Topband: Remote now DXCC??

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

Why are we centered on remote operations dirtying up the DXCC program?  
DXCC is far from clean now and from the limited amount of reading 
available people have been scamming DXCC long before I was licensed in 1978.

The ARRL recognizes that this is a new and upcoming technology and the 
more and more people will be using it.

The DXCC program is based on YOUR moral and ethical fiber not to cheat.  
We through some card checking in there and catch a few problems here and 
there.

I was doing an audit of my award and found and number of typos that gave 
me credit for countries I never worked on certain bands.  I alerted the 
DXCC desk and they fixed them.  How many other people are going to take 
the time to do what I did and then willingly remove a confirmation.  I 
would hope most, but many don't care.

We know people have been using excessive and illegal power for years and 
years.

People have submitted QSL cards that have been altered or submitted 
cards that for countries they have never worked.

We know people said they want to places they did not.  How many did we 
catch vs how many that were not.  How many of you know things have never 
been reported.

Remote receivers.  Remote Xmitters.

The DXCC award that you earn is yours.   How you get there is up to you 
and your integrity, morals, ethics, etc.  The cheating has been going on 
for years and years and years.  Remote is just another avenue for  a 
cheater to use.

The issuing of a DXCC award to someone else has no bearing on your 
award.  Nothing changed.  You didn't drop a spot or gain a spot. Your 
standing is based on the number of countries you have worked and claimed.

If the ARRL did not make money selling plaques and certificates and LOTW 
credits do you really think they would be pushing it?  The Centennial 
QSO party was marketing genius.  They sold tons of LOTW credits and 
awards.  They are not making any money from my Life Membership that I 
paid for 30 years ago.

Ham radio is centered around the vast majority of people doing it right 
and they do.  For the most part we are a self policing group.

Just like packet, remote radio is here, has been here for a while and it 
is never going away.  Remote radio is not going affect your awards and 
you will probably never know if and when you work remote stations.

The only problems I see are perceived problems that might happen or that 
have been happening for years that most just never knew about. Running 
remote from W7 and not telling people that your Xmitter is in Virginia 
is just one bad apple.  He should do what is right.  How many slims have 
we all worked?  Plenty.  What was the result of that?  Go work the 
station again.




Mike W0MU

On 2/27/2015 7:49 AM, Tom W8JI wrote:
> thrown out a hotel upper storey window. Question: can I link myself 
> via the internet to some remote "...rent-a-station" in, say, nearby 
> Japan, and use that station to QSO them, all the while using my 
> callsign of VE3CUI...?
>>
>> Like I said earlier, it's an ignorant question, from an ignorant 
>> Ham---but I would like to know the answer, just the same...!
>>
>> Many thanks, &
>
> Eddy,
>
> It is always good to figure out how the something we complained about 
> actually works, and what the impact is. I see you still cling to the 
> "rental myth" that is used to stir people up.
>
> The fact is, there are many dozens, if not hundreds, of completely 
> free unmonitored stations on line right now.
>
> My opinion is, if someone wanted to do what you describe, they would 
> likely do it through one of the many free open access small stations 
> all over the world, of which there are probably hundreds. They would 
> be invisible and unrecorded.
>
> It seems illogical to me that someone would join a club or group, 
> become identified, and pay a deposit they lose if caught breaking 
> terms, and a fee for a monitored and logged system when they can do it 
> free and without logging.
>
> I'm not sure how that could be controlled, because anyone who can 
> download software and has the right equipment can connect.
>
> This entire topic seems backwards to me, because the most vocal 
> ranters appear to be the very people who don't understand the system, 
> and who have not thought through the impact and how to solve or reduce 
> problems.
>
> For example, the ARRL is being blamed for profiting from DXCC, but 
> they probably have no idea if DXCC is a net loss or net profit for the 
> ARRL. I personally do not think it is a fund raiser for them, but 
> that's my guess. I would not publically rant about it one way or 
> another without research.
>
> We all know, factually, many years ago DXCC became a matter of the 
> person and not the station or station location (other than  being 
> within a country). Some people would like to see this to go back to 
> the station or at least worked within reasonable bounds of distance (I 
> am one of them). Unlike some, I don't think this is an ethical thing. 
> I think a rule is a rule, and if we don't like the rule we carefully 
> and thoughtfully change the rule. (I've never even applied for DXCC, 
> but I do enjoy working countries for my own satisfaction. I do have 
> RCC, but after the strange looks at show and tell in eighth grade I 
> have kept that hidden.)
>
> After thinking about this for a few years, I think there should be a 
> requirement that no radio transmitter be openly accessible to the 
> general public. To me, that is no different than having a running 
> unmonitored transmitter on a table in a public shopping mall. I think 
> anyone offering a transmitter (or receiver in real time, without 
> induced latency) to the general population without reasonably secure 
> user control is setting the world up for problems.
>
> The really odd thing about this thread is some people dislike 
> controlled systems and people who have or use controlled systems, but 
> they have no comment on what amounts to hundreds of radios openly 
> accessible with no controls, restrictions, and no monitoring. They 
> have no problem with someone driving to a station that isn't theirs 
> and counting the country, but they have a problem if it is via a link.
>
> W6YY used a remote link in 160 contests way back around 1963. John was 
> my first or second California contact on 160. This has been going on 
> quite a while.
>
> 73 Tom
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband