectful of each other and the history of this award. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule Change Proposal for Using Remote Stations for DXCC Credit
History The DX Advisory Committee (DXAC) examined the utilization of remote station operation for DXCC credit and recommended in their report on July, 2014:
"The DXAC favored the proposed change of rule I.9, stating, however, some distance limitation should be included for the remote station. Using an idea similar to that used for contest stations, establishing a distance of 200km separation between the remote station and the operator’s home station location and that no part of a remote station can be located more than 200km from any other part.[i]
The DX Advisory Committee was charged in 2017 to reexamine the issues around remote-controlled operations and had a very poignant and emphatic answer:
Part of the charge read, “Please consider potential ethical issues with regard to legal, remote-controlled operations, and how these operations comport with DXCC rules. Then, please consider DXCC Rule 11.” The remainder of the charge was detailed and extensive.[ii]
The reply included the following from the DXAC: “…the DXAC was being asked to consider an ethics statement that it had previously suggested not be accepted, and dealt with an issue (unlimited use of remote radio stations) to make contacts which would be used for DXCC credit that the DXAC had recommended against.”
Both complete reports from the DXAC are available. Links to both documents are below.
The ARRL Programs and Services Committee nor did the full Board take action based on these recommendations, three years apart, nor since;
Many active and successful DX Operators who have been long time supporters of the ARRL have complained that the current rule, Section 1, Rule 9, allows stations to “shop propagation” from moment to moment using services that rent or otherwise share a number of remotely controlled stations geographically diverse stations located throughout the same DX Entity;
While the League wishes to encourage the use of remote stations, “propagation shopping” has resulted in many amateurs with smaller stations to be overpowered and displaced by the use of remote “super stations.” This has deprecated the need for operators to learn to take advantage of propagation or to build and improve stations; “Propagation shopping” allows operators to simply click to find the “loudest signal” thus not developing skills for communication. For the DXCC Honor Roll achievement to be equitable, this practice should be discouraged, so that this achievement is more of a reflection of the art of DX’ing;
ARRL recognizes the need for amateurs to use their own stations, whether at their primary residence or a remote residence, or to use a third party station for DXCC if it is impossible to build out a station at their home.
We propose this change in the DXCC rules which are fair to those who have made contacts to date, easy to understand and with which to comply, and limits “propagation shopping” for DXCC award credit going forward;
Program and Services Committee, after receiving considerable input worldwide with the specified recommendations from the DX Advisory Committee, propose the following DXCC rule change to the ARRL Board of Directors for approval to change Section I, Rules 9 and 11 as follows:
Amend Section I, Rule 9, of the DXCC Rules which currently reads, “a) All stations used to make contacts for a specific DXCC award must be located within the same DXCC entity.”
To: “a) All station transmitters and receivers used to make contacts for a specific DXCC award on or after the date of adoption of this rule must be located within the same DXCC entity, with additional restrictions regarding remote operation. Any and all remote contacts submitted for DXCC must be conducted with the transmitters and receivers: 1. Within a circle with a radius of 200km from the applicant’s permanent address as shown on their license. If the license does not specify a geographic address, the radius center will be the post office serving the applicant. This provides for remote operation of an applicant’s primary station from anywhere, or an additional station within the circle, OR; 2. Within a circle with a radius of 200km from the applicant’s location at the time of the contact. This provision provides for the travelling amateur, who often carries and establishes a temporary station, and the remote use of that station within 200km of the applicant’s location at the time of the contact, OR; 3. A single additional geographic location specified by the applicant. This additional geographic location may be changed only once per consecutive year – once established by making a contact from a location only that location may be submitted for credit for one contiguous calendar year. An example would be the applicant may choose their own vacation home station operated remotely, or a single commercial remote superstation that is beyond the 200km from their home location. Multiple additional remote locations are not permitted to discourage “propagation shopping.”
All claimed DXCC Contacts Until the date of adoption of this rule, will be honored as per the prior rule in effect.
Amend Section I, Rule 11, of the DXCC Rules which currently reads: 11. Issues concerning remotely controlled operating and DXCC are best dealt with by each individual carefully considering the ethical limits that he/she will accept for his/her DXCC and other operating awards. As the premier operating award in Amateur Radio, DXCC draws intense scrutiny from its participants. As DX chasers climb up the Standings there will be increased attention given to these achievements and the owner of these achievements needs to be comfortable standing behind his/her award and numbers. Peer attention has always been a part of awards chasing, of course, but in these times with so many awards and so many players it is more important than ever to 'play the game' ethically.
Technological advances, while welcome, also add to the difficulty in defining rules for DXCC, but the intent of the rules is what is important. It is never OK to remotely use a station outside of the 'home DXCC entity' to add to the home-entity DXCC totals -- just as it is never OK for you to ask someone else at another station in another place to make QSOs for you. Remotely controlled stations must be properly licensed if they are to count for DXCC. It will continue to be up to the operator to decide what types of legal remote control operating he/she will use (if any) to contribute to an operating award.
To the following: 11. Issues concerning remotely controlled operating and DXCC are best dealt with by each individual carefully considering the limits defined by the DXCC and other operating awards. As the premier operating award in Amateur Radio, DXCC draws intense scrutiny from its participants. As DX chasers climb up the Standings there will be increased attention given to these achievements and the owner of these achievements needs to be comfortable standing behind his/her award and numbers. Peer attention has always been a part of awards chasing, of course, but in these times with so many awards and so many players it is more important than ever to 'play the game' ethically.
Technological advances, while welcome, also add to the difficulty in defining rules for DXCC, but the intent of the rules is what is important. It is never OK to remotely use a station outside of the 'home DXCC entity' to add to the home-entity DXCC totals -- just as it is never OK for you to ask someone else at another station in another place to make QSOs for you. Remotely controlled stations must be properly licensed if they are to count for DXCC. It will continue to be up to the operator to decide what types of legal remote control operating he/she will use (if any) to contribute to an operating award.
[i] July 2014 DXAC Report to the PAC http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About%20ARRL/Committee%20Reports/2014/July/Doc_27.pdf,
[ii] July 2017 DXAC Report to the Programs and Services Committee
|
|
|
|
|
|
ED W4POT
As I have stated in my previous posts and comments concerning this proposed rule change, I do not think this rule change is necessary. The DXCC award is an OPERATING award and not a station building award.
