Big change on DXCC rules

Cool. So its still perfectly ok for me to sit here in the midwest and use a remote transmitter in NY, and another in CA, and another in FL, and maybe throw one in from Maine too and then and have them all count the same.

Thats awesome.

 

Actually, the reasoning is interesting:

You could argue that one of the reasons Novices got small slivers of CW spectrum was to whet their interest in HF (in addition to getting in some practice and learning a few things along the path to upgrading).

Some on the Board (and in the community) think that it would be interesting and potentially beneficial to update the idea of giving new hams small slivers of HF privileges that they might actually use as a means to whetting their interest in HF, and getting more interested in the prospect of upgrading.

True, Techs today already have 10m phone privileges...but 10m can be fickle (especially this solar cycle). And Techs do have CW privileges on other bands...but with the ending of the code requirement (for better or worse), new hams who learn code usually do so only after they've become interested in HF.

Given all that, it could be argued that digital would make a better "get your feet wet" on the lower HF bands.

I personally don't know if the scheme will be successful in getting more Techs hooked on the prospect of HF and upgrading, but saying "here, try this, you'll like it and want to upgrade" is a lot more acceptable to me than handing out privileges because upgrading is "too hard".

 

I have no problem with "remote" operation. The Ham has an antenna, a transceiver, and a mike or key. If the location of the antenna is known by all parties ie. Sender, Receiver, and FCC, and the transceiver is in compliance with all other FCC operational requirements, then who cares where the mike and control are located.
I understand that certain interlocks should be employed, like remote connection health signal confirmation. If the health of the control signal to the remote is compromised, certain safeguards must be in place to disable the transmitter.

kc8wik

 

If THIS is the case I don't much care for it either. To me, it should all be the same station.

In other words, if I rent a station and I make ALL my contacts FROM that station, that's fine. If I work a bunch from my home station and then remote to it from elsewhere and work some more, that too is fine.

If the rules do in fact allow for me to operate DIFFERENT geographically located stations and all count for the same award, well hmm...


On one hand, I can go mobile and still get credit right? So what difference does it make?
On the other hand, that does feel a bit lame.


I guess for me it boils down to the personal feeling that all contacts should be achieved from the same station, remotely controlled or not. As long as that station stays put, who cares?

If it's more than one geographically separate stations, I'm not sure... My first reaction is "ewww."

 

Well, this is maybe the progress in HAM-Radio. But it is unfair (in my opinion) if people sitting somewere in the world and working Navassa Island from a remote station in Florida. We all know (from qrz.com advertisements) that there are remote stations you can use for money. What now if I pay, and work a new DXCC from their station? Is that fair against other Thai stations using the "old" way and try to get through the pile up during our vy short openings to Navassa? To be honest, I wouldn't be proud if I get a new DXCC in that way. Why? Because I didn't do it from my own station -of which I am very proud- and with my own skills. Maybe one day you even don't need the OM in front of radio or computer. You just click a skedule date and time in your smartphone and everything else is done automatically. Including upload to LOtW. But is that the same thrill you have if you get through the pile up and make into in the log?
If this is the new way to work DXCC than I stop working that award.
vy 73 from Thailand
HS0ZIV

 

I can't believe there is so much confusion over this. It's simple.

If I have a remote station on the west coast, and another on the east coast, each transmitter competes for a separate DXCC award. What's wrong with that?

If I take my station portable to the midwest and compete from there, all of my DXCC credits must come from that same portable location. My home station must earn DXCC from home, on its own merit.

Nothing keeps someone from operating remote, or portable, and not saying anything about location but just collecting the QSL or LoTW credit. Operators could be doing this right now and nobody would know the difference. Most don't.

This isn't about appeasing operators with money. It's about the poor guy who lives in an antenna restricted area who wants to work serious DX. In Arizona, for example, desert land is relatively inexpensive. Up goes a tower and a mobile home to house the station. The poor guy who can't even change the color of his front door without HOA permission now has access to the same kind of antenna that I have in my QTH, which is actually located remote desert location.

 

The rules do allow for that. But it's always been OK to go "portable" cross-country and still have the contacts count for DXCC. What prompted reexamination of the rules is that the rise of remote control have made it potentially very easy to virtually go portable without leaving your home.


My concern when they were considering a rule change was that there would be some kind of arbitrary line drawn around remote operating: that is, if it's OK to to portable on the other side of the country, or go set up at a buddy's superstation and have the contacts count, then it ought to be OK for contacts made under remote control to count.


