ad: Schulman-1

Big change on DXCC rules

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by BG4CZX, Jan 23, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-2
ad: abrind-2
ad: Radclub22-2
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
  1. BG4CZX

    BG4CZX Ham Member QRZ Page

    Today, the ARRL issued a DXCC rule change announcement.

    http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-board-okays-changes-to-dxcc-program-vhf-and-above-contesting-rules

    The ARRL Board of Directors has tweaked the DX Century Club (DXCC) rules to clarify and expand their recognition of remotely controlled station technology. It also has added a rule that puts greater ethical responsibility on operators with respect to remotely controlled operation. In addition, the Board adopted changes to the ARRL VHF/UHF contest rules that are aimed at encouraging greater participation. The Board took the actions during its annual meeting January 16-17 in Windsor, Connecticut.
    The DXCC Rules changes, which affect Section I, subsections 8 and 9, explain and extend how contacts with remotely controlled stations now may be applied toward the DXCC award. According to ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ, the changes are subtle but significant. The modified rules make clear that contacts with legally licensed, land-based, remotely controlled stations count for DXCC, but the control point — the operator’s location — of a remotely controlled station no longer has to be land based; the operator can be literally anywhere.
    “It has always been permitted for a QSO to count for both stations, if either station was operated remotely from a control point within the same DXCC entity,” Sumner explained. “Now the location of the operator doesn’t matter; the operator could be on the far side of the Moon if he or she could figure out how to remotely control a station on land back on Earth from there.” Transmitter location continues to define a station’s location, and, for DXCC purposes, all transmitters and receivers must be located within a 500 meter diameter circle, excluding antennas.
    Under the old rules, if either station was operated from a control point in anotherDXCC entity, the contact did not count for DXCC for eitherstation. “This was unenforceable unless someone was transparent about what they were doing,” Sumner said.
    The Board further adopted a new rule, now Subsection 11 (subsequent rules will be renumbered accordingly), that acknowledges the reality of the technology enabling remote operation, and it puts greater responsibility on individuals when it comes to applying that technology ethically and responsibly.
    “Issues concerning remotely controlled operating and DXCC are best dealt with by each individual carefully considering the ethical limits that he/she will accept for his/her DXCC and other operating awards,” the new rule states. It adds, in part, “the owner of these achievements needs to be comfortable standing behind his/her award and numbers. Peer attention has always been a part of awards chasing, of course, but in these times with so many awards and so many players, it is more important than ever to ‘play the game ethically.’”
    Subsection 11 acknowledges that technological advances “add to the difficulty in defining rules for DXCC,” but stresses that the intent of the rules is what’s important. “It will continue to be up to the operator to decide what types of legal remote control operating he/she will use (if any) to contribute to an operating award,” the new rule concludes.
    The Board also adopted amendments to the General Rules for ARRL Contests Above 50 MHz to encourage greater participation and band utilization. The changes become effective with the 2015 June ARRL VHF Contest. The revisions stemmed from recommendations offered by the Board’s Programs and Services Committee’s ad-hoc VHF and Above Revitalization subcommittee, composed of active VHF/UHF contesters, and they received strong support from the VHF/UHF community.
    The subcommittee was charged with developing recommendations to increase the level and breadth of ARRL VHF and above contest participation and encourage operation on lesser-used bands. As a start to the process, the Board approved three changes that will permit assistance for all operator categories, with no effect on entry category; permit self-spotting for all operator categories, and allow single operators to transmit on more than one band at a time.
    The changes will permit assistance in arranging contacts, but not in conducting contacts. They will, for example, allow a station to announce its location in a chat room, on a repeater, or even via e-mail.
    In other actions, the Board instructed the HF Band Planning Committee — which soon will solicit members’ comments on proposed changes to the ARRL HF Band Plans — to include the possibility of requesting that the FCC add RTTY and data privileges for Novices and Technicians on 15 meters.
    The Board also

    • Bestowed the 2014 George Hart Distinguished Service Award on David B. Colter, WA1ZCN.
    • Added “Assistant Section Traffic Manager” as a new field appointment.
    • Authorized ARRL Headquarters staff to implement guidelines to expand opportunities for field checking of 160 meter QSL cards for DXCC.
    • Honored several professional journalists with the ARRL Bill Leonard Award for their outstanding coverage of Amateur Radio in video, print, and aural media.



     
  2. NK5A

    NK5A Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    This whole thing sux !!
     
  3. KL7AJ

    KL7AJ Ham Member QRZ Page

    I don't see a real problem with this if the location of the actual transmitter/antenna is properly within the entity. The "R.F. to R.F." skill set is untarnished in this case.
     
  4. N4AAB

    N4AAB Ham Member QRZ Page

    Sounds okay, but time will tell.
     
  5. WW7F

    WW7F Guest

    This just goes to show that money always talks ,now all one has to do is have money to basically set up a network of remote stations and pick off the stations as easily as a "hunter" shooting at sitting ducks :(

    And "WIN" awards by using things besides the ionosphere alone. Might as well give them out to Echolink users as well.

    BTW not against Echolink, I use it occasionally but this ARRL move lowers the bar a little IMHO.

    Then maybe next have a "special class" for those using Smartphones,after all they are transceivers and use RF although at microwave frequencies?