I believe it's net effect will be to raise an additional barrier to those who might other wise be eager to participate and be active on the air and in the DXCC program but lack the real estate, financial resources, or inter-personal connections to secure access to a capable station within the specified distance. I also think that consideration for the more mobile nature of society today, given the ability of operators to readily move and relocate within a country for work or personal reasons, they may not remain in any one location for a duration sufficient to allow completion of an award. Quite often geographic changes are associated with major life events such as going to college, going into the service, getting a new job, or perhaps finding the right person and starting a new household. I don't think we want to ratify a mandatory reset of progress, or otherwise suggest that the awards program is designed for people who have reached a "settled in" stage of their lives. At a time when much effort is being made to sustain amateur radio by promoting it and recruiting new operators, especially those which will have many years more to enjoy it, this proposed rule change seems ill timed and akin to adding another foot or two of bricks atop the garden wall to keep more people out. I politely suggest that this rule change is not forward thinking, is not needed, and works against sustaining the DXCC awards program in the years to come. Ed W4POT |
|
|
|
|
|
Ed, Then put them into a different category for contests. This will allow them and others to compete on levels consistent with their situation. Similarly, awards should be categorized according to the station and operator profile. 73, Gordon Beattie, W2TTT 201.314.6964
|
|
|
|
|
|
GM All; A question I have, and have not been able to ferrite out is: I have permanent station location in Michigan, job or life circumstances force me to Washington State, (or any place exceeding the 200km range) and I establish permanent station and address; does this mean I start over? Or if job is for duration of 3 years in Washington, then returning to Michigan, do contacts made in Washington not count against my DXCC account? In both cases, the move was of a permanent nature. Or would the proposed rule change apply only too a remote station? Dale K8TS
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Mickey Baker N4MB
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 3:49 PM To: ARRL-Awards@... Subject: [ARRL-Awards] Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC
Please note that these are proposed changes, posted here for polite pubic comment. Rule Change Proposal for Using Remote Stations for DXCC Credit
History The DX Advisory Committee (DXAC) examined the utilization of remote station operation for DXCC credit and recommended in their report on July, 2014:
"The DXAC favored the proposed change of rule I.9, stating, however, some distance limitation should be included for the remote station. Using an idea similar to that used for contest stations, establishing a distance of 200km separation between the remote station and the operator’s home station location and that no part of a remote station can be located more than 200km from any other part.[i]
The DX Advisory Committee was charged in 2017 to reexamine the issues around remote-controlled operations and had a very poignant and emphatic answer:
Part of the charge read, “Please consider potential ethical issues with regard to legal, remote-controlled operations, and how these operations comport with DXCC rules. Then, please consider DXCC Rule 11.” The remainder of the charge was detailed and extensive.[ii]
The reply included the following from the DXAC: “…the DXAC was being asked to consider an ethics statement that it had previously suggested not be accepted, and dealt with an issue (unlimited use of remote radio stations) to make contacts which would be used for DXCC credit that the DXAC had recommended against.”
Both complete reports from the DXAC are available. Links to both documents are below.
The ARRL Programs and Services Committee nor did the full Board take action based on these recommendations, three years apart, nor since;
Many active and successful DX Operators who have been long time supporters of the ARRL have complained that the current rule, Section 1, Rule 9, allows stations to “shop propagation” from moment to moment using services that rent or otherwise share a number of remotely controlled stations geographically diverse stations located throughout the same DX Entity;
While the League wishes to encourage the use of remote stations, “propagation shopping” has resulted in many amateurs with smaller stations to be overpowered and displaced by the use of remote “super stations.” This has deprecated the need for operators to learn to take advantage of propagation or to build and improve stations; “Propagation shopping” allows operators to simply click to find the “loudest signal” thus not developing skills for communication. For the DXCC Honor Roll achievement to be equitable, this practice should be discouraged, so that this achievement is more of a reflection of the art of DX’ing;
ARRL recognizes the need for amateurs to use their own stations, whether at their primary residence or a remote residence, or to use a third party station for DXCC if it is impossible to build out a station at their home.
We propose this change in the DXCC rules which are fair to those who have made contacts to date, easy to understand and with which to comply, and limits “propagation shopping” for DXCC award credit going forward;
Program and Services Committee, after receiving considerable input worldwide with the specified recommendations from the DX Advisory Committee, propose the following DXCC rule change to the ARRL Board of Directors for approval to change Section I, Rules 9 and 11 as follows:
Amend Section I, Rule 9, of the DXCC Rules which currently reads, “a) All stations used to make contacts for a specific DXCC award must be located within the same DXCC entity.”
To: “a) All station transmitters and receivers used to make contacts for a specific DXCC award on or after the date of adoption of this rule must be located within the same DXCC entity, with additional restrictions regarding remote operation. Any and all remote contacts submitted for DXCC must be conducted with the transmitters and receivers: 1. Within a circle with a radius of 200km from the applicant’s permanent address as shown on their license. If the license does not specify a geographic address, the radius center will be the post office serving the applicant. This provides for remote operation of an applicant’s primary station from anywhere, or an additional station within the circle, OR; 2. Within a circle with a radius of 200km from the applicant’s location at the time of the contact. This provision provides for the travelling amateur, who often carries and establishes a temporary station, and the remote use of that station within 200km of the applicant’s location at the time of the contact, OR; 3. A single additional geographic location specified by the applicant. This additional geographic location may be changed only once per consecutive year – once established by making a contact from a location only that location may be submitted for credit for one contiguous calendar year. An example would be the applicant may choose their own vacation home station operated remotely, or a single commercial remote superstation that is beyond the 200km from their home location. Multiple additional remote locations are not permitted to discourage “propagation shopping.”
All claimed DXCC Contacts Until the date of adoption of this rule, will be honored as per the prior rule in effect.
Amend Section I, Rule 11, of the DXCC Rules which currently reads: 11. Issues concerning remotely controlled operating and DXCC are best dealt with by each individual carefully considering the ethical limits that he/she will accept for his/her DXCC and other operating awards. As the premier operating award in Amateur Radio, DXCC draws intense scrutiny from its participants. As DX chasers climb up the Standings there will be increased attention given to these achievements and the owner of these achievements needs to be comfortable standing behind his/her award and numbers. Peer attention has always been a part of awards chasing, of course, but in these times with so many awards and so many players it is more important than ever to 'play the game' ethically.
