On Fri,7/10/2015 7:09 AM, Tony K1AMF wrote:
Please e-mail N2YBB or other ARRL board members directly with any questions or
comments.
Here's what I wrote to my Director, and to a few others who I know. My
Subject line was "DXCC Rules and Remote Operation."
= = = = =
In advance of a meeting where I expect this issue to be discussed, I
want to let you know how I feel about DXCC Rules and Remote Operation.
I am strongly opposed to the use of a remote station to give the
operator a geographical advantage over his licensed location for
geographically based awards like DXCC, WAS, VUCC. I also object to the
use of rented stations for this purpose, no matter where they are
located. I have no objection to an operator using a remote station that
he has built with or without the assistance of others within a few
hundred miles of his home QTH.
I am also strongly opposed to the current DXCC Rules that allow credit
for QSOs made from a location anywhere in the continental United States.
I favor instead a rule similar to that for VUCC, which allows credit for
QSOs made no more than 200 km apart. For DXCC, 700 miles might be a more
appropriate distance. The existing rule greatly cheapens the award.
Having operated first from WV, then from Chicago, and now from Northern
California, I can testify that working DX on any band is very different
between W8/W9 and W6. I did not start over moving from WV to Chicago,
but I did when moving to CA 9 years ago. I would have felt that I was
cheating if I had not.
I have 135 countries confirmed on 160M and 201 on 80M since moving to W6
nine years ago. Under the current rules, I could almost certainly add 50
countries to each of those bands by renting a station in W1 for any
contest weekend. That stinks.
73, Jim Brown K9YC
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|