    This will I predict slow our growth , I think those who worked hard for the DXCC awards will to some extent feel like this is analogous to Incentive Licensing.
    Or is this just in case we are entering another Maunder Minimum to ensure ham radio stays alive by using the telco for DXCC and WAS will be Worked All Satellites maybe?
    And I do not mean hamsats I mean telco owned birds.
    What next, An award for DXCC using nothing but a person's Smartphone and remote stations?

    Yeah, I know ,some might say this is progress, but sounds more like placating a few with money to increase support of the hobby, instead of a progressive move for the future of the hobby.
    It will never replace the excitement of hearing the RF directly no wires or telco sats in between the two,some prefer unadulterated Ionosphere over telco aided contacts.
    MAybe this is just a byproduct of the web, we are used to talking anyplace anytime, I think it spoiled a few of us perhaps a little eh?
    IMHO likely not a good move.
    Just my 2 cents worth,nothing important or worth debating. Have fun though, however a person enjoys the hobby is good but awards, I dunno....

    73,Michelle
     
  6. N0AMT

    N0AMT Ham Member QRZ Page

    Either I'm not understanding the announcement correctly, or I'm not understanding the concern.

    If I'm sitting at my station here in Utah, and I have a QSO with New York, Great!
    If I then go on a trip to California, and over the internet I remotely control my radio that is still in Utah, and I have a QSO with New York, what's the difference?

    So, the radio must stay put, and transmit from the same location (give or take 500 meters) but the OPERATOR can be anywhere.

    At least that's how I read it. Seems like ARRL has the right idea to me, personally.
     
  7. K7JBQ

    K7JBQ Ham Member Volunteer Moderator QRZ Page

    That's how I read it too. It's where the transmitter and antenna is that counts for location.

    Makes perfect sense to me.

    73,
    Bill
     
  8. KD8OSD

    KD8OSD Ham Member QRZ Page

    That is how I read it as well. One will NOT be able to remotely use transceivers all over the world, just the one in his shack. Would be like using a wireless headset on the back patio....except the patio could be in Florida while my rig is in Michigan, where my station location is recognized by LOTW/ARRL.

    I see no problem in it.
     
  9. KC8VWM

    KC8VWM Ham Member QRZ Page

    This isn't so confusing.

    The award is (and always was) intended to measure the communication capabilities of RF transmitters that are connected to antennas. ("The amateur radio station")

    An operator in VK land operating a transmitter by remote link located in California, means his station is operating in California, regardless if the operator tells people he is sitting in his living room in Queensland, Australia at the time. The station location is always where the antenna and transmitter is operating from.
     
  10. N9DSJ

    N9DSJ Ham Member QRZ Page


    Hence the contention :)


    It only applies to DXCC; the only other alternative would be to limit (somehow) "remote" operation that is at the crux of the issue or open the definition to include non RF to RF paths as legitimate/valid for DXCC contacts. Also, how would one limit remote receiving (often more than half the battle) which has been used for a long time -- pretty hard to control.

    73,

    Bill N9DSJ
     
  11. AC7DX

    AC7DX Guest

    The whiners will be out in force.................. baaaaby.jpg
     
  12. N1EN

    N1EN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Part of the concern they were contemplating was the perceived fairness of, for example, the person who rents a remote station on the other side of the country, gaining the advantage of presumably better antennas and better propagation.

    Consider those of us in 1-land who might someday want to work P5.

    W1 to P5 is a tough path.

    A 1-lander could take his station portable, and work P5 from the west coast for DXCC credit.

    Or a 1-lander could borrow an established west coast station and work P5 via remote control.

    I don't have a problem with that last possibility myself (what's the difference if your CW key and headphone cables are 2 meters long or 2000 kilometers long?), but I can understand someone taking issue with such an arrangement taking the "challenge of building the best station you can / working DX with a station you built" element out of DXCC.
     
  13. KW0U

    KW0U Ham Member QRZ Page

    Seems okay to me too; DXCC has always been an honor thing and while occasionally (even back to the 1930s) some people were caught cheating, almost everyone follows the rules. If the remote op says the transmitter is in a rare entity, it probably is. (Although that presumably could be checked--local licensing, pictures, etc.)

    One side effect of this rule may be that some rare DX entities could become more common. A station may be licensed and set up in a difficult to reach or dangerous entity and, perhaps with a little local maintenance, kept running. A homebound "DXpeditioner" could access it at any time (I presume there would be some safeguards limiting who could do this), and presto we have a long-term operation from a rare one.
     
  14. N9DSJ

    N9DSJ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Understood fully as I see little difference between remotely operating another station and renting it and physically going there.

    Is the contention due to it not being "your" station?

    Obviously I am dense as to the DX Century Club regulations....

    73,

    Bill N9DSJ
     
  15. N1EN

    N1EN Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    There is one school of thought that amateur radio and the internet should never mix. (To which I have to ask: what's the difference between my CW and headphone cables being 2 meters long or 2000 kilomerters long?)

    There is another school of thought that takes issue with the notion that (among other things) for a monthly fee and a usage charge, it's now possible for anyone to subscribe to a service that permits you to operate someone's superstation from the comfort of your own home. It's not "fair".

    I'll admit that I take some pleasure in the knowledge that I've worked 280 countries from my little pistol station. I can therefore empathize with someone who would be a little annoyed that some other whippersnapper could leapfrog their way up the DXCC rankings via remote controlled superstations scattered around the country.
    \
    Of course, considering the challenges I'm having getting through to EP6T...I can also see the attraction of such an option.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

ad: MLSons-1