Technological advances, while welcome, also add to the difficulty in defining rules for DXCC, but the intent of the rules is what is important. It is never OK to remotely use a station outside of the 'home DXCC entity' to add to the home-entity DXCC totals -- just as it is never OK for you to ask someone else at another station in another place to make QSOs for you. Remotely controlled stations must be properly licensed if they are to count for DXCC. It will continue to be up to the operator to decide what types of legal remote control operating he/she will use (if any) to contribute to an operating award.
To the following: 11. Issues concerning remotely controlled operating and DXCC are best dealt with by each individual carefully considering the limits defined by the DXCC and other operating awards. As the premier operating award in Amateur Radio, DXCC draws intense scrutiny from its participants. As DX chasers climb up the Standings there will be increased attention given to these achievements and the owner of these achievements needs to be comfortable standing behind his/her award and numbers. Peer attention has always been a part of awards chasing, of course, but in these times with so many awards and so many players it is more important than ever to 'play the game' ethically.
Technological advances, while welcome, also add to the difficulty in defining rules for DXCC, but the intent of the rules is what is important. It is never OK to remotely use a station outside of the 'home DXCC entity' to add to the home-entity DXCC totals -- just as it is never OK for you to ask someone else at another station in another place to make QSOs for you. Remotely controlled stations must be properly licensed if they are to count for DXCC. It will continue to be up to the operator to decide what types of legal remote control operating he/she will use (if any) to contribute to an operating award.
[i] July 2014 DXAC Report to the PAC http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About%20ARRL/Committee%20Reports/2014/July/Doc_27.pdf,
[ii] July 2017 DXAC Report to the Programs and Services Committee
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dale,
I certainly don't know the answer to your good questions, but when I move to Florida from New Jersey, I will start again. If I visit or otherwise operate from within whatever the proscribed distance is from NJ, then I will add that to my NJ totals because the locations are simply different with respect to propagation and geography.
To me there has to be some rational guides to operating in contests and for awards. While I have really never formally chased "wallpaper", I can't imagine mixing two sets of diverse contact sets to complete an award or to compete in a contest.
Remote operating is a blessing to many who live in constrained housing or isolated locations. I really think that their popularity is starting to hit critical mass for its own class or classess of operations
73,
Gordon Beattie, W2TTT
201.314.6964
|
|
|
|
|
|
bmanning
I have a very modest station, 100 watts wire antennas, and CW only. I stand at 329 entities, I need 2 more for Honor Roll. I have needed two for Honor Roll for the past 6 years or so. I have 1962 toward the DX Challenge. I also have 9 band DXCC. I have lived in 3 different homes all with in 3 miles of each other over the past 40 years. I am not planning on moving anytime. But lets say I did need to move a few hundred miles away. The thought of stating over is not something I would like to do. Some of the DXCC entities I have accumulated are difficult, at best, to work today and of course some are now on the deleted list. So that is where I have a problem with some of the thoughts about what to do with remote stations. I have never used one although I do think the technology is kind of cool to be able to do this. Another point, lets say someone who resides in Maine and is on vacation in San Diego. Brought their radio and a wire antenna along and VK9X Christmas Is. was on the air. If he worked them would it count because he was 3,000 miles from home? I would hope so. Because he would still be in the same DXCC Entity it should. So are we looking at changing the rules so If you move 201km away to be closer to family, or better weather, or ? that we need to start over again? One more point. I have never looked at DXCC as a competition, It is an individual achievement. In no way could I compete with say W3LPL or K9CT or K3LR in working DX. But I can feel good about what I have done with my own station. It is something I have achieved, my equipment, my antennas, my ability to figure out the beeps on the air. That is what makes this worth doing. That's my 2 cents 73 Bruce NJ3K On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 16:07:50 +0000 (UTC), w2ttt <w2ttt@...> wrote:
-- Bruce A. Manning |
|
|
|
|
|
Abrams, Saul (DHSES)
Let me begin by saying that the DXCC rules for operators must be consistent for all operations. If I can fly to Maine or California to work DX or a DXpedition generally unavailable from my home, and the contacts count for DXCC, then there is no logical reason why working them from home via remote should count any less. Neither contact is being made by a radio at my home. We may not like that some people can remote to work DX, but they could just as easily have flown to those stations to operate. The only difference is time and money. So, unless we are willing to revert back to the pre-1986 rule about working all DX from within a fixed distance from our homes under all circumstances, then there is no basis for a rule treating remotes any differently.
Next, I think the 2017 Report of the DXAC says something different than that summarized by N4MB. (The link to the 2014 Report only brings up the ARRL logo.) The 2017 Report says:
“In summary 1.) There was no strong consensus to change Rule 11 2.) There was a surprising lack of enthusiasm on the part of DXAC to deal with this tasking. 3.) There was a general unhappiness with the whole remote issue as it deals with DXCC, but the feeling that the decision had already been made and unless that decision was re-considered in its entirety, there was little that could be recommended to improve potential problems.”
“[R]e-considered in its entirety,” in my opinion, would also have to reconsider the 1986 change allowing country-wide DXCC operation. While the 2014 Report quoted below recommended some mileage limitation, the PSC did not adopt it and the later 2017 Report did not recommend it again.
Finally, I don’t think we want to go down the path mentioned below that “This [remote operation] has deprecated the need for operators to learn to take advantage of propagation or to build and improve stations; “Propagation shopping” allows operators to simply click to find the “loudest signal” thus not developing skills for communication.” We should not be making value judgments about necessary skills and basing recommendations on those judgments, because other, recently popular modes of operation require very little “skill for communication.” Do you really want to go there?
As many have said before, DXCC is not (supposed to be) a competition. It is a reflection of ones own accomplishments. What someone else does, does not diminish what I have done. 73, Saul K2XA
Saul M. Abrams, J.D. Disaster Assistance Representative
Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Services 1220 Washington Avenue, Building 7A, 4th Floor, Albany, NY 12242 (518) 417-6029 | Cell (518) 810-7171 | FAX (518) 322-4984
From: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...>
On Behalf Of Mickey Baker N4MB via groups.arrl.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 3:49 PM To: ARRL-Awards@... Subject: [ARRL-Awards] Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC
Please note that these are proposed changes, posted here for polite pubic comment. Rule Change Proposal for Using Remote Stations for DXCC Credit
History The DX Advisory Committee (DXAC) examined the utilization of remote station operation for DXCC credit and recommended in their report on July, 2014:
"The DXAC favored the proposed change of rule I.9, stating, however, some distance limitation should be included for the remote station. Using an idea similar to that used for contest stations, establishing a distance of 200km separation between the remote station and the operator’s home station location and that no part of a remote station can be located more than 200km from any other part.[i]
The DX Advisory Committee was charged in 2017 to reexamine the issues around remote-controlled operations and had a very poignant and emphatic answer:
Part of the charge read, “Please consider potential ethical issues with regard to legal, remote-controlled operations, and how these operations comport with DXCC rules. Then, please consider DXCC Rule 11.” The remainder of the charge was detailed and extensive.[ii]
The reply included the following from the DXAC: “…the DXAC was being asked to consider an ethics statement that it had previously suggested not be accepted, and dealt with an issue (unlimited use of remote radio stations) to make contacts which would be used for DXCC credit that the DXAC had recommended against.”