They could have changed the rules to impose a WAS-like rule saying that all contacts had to be made within a certain radius. Remember that for WAS, contacts have to be made from within a 50 mile / 80 kilometer radius to count. If you make a few contacts on the east coast, and then move to the west coast, you're working on a different WAS award. From some of the documentation from past ARRL board meetings, it sounds like there was some thought of putting a 200 mile radius rule in place...but there wasn't consensus on doing that, perhaps due to questions about the potential impact on people who have been working on DXCC for years.


I'll admit that I'd be OK with the notion of a 200 mile radius rule IF it didn't differentiate among portable vs. "borrowed" vs. remote operations....even though it would kill any idea I might have of someday taking a DX-hunting trip to the west coast. It'd be "fair" on a go-forward basis, but it would mean future DXCC awards/endorsements would be harder to get than in the past, and there would be the added headache of documenting your location on cards you receive.

Your Navassa contact from the remote station in Florida would have been a good contact for a DXCC award based on contacts made from the US. You wouldn't have gotten credit for a Thailand-to-Navassa contact. It doesn't matter where you are physically located; the award rules, the government regulations, and your callsign for the contact are all based on where your transmitter is...and in this case your transmitter is in Florida.


Admittedly, there have been instances of folks using remote stations on the other side of the planet, identifying as if they were operating from their home country. That would be unfair and illegal to boot.

Nothing, except that it would be a rule change. Today, the DXCC rules are perfectly OK with contacts made from various places around a country counting towards DXCC, as long as the contacts are being made from within the same DXCC entity. Contacts made from the east coast of the US and the west coast of the US count towards the same DXCC award. Contacts made from the east coast of the US and the west coast of Canada do not.


I wouldn't have a problem with putting a distance limit in place, but I imagine that folks who have spent decades climbing to the top of the honor roll, chasing DX through several moves during their lives, might take exception to that.

 

Admittedly, there have been instances of folks using remote stations on the other side of the planet, identifying as if they were operating from their home country. That would be unfair and illegal to boot.


Well, this is exactely what I fear. Working remote a new DXCC without saying that I am remote. Who can check if it is done remote or from my own station? Don't expect HAM spirit as its been 30 years and longer ago! Just listen to the chaos on DX-Peditions today. Me, me, me. Ellbows everywhere. And if this is not enough, I switch my OM-Power amp with 4 kW on and give you an RTTY signal on the expeditions QRG.
You really expect that people saying I work you remote? I don't...
To be honest I don't know how to solve this problem.
73 de HS0ZIV

 

so Ham Radio has come to this: no need for a radio anymore, or to put up an antenna. ALL U need to work DXCC is a CELLPHONE

 

The solution is to not let it bother you / to not take it too seriously.

I don't know about DXCC, but at least in contests...it's sometimes pretty obvious when someone is using a remote station and misidentifying. Those situations get reported.

But as to other forms of "cheating"...I don't know about you, but when I'm chasing points in a contest, or chasing DX/prefixes/counties/districts/DOKs/... for my collection, I'm doing it just for the fun of it, for personal satisfaction. I really want to add Iran to my DXCC collection, for example, and I enjoy the hunt and that smile that will break out if I ever get through will feel nice.

I may be annoyed by the tactics that others might use to get the DX in their logs, or hoarding time to fill in leaderboard slots while those of us still looking for ATNOs are trying to get through...but I try not to think about it, because doing so will spoil my fun. If that fun is spoiled, or if I am annoyed by the DQRM...then it's time for me to spin the dial and find some other source of fun.

I could also get all mopey about the sad state of affairs...but here too, I don't want to dwell too much on it, as doing so will only spoil the fun I do have.

Hey, a cellphone emits and receives RF too.

(And, if my desire to have a tower matures faster than my desire to move someplace more conducive to antenna-farming, I may have to take advantage of that.)

 

This decision just cheapen the DXCC award in my opinion. While I am not against someone operating their home station remotely, it is something totally different using a remote station in Europe to work the EP6T dxpedition!

73 Greg W8NGA

 

I was wondering when someone would toss out this troll bait.

 

This is and always will be illegal if you do not sign the proper callsign for the location being used in Europe to make the QSO and will not count for DXCC totals in the USA because the station being used is outside of ones home entity. No matter what rule gets put in place people will still cheat the system if they really want too.

 

no, that's not what it says. you have it backwards. the RF link must be at the QTH; the operator can be anywhere. the contact is same RF, always, to many DX.

 

I personally will not log a QSO with a Remote Base. I can hear one with the audio issues 1,000s of miles away. At that point I ask what type of HF Rig they are using and if they say Remote Base the QSO is over.

73 KC4TVZ Todd