Topband: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm looking for input

[Jim Brown]

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