Both complete reports from the DXAC are available. Links to both documents are below.
The ARRL Programs and Services Committee nor did the full Board take action based on these recommendations, three years apart, nor since;
Many active and successful DX Operators who have been long time supporters of the ARRL have complained that the current rule, Section 1, Rule 9, allows stations to “shop propagation” from moment to moment using services that rent or otherwise share a number of remotely controlled stations geographically diverse stations located throughout the same DX Entity;
While the League wishes to encourage the use of remote stations, “propagation shopping” has resulted in many amateurs with smaller stations to be overpowered and displaced by the use of remote “super stations.” This has deprecated the need for operators to learn to take advantage of propagation or to build and improve stations; “Propagation shopping” allows operators to simply click to find the “loudest signal” thus not developing skills for communication. For the DXCC Honor Roll achievement to be equitable, this practice should be discouraged, so that this achievement is more of a reflection of the art of DX’ing;
ARRL recognizes the need for amateurs to use their own stations, whether at their primary residence or a remote residence, or to use a third party station for DXCC if it is impossible to build out a station at their home.
We propose this change in the DXCC rules which are fair to those who have made contacts to date, easy to understand and with which to comply, and limits “propagation shopping” for DXCC award credit going forward;
Program and Services Committee, after receiving considerable input worldwide with the specified recommendations from the DX Advisory Committee, propose the following DXCC rule change to the ARRL Board of Directors for approval to change Section I, Rules 9 and 11 as follows:
Amend Section I, Rule 9, of the DXCC Rules which currently reads, “a) All stations used to make contacts for a specific DXCC award must be located within the same DXCC entity.”
To: “a) All station transmitters and receivers used to make contacts for a specific DXCC award on or after the date of adoption of this rule must be located within the same DXCC entity, with additional restrictions regarding remote operation. Any and all remote contacts submitted for DXCC must be conducted with the transmitters and receivers: 1. Within a circle with a radius of 200km from the applicant’s permanent address as shown on their license. If the license does not specify a geographic address, the radius center will be the post office serving the applicant. This provides for remote operation of an applicant’s primary station from anywhere, or an additional station within the circle, OR; 2. Within a circle with a radius of 200km from the applicant’s location at the time of the contact. This provision provides for the travelling amateur, who often carries and establishes a temporary station, and the remote use of that station within 200km of the applicant’s location at the time of the contact, OR; 3. A single additional geographic location specified by the applicant. This additional geographic location may be changed only once per consecutive year – once established by making a contact from a location only that location may be submitted for credit for one contiguous calendar year. An example would be the applicant may choose their own vacation home station operated remotely, or a single commercial remote superstation that is beyond the 200km from their home location. Multiple additional remote locations are not permitted to discourage “propagation shopping.”
All claimed DXCC Contacts Until the date of adoption of this rule, will be honored as per the prior rule in effect.
Amend Section I, Rule 11, of the DXCC Rules which currently reads: 11. Issues concerning remotely controlled operating and DXCC are best dealt with by each individual carefully considering the ethical limits that he/she will accept for his/her DXCC and other operating awards. As the premier operating award in Amateur Radio, DXCC draws intense scrutiny from its participants. As DX chasers climb up the Standings there will be increased attention given to these achievements and the owner of these achievements needs to be comfortable standing behind his/her award and numbers. Peer attention has always been a part of awards chasing, of course, but in these times with so many awards and so many players it is more important than ever to 'play the game' ethically.
Technological advances, while welcome, also add to the difficulty in defining rules for DXCC, but the intent of the rules is what is important. It is never OK to remotely use a station outside of the 'home DXCC entity' to add to the home-entity DXCC totals -- just as it is never OK for you to ask someone else at another station in another place to make QSOs for you. Remotely controlled stations must be properly licensed if they are to count for DXCC. It will continue to be up to the operator to decide what types of legal remote control operating he/she will use (if any) to contribute to an operating award.
To the following: 11. Issues concerning remotely controlled operating and DXCC are best dealt with by each individual carefully considering the limits defined by the DXCC and other operating awards. As the premier operating award in Amateur Radio, DXCC draws intense scrutiny from its participants. As DX chasers climb up the Standings there will be increased attention given to these achievements and the owner of these achievements needs to be comfortable standing behind his/her award and numbers. Peer attention has always been a part of awards chasing, of course, but in these times with so many awards and so many players it is more important than ever to 'play the game' ethically.
Technological advances, while welcome, also add to the difficulty in defining rules for DXCC, but the intent of the rules is what is important. It is never OK to remotely use a station outside of the 'home DXCC entity' to add to the home-entity DXCC totals -- just as it is never OK for you to ask someone else at another station in another place to make QSOs for you. Remotely controlled stations must be properly licensed if they are to count for DXCC. It will continue to be up to the operator to decide what types of legal remote control operating he/she will use (if any) to contribute to an operating award.
[i] July 2014 DXAC Report to the PAC http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About%20ARRL/Committee%20Reports/2014/July/Doc_27.pdf,
[ii]
July 2017 DXAC Report to the Programs and Services Committee
-- 73, Saul K2XA |
|
|
|
|
|
Dave AA6YQ
If “DXCC is not (supposed to be) a competition”, why does the ARRL publish standings?
I’ve never attended a major DX club meeting that didn’t begin with a “sit down”, in which the person with the most DXCC entities confirmed is left standing at the end.
The Northern California DX Club, which motivated me to earn DXCC so that I could join back in 1990, publishes a monthly “ladder” showing the DXCC totals of its members, from largest to smallest.
The competition is (mostly) friendly, with more experienced DXers providing advice and coaching to newer DXers, and spotting rare DX that their competitors may need.
