Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N

[Dave AA6YQ]

Remote operation was made legal for DXCC in 1998. At that time, the distance constraint established was "within the same DXCC
entity".

17 years later, tightening the distance constraint would be challenging. What do you say to the DXer who is legally or
topographically unable to establish a useful station on his or her home property and so spent thousands of dollars to acquire land
and setup  a remote station, possibly based on "how to" articles in ARRL publications? No matter what distance limit you now choose,
some of those ops would no longer be able to use their remote stations.

There is also the issue of QSOs made with remote stations beyond the tightened distance limit during the past 17 years. Are they
invalidated, with awards retracted? Or are they grandfathered, creating  a new "fairness" issue. 

In the absence of a time machine, our only recourse is to move forward. Some DXers pursue DXCC awards with QRO, while others use
QRP. Some use digital modes like RTTY, while others (who enjoy watching paint dry) use the incredibly sensitive JT modes. The DXCC
playing field has never been remotely level, and freezing technology at any point in time won't level it.

Internet-based remote stations are just another option that some DXers will use and others will not. The op who worked them all with
QRP and wire antennas  from a shack beneath the auroral oval in Northern Canada will always have bragging rights over the op did so
using a big amp with stacked monobanders and low-band receiving arrays from a QTH on the geomagnetic equator. Internet-based remote
operation won't change that.

       73,

                Dave, AA6YQ



-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Larry Burke
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 9:34 PM
To: topband at contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Foreign stns using NA remotes for K1N

 

> Now, suddenly, it is so unfair.

 

There have always been the ethically-challenged among us. No one is denying that. What I sense is a realization by many that DXCC, a
program that some of us naively believed was a credible accomplishment worth investing time and energy in, has spun totally and
permanently out of control. This is something that has been building for a long time -- There WERE complaints when the radius rule
was dropped -- and the concept of commercial remotes was the straw that broke the camel's back for many.

 

Tom, you indicate you are not that passionate about chasing awards. Some people are. Will they die tomorrow if the rules don't go
their way? No.  But please don't belittle them with comments like "I think anyone who bases their success or value in life by how
they rank in something as silly as a national DXCC list, or worrying about someone making 50 more contacts in a contest, deserves
all the angst and distress worrying about others creates for them." All anyone is trying to do here is come to a reasonably
equitable solution to maintaining some degree of integrity for the awards program. 

 

It is truly unfortunate that the DXAC's recommendation seems to have been ignored and the most recent decision was made by the Board
-- most of whom are not serious DXers -- without substantial input from the DXing community.

 

 

- Larry K5RK (no affiliation with a commercial remote business)

 

 

 

_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband