[ADXA] Dave's questions

Tue Aug 19 00:19:52 EDT 2014

Several members of the DX Advisory Committee were present at the DX Forum
at the International DX Convention in Visalia this spring.  The Remote
Operation topic was discussed at length.  As you pointed out, the relative
difficulty in obtaining DXCC, Honor Roll status, Desoto Challenge numbers,
etc, has changed quite a bit since the awards were first established. There
have been a number of factors that have changed the way folks acquire DXCC
entity confirmations.  Most  DXer's these days make use of the spotting
networks and many have the spotting feed connected to a database of
confirmed/verified entities/bands/modes/award info to allow "instant"
notification if a new DXCC or WAZ entity/entity-band/entity-mode station is
on the air.  It isn't difficult to build a station that will allow clicking
on a spot to set the freq/mode/split on the rig (and amp) and turn the yagi
to the correct azimuth. That's a lot different than an op having to read
all the DX newsletters, make note of who's on, what band/mode, when they
are likely to be on, checking propagation charts to that part of the world,
and turning the knobs on the radio listening for them. A lot of our members
with Honor Roll status and big Challenge numbers did a lot of that to get
their results.  They also didn't have QRZ.com , various QSL route help
sites or e-mail to get QSL info and they had to rely on real cards via
Direct or the Buro to get confirmations (at considerable expense and
effort). Rigs have improved a lot over the years, better selectivity, dual
Rx, spectrum displays, panafalls, etc. New digital modes are also making
QSOs possible in really marginal conditions....PSK, and the various WSJT
modes, JT65, JT9, etc. You can work 'em without hearing them!  DXpeditons
are now hauling 3L yagis and KW amps with them to make it much easier for
the DXer with a modest stations to work them on several bands.  If you have
worked hard to build a capable station and managed to accumulate lots of
"counters" it probably doesn't seem fair for the new guys to be using all
this new technology to quickly get up to your altitude.

I view the Remote Station issue in the same light.....it is just one more
new technology that will change DXing.  I won't go into all the DXAC folks
reasoning but they were hesitant to implement a rule on Remote operation
that is not enforceable.  There are currently no Regulatory restrictions on
remote operations.  I think the only current DXCC restriction is that the
operator of the remote station has to be in the same DXCC entity as the
station for the QSO to count.  Remote capability is very easy to achieve
now and there are lots of folks/clubs building super stations on
hills/quite locations and sharing access and expenses. Even if the remote
is close to your home QTH it still represents a big advantage over the
other folks in that area operating from an urban city lot.  Trying to
define a distance limit that makes Remotes "OK" seems difficult and
arbitrary.

That's my two cents worth.  Life isn't Fair....a Fair is something that
happens in the Fall!

73 es DX
Pat, W5VY

On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Frank Fahrlander <
frank.fahrlander at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ADXA mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/adxa
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:ADXA at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/adxa/attachments/20140818/c9d0f437/attachment-0001.html>