Not everyone is a competitive DXer; every DXer sets his or her own objectives, free of criticism from anyone else. But many DXers are competitive, including me.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
From: ARRL-Awards@... [mailto:ARRL-Awards@...] On Behalf Of Abrams, Saul (DHSES) via groups.arrl.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2020 2:31 PM To: ARRL-Awards@... Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC
Let me begin by saying that the DXCC rules for operators must be consistent for all operations. If I can fly to Maine or California to work DX or a DXpedition generally unavailable from my home, and the contacts count for DXCC, then there is no logical reason why working them from home via remote should count any less. Neither contact is being made by a radio at my home. We may not like that some people can remote to work DX, but they could just as easily have flown to those stations to operate. The only difference is time and money. So, unless we are willing to revert back to the pre-1986 rule about working all DX from within a fixed distance from our homes under all circumstances, then there is no basis for a rule treating remotes any differently.
Next, I think the 2017 Report of the DXAC says something different than that summarized by N4MB. (The link to the 2014 Report only brings up the ARRL logo.) The 2017 Report says:
“In summary 1.) There was no strong consensus to change Rule 11 2.) There was a surprising lack of enthusiasm on the part of DXAC to deal with this tasking. 3.) There was a general unhappiness with the whole remote issue as it deals with DXCC, but the feeling that the decision had already been made and unless that decision was re-considered in its entirety, there was little that could be recommended to improve potential problems.”
“[R]e-considered in its entirety,” in my opinion, would also have to reconsider the 1986 change allowing country-wide DXCC operation. While the 2014 Report quoted below recommended some mileage limitation, the PSC did not adopt it and the later 2017 Report did not recommend it again.
Finally, I don’t think we want to go down the path mentioned below that “This [remote operation] has deprecated the need for operators to learn to take advantage of propagation or to build and improve stations; “Propagation shopping” allows operators to simply click to find the “loudest signal” thus not developing skills for communication.” We should not be making value judgments about necessary skills and basing recommendations on those judgments, because other, recently popular modes of operation require very little “skill for communication.” Do you really want to go there?
As many have said before, DXCC is not (supposed to be) a competition. It is a reflection of ones own accomplishments. What someone else does, does not diminish what I have done. 73, Saul K2XA
Saul M. Abrams, J.D. Disaster Assistance Representative
Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Services 1220 Washington Avenue, Building 7A, 4th Floor, Albany, NY 12242 (518) 417-6029 | Cell (518) 810-7171 | FAX (518) 322-4984
From: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...> On Behalf Of Mickey Baker N4MB via groups.arrl.org
Please note that these are proposed changes, posted here for polite pubic comment. Rule Change Proposal for Using Remote Stations for DXCC Credit
History The DX Advisory Committee (DXAC) examined the utilization of remote station operation for DXCC credit and recommended in their report on July, 2014:
"The DXAC favored the proposed change of rule I.9, stating, however, some distance limitation should be included for the remote station. Using an idea similar to that used for contest stations, establishing a distance of 200km separation between the remote station and the operator’s home station location and that no part of a remote station can be located more than 200km from any other part.[i]
The DX Advisory Committee was charged in 2017 to reexamine the issues around remote-controlled operations and had a very poignant and emphatic answer:
Part of the charge read, “Please consider potential ethical issues with regard to legal, remote-controlled operations, and how these operations comport with DXCC rules. Then, please consider DXCC Rule 11.” The remainder of the charge was detailed and extensive.[ii]
The reply included the following from the DXAC: “…the DXAC was being asked to consider an ethics statement that it had previously suggested not be accepted, and dealt with an issue (unlimited use of remote radio stations) to make contacts which would be used for DXCC credit that the DXAC had recommended against.”
Both complete reports from the DXAC are available. Links to both documents are below.
The ARRL Programs and Services Committee nor did the full Board take action based on these recommendations, three years apart, nor since;
Many active and successful DX Operators who have been long time supporters of the ARRL have complained that the current rule, Section 1, Rule 9, allows stations to “shop propagation” from moment to moment using services that rent or otherwise share a number of remotely controlled stations geographically diverse stations located throughout the same DX Entity;
While the League wishes to encourage the use of remote stations, “propagation shopping” has resulted in many amateurs with smaller stations to be overpowered and displaced by the use of remote “super stations.” This has deprecated the need for operators to learn to take advantage of propagation or to build and improve stations; “Propagation shopping” allows operators to simply click to find the “loudest signal” thus not developing skills for communication. For the DXCC Honor Roll achievement to be equitable, this practice should be discouraged, so that this achievement is more of a reflection of the art of DX’ing;
ARRL recognizes the need for amateurs to use their own stations, whether at their primary residence or a remote residence, or to use a third party station for DXCC if it is impossible to build out a station at their home.
We propose this change in the DXCC rules which are fair to those who have made contacts to date, easy to understand and with which to comply, and limits “propagation shopping” for DXCC award credit going forward;
Program and Services Committee, after receiving considerable input worldwide with the specified recommendations from the DX Advisory Committee, propose the following DXCC rule change to the ARRL Board of Directors for approval to change Section I, Rules 9 and 11 as follows:
Amend Section I, Rule 9, of the DXCC Rules which currently reads, “a) All stations used to make contacts for a specific DXCC award must be located within the same DXCC entity.”
To: “a) All station transmitters and receivers used to make contacts for a specific DXCC award on or after the date of adoption of this rule must be located within the same DXCC entity, with additional restrictions regarding remote operation. Any and all remote contacts submitted for DXCC must be conducted with the transmitters and receivers: 1. Within a circle with a radius of 200km from the applicant’s permanent address as shown on their license. If the license does not specify a geographic address, the radius center will be the post office serving the applicant. This provides for remote operation of an applicant’s primary station from anywhere, or an additional station within the circle, OR; 2. Within a circle with a radius of 200km from the applicant’s location at the time of the contact. This provision provides for the travelling amateur, who often carries and establishes a temporary station, and the remote use of that station within 200km of the applicant’s location at the time of the contact, OR; 3. A single additional geographic location specified by the applicant. This additional geographic location may be changed only once per consecutive year – once established by making a contact from a location only that location may be submitted for credit for one contiguous calendar year. An example would be the applicant may choose their own vacation home station operated remotely, or a single commercial remote superstation that is beyond the 200km from their home location. Multiple additional remote locations are not permitted to discourage “propagation shopping.”
All claimed DXCC Contacts Until the date of adoption of this rule, will be honored as per the prior rule in effect.
Amend Section I, Rule 11, of the DXCC Rules which currently reads: 11. Issues concerning remotely controlled operating and DXCC are best dealt with by each individual carefully considering the ethical limits that he/she will accept for his/her DXCC and other operating awards. As the premier operating award in Amateur Radio, DXCC draws intense scrutiny from its participants. As DX chasers climb up the Standings there will be increased attention given to these achievements and the owner of these achievements needs to be comfortable standing behind his/her award and numbers. Peer attention has always been a part of awards chasing, of course, but in these times with so many awards and so many players it is more important than ever to 'play the game' ethically.
Technological advances, while welcome, also add to the difficulty in defining rules for DXCC, but the intent of the rules is what is important. It is never OK to remotely use a station outside of the 'home DXCC entity' to add to the home-entity DXCC totals -- just as it is never OK for you to ask someone else at another station in another place to make QSOs for you. Remotely controlled stations must be properly licensed if they are to count for DXCC. It will continue to be up to the operator to decide what types of legal remote control operating he/she will use (if any) to contribute to an operating award.
To the following: 11. Issues concerning remotely controlled operating and DXCC are best dealt with by each individual carefully considering the limits defined by the DXCC and other operating awards. As the premier operating award in Amateur Radio, DXCC draws intense scrutiny from its participants. As DX chasers climb up the Standings there will be increased attention given to these achievements and the owner of these achievements needs to be comfortable standing behind his/her award and numbers. Peer attention has always been a part of awards chasing, of course, but in these times with so many awards and so many players it is more important than ever to 'play the game' ethically.
Technological advances, while welcome, also add to the difficulty in defining rules for DXCC, but the intent of the rules is what is important. It is never OK to remotely use a station outside of the 'home DXCC entity' to add to the home-entity DXCC totals -- just as it is never OK for you to ask someone else at another station in another place to make QSOs for you. Remotely controlled stations must be properly licensed if they are to count for DXCC. It will continue to be up to the operator to decide what types of legal remote control operating he/she will use (if any) to contribute to an operating award.
[i] July 2014 DXAC Report to the PAC http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About%20ARRL/Committee%20Reports/2014/July/Doc_27.pdf,
[ii] July 2017 DXAC Report to the Programs and Services Committee
|
|
|
|
|
|
W0MU
Good question! Maybe the
ARRL could comment on why they turned it into a competition by
publishing results. If there we more dxing and less competing
maybe we would not DX entities such as BS7 (known throughout the
dxing world as Bull#$#$ rocks) etc.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Just a thought. W0MU On 8/5/2020 12:48 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
bmanning
BS7H is one of the last 11 I need for Top of the Honor Roll. I think I heard they were were pretty much all submerged now. On top of that you add in the fact of who actually controls them, several country claim they do. My 2 cents :) 73 Bruce NJ3K On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 14:23:43 -0600, W0MU <w0mu@...> wrote:
Good question! Maybe the ARRL could comment on why they turned it into a competition by publishing results. If there we more dxing and less competing maybe we would not DX entities such as BS7 (known throughout the dxing world as Bull#$#$ rocks) etc. -- Bruce A. Manning |
|
|
|
|
|
Dave AA6YQ
I didn’t get started until 1990, Mike, but I’m pretty sure there have always been competitive DXers. Read Cass WA6AUD’s stories in the old West Coast DX Bulletin.
Please explain the causative link between competitive DXing and BS7.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
From: ARRL-Awards@... [mailto:ARRL-Awards@...] On Behalf Of W0MU
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2020 4:24 PM To: ARRL-Awards@... Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC
Good question! Maybe the ARRL could comment on why they turned it into a competition by publishing results. If there we more dxing and less competing maybe we would not DX entities such as BS7 (known throughout the dxing world as Bull#$#$ rocks) etc. On 8/5/2020 12:48 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Murray Green <k3beq@...>
We live in a competitive world in just about everything including contests, work, play, sports etc. In the case of the DXCC it is a more of reaching a certain level than competing with others.
73 Murray K3BEQ
=============== -----Original Message-----
From: W0MU <w0mu@...> To: ARRL-Awards@... Sent: Wed, Aug 5, 2020 4:23 pm Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC
Good question! Maybe the
ARRL could comment on why they turned it into a competition by
publishing results. If there we more dxing and less competing
maybe we would not DX entities such as BS7 (known throughout the
dxing world as Bull#$#$ rocks) etc.
Just a thought. W0MU On 8/5/2020 12:48 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
If “DXCC is not
(supposed to be) a competition”, why does the ARRL publish
standings?
<http://www.arrl.org/dxcc-standings> I’ve never
attended a major DX club meeting that didn’t begin with a
“sit down”, in which the person with the most DXCC entities
confirmed is left standing at the end.
The Northern
California DX Club, which motivated me to earn DXCC so that
I could join back in 1990, publishes a monthly “ladder”
showing the DXCC totals of its members, from largest to
smallest.
The competition
is (mostly) friendly, with more experienced DXers providing
advice and coaching to newer DXers, and spotting rare DX
that their competitors may need.
Not everyone is
a competitive DXer; every DXer sets his or her own
objectives, free of criticism from anyone else. But many
DXers are competitive, including me.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
From:
ARRL-Awards@...
[mailto:ARRL-Awards@...] On Behalf Of Abrams,
Saul (DHSES) via groups.arrl.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2020 2:31 PM To: ARRL-Awards@... Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC Let me begin by saying that the DXCC rules
for operators must be consistent for all operations. If I can
fly to Maine or California to work DX or a DXpedition
generally unavailable from my home, and the contacts count for
DXCC, then there is no logical reason why working them from
home via remote should count any less. Neither contact is
being made by a radio at my home. We may not like that some
people can remote to work DX, but they could just as easily
have flown to those stations to operate. The only difference
is time and money. So, unless we are willing to revert back
to the pre-1986 rule about working all DX from within a fixed
distance from our homes under all circumstances, then there is
no basis for a rule treating remotes any differently.
Next, I think the 2017 Report of the DXAC
says something different than that summarized by N4MB. (The
link to the 2014 Report only brings up the ARRL logo.)
The 2017 Report says:
“In summary
1.) There was no strong consensus to change
Rule 11
2.) There was a surprising lack of
enthusiasm on the part of DXAC to deal with this tasking.
3.) There was a general unhappiness with
the whole remote issue as it deals with DXCC, but the feeling
that the decision had already been made and unless that
decision was re-considered in its entirety, there was little
that could be recommended to improve potential problems.”
