[ADXA] Remotes, DXCC & Ethics

[Joel Harrison]

There has been a good bit of debate over the past year or so about using a
station at a remote location to earn DXCC credit.

Being able to operate a "superstation" remotely from your home that may be
located in an antenna restricted neighborhood provides a good opportunity
for several folks with an amateur radio license to enjoy being on the air
and today remote technology facilitated by the expansion of the internet
is practically common place.

So how does that play into our pursuit of DX and the DXCC program? Once
upon a time there was a geographical restriction on your DXCC credits. If
you moved to another location some distance away you basically had to
start over with your DXCC totals. A few years ago that rule was removed
and you were allowed to keep all of your DXCC credits that were made from
within the same DXCC country. In other words, all of your DX contacts made
from within the USA, regardless of where you moved to or from in the USA,
were allowed to be kept and used in your totals. The decision to change
this rule was not without opposition. One could argue that, for example,
on a band like 20 meters it did not matter to a great extent where you
were located in the USA as the propagation was somewhat "level" to all
areas of the country. Other bands were quite different! For example 160
meters is a challenging band that presents different propagation paths to
different parts of the USA and therefore can "skew" DXCC totals for that
band if a comparison within certain geographical areas is not considered.
It would be fair for east coast stations to compare their Top Band totals
to other east coast stations but would not be comparing apples to apples
with someone who lived in fly over W5 country. The same unfair advantage
would apply in comparing W1 totals to W6 totals. The west coast crowd has
very few, if any, openings on 160 meters to Europe or the middle east but
has outstanding openings to Asia. In contrast, W1's struggle with
hearing/working JA's or Asia on 160 from the east coast. It is just the
nature of the physics beast and Mother Nature that we have no control
over.

Enter the era of remotes. Now, it is not uncommon for a station on the
west coast, in bright daytime sunlight with no low band propagation
whatsoever to access a remote station in Maine some 3,000 miles away and
work a DX station in the middle east (or on Heard Island!). By the same
token, an east coast station could access a remote in, say, Portland,
Oregon to work a rare entity in southeast Asia. Does this seem fair in the
DXCC competition game?? The current DXCC rules say it is acceptable but
how does that compare to a ham who has built their own station and is
challenged to work DXCC from that one station in one geographical
location? Does it seem fair to place both on the same level?? One operator
who simply whips out a credit card and "shops for propagation" via a
commercial remote to gain an advantage while the other chooses to build
their own station, learn about antennas and propagation and use just one
location?

And what is really fair about the existing DXCC rule of allowing all
contacts from within the same DXCC county? If you live in Paris and move
to Munich, Germany you lose your DXCC credits because you move to another
country. Forget the fact that it is only less that 500 miles. If you moved
from Little Rock, AR to Houston, TX, basically the same distance, you can
keep your credits. Even worse, if you move from Los Angeles to New York,
about 2800 miles with extreme 160 meter propagational differences you keep
your DXCC credits but if you move from London to Paris, just 285 miles you
lose! So this rule is skewed to simply benefit US participants in the DXCC
program. You could argue this is, after all, OUR program and we should
have an advantage but when you're referring to the most popular operating
achievement award in the entire world what is fair about it? It would seem
some mileage criteria whould be appropriate. If you believe moving from
Los Angeles to New York and keeping DXCC credits is fair what about the
poor guy that moves 23 miles from Buffalo, NY to Niagra Falls, Ontario and
loses!

The current debate is rather intense and while I have no issue with remote
operation I have a very big issue with an operator that wants to
participate in the competitive DXCC Challenge that uses different remote
stations in different geographical locations to gain an "edge" in the
program. If an operator chooses to use a remote station to participate in
the DXCC program that is a good thing, but that operator should select
one, and only one, transmitter location for all of their operation and all
DXCC contacts.

There has been comment from the "pro-remote" crowd that DXCC is not a
competitive activity like, for example, radiosport contesting. If that
were the case, I would counter, then why does ARRL publish an annual "DXCC
Standings", maintain a "DXCC Challenge" award where stations are ranked
against each other and annually present a "DeSoto Cub" award for the radio
amateur at the top of the "Challenge". In addition, if you have ever been
to a DX club dinner or banquet and witnessed or participated in the
customary "DX Countdown" where everyone stands and the moderator starts
counting up and you sit down once your DXCC total is exceeded and the last
person standing is "crowned" as the DXCC king of the evening, tell me that
is not competitive!!!!!

Like it or not, all of this remote propagation shopping just doesn't seem
fair. And here is another twist! The administrators of the remote sites
keep their users lists confidential so you do not know who is using a
remote station and who is not so even ARRL has no proof of what remote
station the operator used for a DX contact for DXCC credit, even if that
remote station is located outside the USA which would be in direct
violation of the DXCC rules! This calls in to question the integrity of
the DXCC program. Make no mistake about this, ever since its inception
decades ago the DXCC program has been heralded as the most ethical and
respected awards program in amateur radio. A fact based simply upon ARRL's
initiative to enforce the rules and take action upon those who chose not
to abide by them.

So, where does that leave us? We are now at an important juncture with the
DXCC program. It is very important that ARRL listens to the DX community
and addresses these issues immediately with some modification to the
existing rules or expand the program to recognize a separate level of
accomplishment utilizing remote stations. The ARRL's DX Advisory Committee
(DXAC) has offered advice on this matter previously but the ARRL Board is
yet to take any action.

Once again, just to be clear, the intent here is not to restrict or deter
the use of remote technology. It is a valuable tool that will be good for
amateur radio. But when a few malcontents take advantage of the DXCC
program, the DXCC rules and step beyond commonly accepted ethical behavior
corrective action must be taken.

At the request of our ARRL Delta Division Director and ADXA member Dave,
K5UZ, we will be discussing a position for ADXA to take in this matter to
support K5UZ in his effort to maintain and strengthen the integrity of the
DXCC program.

More later. In the meantime, jump in those pileups and beat up some east
coast guys!!!!!  :-))

73 Joel W5ZN