Topband: Remote now DXCC??

[Michael Adams]

The way I look at the recent rule tweak is that the ARRL is trying to recognize evolving technology and trends in a manner harmonious to what's already been acceptable under the DXCC rules.

Hasn't it been acceptable for a while now to go to the opposite side of the country, work DX, and have it "count"?  Hasn't it been tolerated to go to someone's better-equipped station, work a rare one, and get credit?

As long as there's no deception of where RF is being emitted and received, the rule tweak seems plausible.

I've got DXCC and DXCC Challenge plaques hanging on my shack wall.  They bring a smile to my face, and I'd rather not let any frustration I could feel about cheaters spoil the fun I had in qualifying for them, or the incentive they give in guiding some further play on HF and topband.

But, if there are many people upset by the perceived unfairness of remote controlled stations, intra-country travel, and/or station sharing...perhaps the answer would be to call for the introduction of a new award.  Call it DX2CC, operating with the same general principles as DXCC, but requiring all contacts to be made on stations built/maintained by or specifically for the ham, with contacts occurring within a given entity and within a certain radius.  It'd be unfair to impose such rules on a go-forward basis on DXCC, but you could start fresh with a new award and more challenging rules.

I'd chase such awards.

(But who am I kidding;  I chase just about everything anyway.)

-- 
Michael Adams | N1EN | mda at n1en.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of W0MU Mike Fatchett
Sent: Friday, 27 February, 2015 11:01
To: topband at contesting.com
Subject: Topband: Remote now DXCC??

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.