“[R]e-considered in its entirety,” in my
opinion, would also have to reconsider the 1986 change
allowing country-wide DXCC operation. While the 2014 Report
quoted below recommended some mileage limitation, the PSC did
not adopt it and the later 2017 Report did not recommend it
again.
Finally, I don’t think we want to go down
the path mentioned below that “This [remote
operation] has deprecated the need for operators to learn to
take advantage of propagation or to build and improve
stations; “Propagation shopping” allows operators to simply
click to find the “loudest signal” thus not developing
skills for communication.” We should not be making value
judgments about necessary skills and basing recommendations
on those judgments, because other, recently popular modes of
operation require very little “skill for communication.” Do
you really want to go there?
As many have said before, DXCC is not
(supposed to be) a competition. It is a reflection of ones
own accomplishments. What someone else does, does not
diminish what I have done.
73, Saul K2XA
Saul
M. Abrams, J.D.
Disaster
Assistance Representative
Division
of Homeland Security & Emergency Services
1220
Washington Avenue, Building 7A, 4th Floor, Albany, NY
12242
(518)
417-6029 | Cell (518) 810-7171 | FAX (518) 322-4984
From:
ARRL-Awards@...
<ARRL-Awards@...> On Behalf Of Mickey
Baker N4MB via groups.arrl.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 3:49 PM To: ARRL-Awards@... Subject: [ARRL-Awards] Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC
Please note that these are proposed
changes, posted here for polite pubic comment.
This has gone to the DX Advisory Committee Chairman and the DXAC is charged with review. At the end of the text below, you will find links to the complete DXAC reports that recommend much more severe policies that the ones contained herein. Please remember that the DXCC award is one of the oldest and most prestigious awards in amateur radio and let's have dialogue that is respectful of each other and the history of this award. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule
Change Proposal for Using Remote Stations for DXCC
Credit
History
The DX Advisory Committee
(DXAC) examined the utilization of remote station
operation for DXCC credit and recommended in their report
on July, 2014:
"The DXAC
favored the proposed change of rule I.9, stating,
however, some
distance limitation should be included for the remote
station. Using an idea similar to that used for
contest stations, establishing a distance of 200km
separation between the remote station and the
operator’s home station location and that no part of a
remote station can be located more than 200km from any
other part.[i]
The DX
Advisory Committee was charged in 2017 to reexamine the
issues around remote-controlled operations and had a very
poignant and emphatic answer:
Part of the
charge read, “Please consider
potential ethical issues with regard to legal,
remote-controlled operations, and how these
operations comport with DXCC rules. Then, please
consider DXCC Rule 11.” The remainder of the
charge was detailed and extensive.[ii]
The reply
included the following from the DXAC:
“…the DXAC
was being asked to consider an ethics statement that
it had previously suggested not be accepted, and dealt
with an issue (unlimited use of remote radio stations)
to make contacts which would be used for DXCC credit
that the DXAC had recommended against.”
Both
complete reports from the DXAC are available. Links to
both documents are below.
The ARRL
Programs and Services Committee nor did the full Board
take action based on these recommendations, three years
apart, nor since;
Many active
and successful DX Operators who have been long time
supporters of the ARRL have complained that the current
rule, Section 1, Rule 9, allows stations to “shop
propagation” from moment to moment using services that
rent or otherwise share a number of remotely controlled
stations geographically diverse stations located
throughout the same DX Entity;
While the
League wishes to encourage the use of remote stations,
“propagation shopping” has resulted in many amateurs with
smaller stations to be overpowered and displaced by the
use of remote “super stations.” This has deprecated the
need for operators to learn to take advantage of
propagation or to build and improve stations; “Propagation
shopping” allows operators to simply click to find the
“loudest signal” thus not developing skills for
communication. For the DXCC Honor Roll achievement to be
equitable, this practice should be discouraged, so that
this achievement is more of a reflection of the art of
DX’ing;
ARRL recognizes
the need for amateurs to use their own stations, whether
at their primary residence or a remote residence, or to
use a third party station for DXCC if it is impossible to
build out a station at their home.
We propose
this change in the DXCC rules which are fair to those who
have made contacts to date, easy to understand and with
which to comply, and limits “propagation shopping” for
DXCC award credit going forward;
Program and
Services Committee, after receiving considerable input
worldwide with the specified recommendations from the DX
Advisory Committee, propose the following DXCC rule change
to the ARRL Board of Directors for approval to change
Section I, Rules 9 and 11 as follows:
Amend Section I, Rule 9,
of the DXCC Rules which currently reads,
“a) All stations used to
make contacts for a specific DXCC award must be located
within the same DXCC entity.”
To:
“a) All
station transmitters and receivers used to make contacts
for a specific DXCC award on or after the date of adoption
of this rule must be located within the same DXCC entity,
with additional restrictions regarding remote operation.
Any and all remote contacts submitted for DXCC must be
conducted with the transmitters and receivers:
1. Within a circle with a
radius of 200km from the applicant’s permanent address as
shown on their license. If the license does not specify a
geographic address, the radius center will be the post
office serving the applicant. This provides for remote
operation of an applicant’s primary station from anywhere,
or an additional station within the circle, OR;
2. Within a circle with a
radius of 200km from the applicant’s location at the time
of the contact. This provision provides for the travelling
amateur, who often carries and establishes a temporary
station, and the remote use of that station within 200km
of the applicant’s location at the time of the contact,
OR;
3. A single additional
geographic location specified by the applicant. This
additional geographic location may be changed only once
per consecutive year – once established by making a
contact from a location only that location may be
submitted for credit for one contiguous calendar year. An
example would be the applicant may choose their own
vacation home station operated remotely, or a single
commercial remote superstation that is beyond the 200km
from their home location. Multiple additional remote
locations are not permitted to discourage “propagation
shopping.”
All claimed DXCC Contacts
Until the date of adoption of this rule, will be honored
as per the prior rule in effect.
Amend Section I, Rule 11,
of the DXCC Rules which currently reads:
11. Issues concerning
remotely controlled operating and DXCC are best dealt with
by each individual carefully considering the ethical
limits that he/she will accept for his/her DXCC and other
operating awards. As the premier operating award in
Amateur Radio, DXCC draws intense scrutiny from its
participants. As DX chasers climb up the Standings there
will be increased attention given to these achievements
and the owner of these achievements needs to be
comfortable standing behind his/her award and numbers.
Peer attention has always been a part of awards chasing,
of course, but in these times with so many awards and so
many players it is more important than ever to 'play the
game' ethically.
