[CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem

[Jim Brown]

On 2/3/2020 11:58 AM, Edward Sawyer wrote:
> The fundamental problem is the slippery downward slope of rules in contest (allowing a remote receiver is a bad idea in my opinion - completely trashes decades of engineering and best practice in the contest) and the insanity of remote operating from the 4 corners of the continent in the US and being able to count it all for DXCC on 160M.

This thinking ignores the fact that the richest among us can afford to 
purchase land and build a station where we have no neighbors, while the 
vast majority of hams (I'd guess >99%) cannot. There's nothing unethical 
or unfair about an op with his/her station surrounded by hundreds of 
noise sources having a remote receiver in quiet location within a 
reasonable distance.

I admire VE6WZ's engineering achievement in building his remote 
superstation on property he bought on the prairie 50 miles or so north 
of his home in Calgary. But few hams have the resources to even buy the 
land, let alone build the station.

 >   Hardly, they just moved the goal posts for you.  Feel good?

Yes, the goalposts have been moved, but not in the direction you're 
suggesting. Noise levels where most of us live have increased greatly 
over the last decade or so. When I moved to NorCal in 2006, I was able 
to hear and work EU stations on CW during the solar minimum, and they 
could hear me. From 2014 to 2020, with BETTER antennas, I've COPIED a 
grand total of six EU CW signals, and been able to work only two of 
them. And although I own 8.5 acres, I have five homes with noise sources 
within 200-500 ft of my antennas! With the 10 dB noise rejection 
advantage of FT8 over CW, I've made dozens of QSOs to EU the past two 
seasons, adding more than a dozen countries on that band, bringing my 
total confirmed to 172.

73, Jim K9YC