Topband: The Remote question

[Robert Harmon]

Ken,

I hear what you are trying to convey but there is a fly in the ointment.  
I am not trying to impress anyone else. For me it is and always has been a personal achievement.
No one here is concerned with diminishing their abilities to impress others as you have stated.  
These "issues" you call them are the criteria and boundaries needed to achieve the DXCC awards.
The perception that the awards are not being watered down is in your head Ken.    That is what this discussion is all about.
The concern we all feel is that the DXCC awards are becoming awards with no criteria and boundaries anymore, so what value will they be ?
Would it not be plausible to create additional DXCC award categories to accommodate technology advances like our current RHR capabilities ?


Bob
K6UJ





> On Jul 12, 2015, at 12:16 PM, W0MU <w0mu at w0mu.com> wrote:
> 
> I think much of the issue with RHR is people are bent out of shape that a group of people have jumped on this and appear to be doing quite well.  Business must be booming as they are adding new stations constantly.
> 
> Personally I have a decent station and am not interested in renting station time.
> 
> In the end the challenge is personal.  The award is whatever you make it.
> 
> DXCC is DXCC.  If you feel better that you worked it from the same location using wet noodles more power to you.
> 
> If you are chasing DX to impress other people I think you are doing it wrong.  When you focus on yourself and what you are doing then these little "issues" become non issues.
> 
> My Dad told me a long time ago in business was to quit paying so much about the other guy and start focusing on my business and what my strength were.
> 
> I have been a ham since 1978.  Honor roll number 1 mean very little to me.  What it says is that you have either been doing this longer than me, spend more time on the radio, have a better setup, etc.  It doesn't mean that you are a better DXer.  I hear so called big DXers in pileups calling endlessly with no clue about how pileups work etc.  Lots of great DXers are in and out of a pileup before you know it.  Many of those guys may or may not have DXCC.  I waited for over 20 years to apply for DXCC and the award is still in the tube..........
> 
> Be proud of yourself and what you have done.  The watering down of the award is in your head.
> 
> On 7/12/2015 7:32 AM, nn4t at comcast.net wrote:
>> Good morning. I have followed with interest the discussion on this subject. I enjoyed hearing both sides of the issue from my fellow DXers. Most of the replies have been both thoughtful and respectful and I thank you for that.
>> I thought you may find it interesting to hear a comment from the perspective of an RHR user. Perhaps some of the others who comment also used that service (which seems to have triggered this debate) but I don't remember seeing that. I have been an RHR customer for two years. I have been a DXer for the entire 42 years of my amateur career. Climbing the DX Challenge ladder is my principal goal. I have a home station focused on 6, 80 and 160. 93.5% of the entities I need for the Challenge are on these three bands. I have a full sized quarter wave vertical for 160 (and 8 560 ' beverages), a 4 square for 80 and a 9 element M2 at 80' for 6. The station works well and has been productive. But as you know from 160 propagation is finicky. And for those who have not spent time on 6, it is even more so there. I rent the RHR stations because they give me more opportunities to work new ones for the Challenge. It is simply another tool I use to accomplish my goal. And unless the DXCC rul
> es
>>   change I will continue to do so. I appreciate, and respect, those who feel this somehow violates the spirit of the DXCC program. I simply do not agree.
>> Ham radio has always had a prickly relationship with technology. On one hand we love the cool gadgets and the hobby would die without them. On the other, it forces us to deal with change. Anyone remember the debate about using packet clusters to work DX? "Shooting fish in a barrel" was a common criticism of those who used that technology. Remember when there was a move to ban from DXCC credit qsos made on a list?
>> I suspect remote technology is here to stay; the ARRL BOD has already spoken once on that matter and were quite clear. What I would suggest is view this technology as simply a tool; available to all willing to pay the fee (just like our expensive radios, antennas, amps, etc.) . Use it or don't use it. The choice is yours. Best, Steve, NN4T
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> 
> 
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband