Topband: DXCC Issues !

[Dick Bingham]

Greetings All

Where Tom - W8JI - says "I think the real solution is a DXCC endorsement or
a new DXCC that requires
the holder to swear he did it all transmitting and receiving from one
​
location all by himself with gear he assembled"
I totally agree !

What good, really, is a QSO with someone you worked using your call at a QTH
not your own and could not possibly work from your own FCC-licensed site.
Internally, at least, one would have to acknowledge any awards achieved in
this manner are dishonest.

Personally, I would find it impossible to hang an award that included such
QSO's on my wall of accomplishments.

I am pretty certain I could accumulate sufficient QSO's using the Arecibo
telescope to work multi-100 DXCC entities on 144MHz-and-up using 100-watts
- maybe even 10-watts. Would an award under my call be worth anything to me
as an operator at, say, CN98pi ? ANSWER: worth nothing and useless to the
Grid-Square collector who needs CN98pi !

I long for the days when we were required to sign 'portable' when operating
away from home. How disheartning it is to work a weak "W1-station" calling
CQ on six meters only to find they are 1000's of miles from W1-land .

73 Dick/W7WKR CN98pi

ps - I've sent my thoughts on to my Northwest Section Division Manager . .
.  db

=========================================
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 07:06:03 -0400
From: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji at w8ji.com>
To: "topband" <topband at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Fwd: Fwd: ARRL Board meets next week - I'm
looking for input
Message-ID: <2DEF05FB4D5044CCBEDFF9F24E42D271 at MAIN>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response

I don't understand the sudden hysteria, except it may be Internet driven.

Around 52 years ago, my first or second 160 meter California contact was
with remote W6YY. I can't remember if W6VSS Dale or W6YY was first, but that
was when the band was split and the power limit was maybe 25 watts plate
input power.

In the 1970's, when it was actually very difficult to work DXCC, W2EQS
(Charlie) had almost made 100 DXCC on 160. His age and health forced him to
move to Indiana, and he lost all of those credits.

Today (and for a long time now) anyone anywhere in the USA (remotely or
locally) can operate anyone else's station in the USA under their call, or
someone else can come in (remotely or physically) operate their station
using the local call. People around here come in physically and operate my
station, and they have for many years. It counts for their DXCC.

This leads me to think the sudden recent wave of hysteria about DXCC is
based on people actually wanting one of three things:

1.) In spite of being legal for over 50 years, all remotes to be banned

2.) In spite of being legal for around 35 years that I know of, they want
the rules changed so a station has to sign callsign / district or say
portable and then district when transmitting from any location other than
the station owner and builder location, and so no guest op can ever use his
call. This is the way it was before the FCC changed that rule, which I think
happened in the 1980's.

Since the FCC is unlikely to change rules because of an award that has not
had that much meaning about being tied to any location, station, or operator
since maybe 1980 or so, they want a new DXCC. They want a new DXCC that
requires the contact to be made by the physical owner of the station at one
location.

To me, the real issue is people are unhappy either with the use of a remote
of any type (which has been legal as long as I have been a Ham and has been
used for DXCC and contests since I have been licensed)  or they suddenly
want DXCC to be tied to a station at a single location that the DXCC
recipient owns.

I think the mob got all worked up because they didn't think about the actual
rules, they just dislike RHR (and not the dozens of free uncontrolled
remotes all over the place). For years they have been competing against
people who use other people's stations, move around, or have a remote. Now,
out of the clear blue sky, DXCC is suddenly useless when the actual changes
than made it useless were made over 30 years ago.

I think the real solution is a DXCC endorsement or a new DXCC that requires
the holder to swear he did it all transmitting and receiving from one
location all by himself with gear he assembled.
=========================================