[ADXA] Dave's questions

[Frank Fahrlander]

Dave raised a couple questions in his letter to me. Perhaps we can start a discussion about these on this reflector. I’ll start by just throwing out some ideas…

The DX Entity Criteria has a lot of history that, I, as a relatively new DXer, probably don’t fully appreciate. It seems, however, that whatever criteria we have will be too liberal for some and too conservative for others. I also haven’t deduced who is being hurt and who is helped by the current criteria or by the proposed changes. I also don’t know how the criteria is being “gamed.” Any discussion of these ideas would help me better understand the issues. If I were to vote right now, however, I would tend to keep the criteria unchanged.

The “fairness” of remote operation seems like an issue that should be addressed because the ability that modern technology affords is so powerful and potentially disruptive.

Even before we go there, however, let me just ask how the achievement value of a DXCC certificate has changed over time.  A DXCC award achieved in 1960 by a ham operating at only one QTH using wire antennas, a modest receiver and 50 watts means much more than the typical award made today. Clearly most contemporary operators apply the assistance of many new technologies that improve our ability to achieve the “same” award. Our stations, our awareness of DX, our awareness of our DXCC status and needs, and our ability to live where we want to and move our stations and QSOs QSOs with us are huge factors that make DXCC less of a personal challenge today than it once was. One could say that remote operation is just one more technology we can use and just accept “that those that can, will.” To do so will no doubt permit the achievement value of a DXCC certificate to be diluted more and more. One idea is to just accept that “new DXers” just have it easier than “old DXers” did and leave it at that. The value of a DXCC certificate is known better by knowing when and how it was achieved. 

I’m a new DXer. My first DXCC award was composed of QSOs from Ohio, Arizona, California and Arkansas. I have been able to apply DX clusters, DX data bases, great equipment, modest antennas and great logging software. I press 2 buttons on my rig to send “N7FF” and “599 TU” to put most CW DX stations in my log. I can get notified of a new one that I need with an email message. I’ve taken advantage of many wonderful technologies and I love them. As a result, I know that my DXCC award does not represent the same achievement value as those achieved with less technology. However, I don’t often compare my accomplishments with others. I just look at my own achievements and understand how I met the challenges with the technology that I have chosen to apply.

Now, all that being said, I must ask whether remote station technology will dilute the value of DXCC awards so much so as to make them worthless. I think it will make future DXCC awards much less valuable but probably not worthless. Despite our parading of DXCC stats and having “count downs” at conventions, DXCC awards will remain, to me, a personal achievement that probably only I can appreciate and evaluate properly.

Now, let me try to look at the situation from an “old DXers” point of view.

If I wear a DX Honor Roll pin it means something to others hams. It gives me some credentials. It gives me some amount of honor for my achievement. When I stand for long counts in a “DX count down” I am recognized as an achiever. I hate the idea that what I have achieved may become meaningless or worthless because of the introduction of a new technology that removes the challenge and makes the achievement effortless. It makes sense that certain game changing technologies should be contained or disallowed. They can be applied in other games or have their own set of awards. A sense of fairness is at stake for all those who have long played the game without such technologies. Real “old DXers” can probably make this case even stronger.

So what are we to do? Regardless of my own view of “achievement value” being mostly personal, I can accept that it is not in the best interests of the DXCC award program to lets its awards become meaningless. Along that line of thinking, it has always made sense to me to somehow make DXCC QTH more specific than just the Entity. In the USA, we have such a large area, I would think DXCC might be best awarded by region of the US or perhaps even by state. Computer technology certainly could allow this. A new award system could replace DXCC that accounts for award points on pairs of world regions. Perhaps we should adopt GRID square based DXCC awards and forget about entities.

Assuming we have more precise location based awards, the idea of remote stations in the US would morph into different awards naturally.  Over time, we would see that the value of location based awards would be easier to compare. We could even normalize them using statistics to make their relative value more comparable. It would be a kind of handicap system. In a future with universal electronic logging, this would all be practical and perhaps more “fair.”

Enough for this evening.  :)

73,  frank