Technological advances,
while welcome, also add to the difficulty in defining
rules for DXCC, but the intent of the rules is what is
important. It is never OK to
remotely use a station outside of the 'home DXCC entity'
to add to the home-entity DXCC totals -- just as it is never OK
for you to ask someone else at another station in another
place to make QSOs for you. Remotely controlled stations
must be properly licensed if they are to count for DXCC.
It will continue to be up to the operator to decide what
types of legal remote control operating he/she will use
(if any) to contribute to an operating award.
To the following:
11. Issues concerning
remotely controlled operating and DXCC are best dealt with
by each individual carefully considering the limits
defined by the DXCC and other operating awards. As the
premier operating award in Amateur Radio, DXCC draws
intense scrutiny from its participants. As DX chasers
climb up the Standings there will be increased attention
given to these achievements and the owner of these
achievements needs to be comfortable standing behind
his/her award and numbers. Peer attention has always been
a part of awards chasing, of course, but in these times
with so many awards and so many players it is more
important than ever to 'play the game' ethically.
Technological advances,
while welcome, also add to the difficulty in defining
rules for DXCC, but the intent of the rules is what is
important. It is never OK to
remotely use a station outside of the 'home DXCC entity'
to add to the home-entity DXCC totals -- just as it is never OK
for you to ask someone else at another station in another
place to make QSOs for you. Remotely controlled stations
must be properly licensed if they are to count for DXCC.
It will continue to be up to the operator to decide what
types of legal remote control operating he/she will use
(if any) to contribute to an operating award.
[i] July 2014 DXAC Report to
the PAC http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About%20ARRL/Committee%20Reports/2014/July/Doc_27.pdf,
[ii] July 2017 DXAC
Report to the Programs and Services Committee
http://www.arrl.org/files/file/2017%20Board%20of%20Directors/July%202017%20Reports/_23DXACReportJuly2017.pdf -- 73, Saul K2XA |
|
|
|
|
|
W0MU
As long as you still live
in the USA you do not need to start over. That rule was changed
quite a while ago. You can if you want or you can collect them
from each area, I do not believe you could get separate awards
though. It is your choice to use whatever QSL cards or LOTW
confirmations you like. The ARRL should not care as long as all
the contacts are made within the same DXCC country. If you lived
in Germany, you could move to other parts of Germany and not have
to start over.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
W0MU On 8/5/2020 10:07 AM, w2ttt wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dave AA6YQ
+ AA6YQ comments below
We live in a competitive world in just about everything including contests, work, play, sports etc. In the case of the DXCC it is a more of reaching a certain level than competing with others. + Not correct. The ARRL awards the De Soto cup to the ham with the highest DXCC Challenge total at the end of each year. + The DXCC Standings previously cited are a linear list of callsigns in "results order", not an alphabetical list of everyone who's achieved "a certain level". 73, Dave, AA6YQ |
|
|
|
|
|
Murray Green <k3beq@...>
Dave, please read. I posted about the DXCC not the De Sota cup/Challange In fact I believe that is what all of the comments are about. When someone starts out working for DXCC he certainly is not competing with anyone else. The main goal is to collect contacts and the number game that goes with it.
As time goes by and their call sign appears in the QST listings, especially as they close in on #1 Honor Roll, the competition is again the number game but this time a little more exciting. In my case it was ten meters. Top ten for many years. There was competition in my mind at that time, not before, on reaching the top and whomever held that position. Prior to that it was strictly numbers, 100 200 300 and up....Ciao
73 Murray K3BEQ -----Original Message-----
From: Dave AA6YQ <aa6yq@...> To: ARRL-Awards@...; w0mu@... Sent: Wed, Aug 5, 2020 4:54 pm Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC + AA6YQ comments below
We live in a competitive world in just about everything including contests, work, play, sports etc. In the case of the DXCC it is a more of reaching a certain level than competing with others.
+ Not correct. The ARRL awards the De Soto cup to the ham with the highest DXCC Challenge total at the end of each year.
+ The DXCC Standings previously cited are a linear list of callsigns in "results order", not an alphabetical list of everyone who's achieved "a certain level".
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dave AA6YQ
+ AA6YQ comments below
Dave, please read. I posted about the DXCC not the De Sota cup/Challange + The “DXCC Challenge Award” is a part of the ARRL’s DXCC Award Program. It is blatantly competitive, given the posted standings and the annual award presentation. <http://www.arrl.org/dxcc-challenge> + There are also posted standings foreach DXCC award category: Mixed, Phone, CW, RTTY/Digital, Satellite, and each band between 160m and 70 cm (except 60m). In fact I believe that is what all of the comments are about. When someone starts out working for DXCC he certainly is not competing with anyone else. + You don’t think that two new hams getting their novice tickets together might compete to see who reaches DXCC fastest? 73, Dave, AA6YQ |
|
|
|
|
|
Murray Green <k3beq@...>
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave AA6YQ <aa6yq@...> To: ARRL-Awards@... Sent: Wed, Aug 5, 2020 8:09 pm Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC + AA6YQ comments below
Dave, please read. I posted about the DXCC not the De Sota cup/Challange
+ The “DXCC Challenge Award” is a part of the ARRL’s DXCC Award Program. It is blatantly competitive, given the posted standings and the annual award presentation.
***Dave, you just don't get it. Sorry.
+ There are also posted standings foreach DXCC award category: Mixed, Phone, CW, RTTY/Digital, Satellite, and each band between 160m and 70 cm (except 60m).
In fact I believe that is what all of the comments are about. When someone starts out working for DXCC he certainly is not competing with anyone else.
+ You don’t think that two new hams getting their novice tickets together might compete to see who reaches DXCC fastest?
***No I don't. And your choice is slim...
73 Murray K3BEQ
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dave AA6YQ
# more AA6YQ comments below
+ You don’t think that two new hams getting their novice tickets together might compete to see who reaches DXCC fastest? ***No I don't. # I saw it happen several times during my tenure with NCDXC, when I was responsible for their DXCC Ladder. We published a monthly "Ladder Leaders" to highlight the new club members increasing their totals most rapidly. 73, Dave, AA6YQ |
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Valentine
From: Dave AA6YQ
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 8:34 PM To: ARRL-Awards@... Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC
# more AA6YQ comments below
|
|
|
|
|
|
W0MU
I wonder what the demographics are of those for this change vs those against the change.
I am 55. I am very much for Remote operations and allowing people the freedom to operate the way they please. W0MU |
|
|
|
