First, some relevant facts:

1. For many DXers, DXCC is a lifelong competition. The ARRL encourages this by maintaining and publishing standings

<http://www.arrl.org/dxcc-standings>

and by annually awarding the "De Soto Cup"

<http://www.arrl.org/dxcc-challenge>

Nobody likes having the rules changed in the middle of a competition.


2. DXCC is not a level playing field, and never will be. Stations located closer to dense clusters of DXCC entities have an
advantage over stations located further away from such clusters. Stations located close to the geomagnetic equator have an advantage
over stations located further away. Stations with more effective antennas have an advantage for stations with less effective
antennas. Stations with more effective receivers have an advantage over stations with less effective receivers. Stations that can
run more output power have an advantage over stations with less output power.


3. Many DXCC rules are effectively unenforceable. There is no way to verify that a DXCC award applicant was the operator who made
each submitted QSO, or that the applicant made each submitted QSO from within the same DXCC entity, or that all pertinent government
regulations - like RF output power - were obeyed.


4. Short of requiring every amateur transceiver to incorporate a potted GPS subsystem that reports time-and-position information
encrypted with the operator's ARRL-issued private key, there is no way to reliably determine the location of the station from which
a QSO submitted for DXCC award credit was made.


5. The DXCC award program includes separate categories for QRP and Satellite operation:

<http://www.arrl.org/qrp-dxcc>

<http://www.arrl.org/dxcc-rules> rule 1.q


6. The ARRL Board of Director's rationale for rejecting the DXAC recommendation on Remote Operating is recounted by then CEO Dave
K1ZZ here:

<http://www.arrl.org/files/file/QST/This%20Month%20in%20QST/April2015/APRIL%20%20EDITORIAL.pdf>


As a DXer, I did not agree with the DXAC's recommendation, and I did not agree with the ARRL Board's action.

Technology cannot be suppressed. If remote operation is possible, it will be employed -- whether "DXCC legal" or not. There are
valid reasons for an operator wanting to participate in DXCC from more than one geographic location, physically or using remote
access technology. However, reaching the Top of the Honor Roll from one physical location with no remote access is significantly
more difficult -- and thus more praiseworthy -- than doing so from multiple physical or remotely-accessed locations.

Thus my suggested resolution to this issue is for the ARRL to create a new "Single Location" attribute applicable to every existing
DXCC award, meaning that all submitted QSOs were made from with 200 km of a single home QTH.

I further suggest that this be implemented by designating all DXCC awards issued after the internet became publicly accessible as
"Multiple Location". An Operator who has received DXCC awards by submitting QSOs that all complied with the single location
criterion could so declare to the ARRL, and receive a "Single Location" endorsement that can be affixed to their award certificate
or plaque.

Implementing this recommendation would require updating the ARRL's DXCC and LoTW software systems to track the Single/Multiple
Location attribute for each submitted QSO. It would require providing a means by which operators could apply for "Single Location"
endorsements for awards they've already received. Satisfying these requirements would consume ARRL staff time, which would have to
be funded one way or another. This incremental funding should be considered in light of the potential decline in DXCC award revenue
and ARRL dues if a less effective solution is chosen.

Implementing this recommendation would also create work for the developers of logging applications.

I began DXing in California's Silicon Valley after earning my novice ticket there in 1990. In 1997, I relocated to the Boston area
at the request of my employer. Thus the #1 Honor Roll plaque I received in 2008 and the Challenge 3000 plaque I received in 2018
would not qualify for a "Single Location" endorsement -- at least not until I re-work, re-confirm, and re-submit QSOs with the 14
entities and 864 entity-bands I only worked while in California.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

If a change is to be made I favor crafting the specific wording concerning a radius around "a single location" rather than "a home location".

The reasons for this are that many younger folks don't own their own homes nor do they expect to own one due to economic reasons.  Like it or not some have a negative opinion of home ownership that stems from generational differences.  While it may be hard for the typical ham to understand, spend some time Googleing "OK Boomer" to learn about this.

The next reason is that if the rule change is really about addressing propagation advantages based on geographic location changes, then what does it matter if the location is your home or the location of a club station, or even a distant remote station if ALL of the contacts for an award were made from location(s) that fit into the single point and associated radius specification?

If the goal is to get more hams to participate in DXing and applying for awards, whether to compete against others or toward their own personal best, it seems the best way to accomplish that would be to make the program more inclusive. Restrictions are, by their nature, exclusive. Many reasons have been laid out in these threads as to how a distance restriction would severely limit award eligibility for some hams, thereby discouraging them from participating. Creating new DXCC classifications would promote inclusion for those without the real estate or income to build an expensive home station. There could also be some new, interesting classes, such as QRP. Contests have different station classes, but DXCC wouldn't need nearly as many. Of course, this would necessitate an overhaul of the awards program and LoTW, which would come with additional cost. There will always be some who will try to circumvent the rules to gain advantage, but everyone who earns an award honestly can be justifiably proud of their accomplishment.

The discussion around this proposal needs to be done carefully so as to not come across as a bunch of affluent old hams looking to protect the prestige of their award certificates against the advancement of technology and a new generation. This is somewhat reminiscent of some hams disparaging others who build their DXCC totals using FT8 ("it's not real ham radio").  If you want to limit participation to those who have means, for the sake of the prestige of the award, then add restrictions. If looking to create more opportunities for hams in different circumstances to participate, create some award classifications so they can play too.

I'm a relatively new ham, licensed three and a half years, and DXing is my favorite part of the hobby. I have almost 230 DXCCs confirmed using only wire antennas and 100 or fewer watts from my home station. Most have been digital contacts, but I have also achieved DXCC for phone and CW. CW is my favorite! I am quite happy having achieved those totals at the bottom of a solar cycle, but I'm aware that ATNOs will be fewer and farther between. I have some property for wire antennas, but my station will always be modest in comparison to most serious DXers, and I'm not likely to use a remote station. I have only recently added a 500W amp, and plan on installing a hexbeam in the coming months. So, I feel like I have nothing to gain or lose personally from a 200km location restriction. I am basing my opinion on discussions with other new hams who indicated they are interested in DXing but do not feel they would be very successful due to their current living arrangements or income. 

Dan, N1ADM