[Dx-qsl] New DXCC Rules

[Dave AA6YQ]

>AA6YQ comments below

-----Original Message-----
From: DX-QSL [mailto:dx-qsl-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Doug Renwick
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 1:59 PM
To: 'Richard F DiDonna NN3W'; dx-qsl at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Dx-qsl] New DXCC Rules

Comments ##  below:

-----Original Message-----
From: DX-QSL [mailto:dx-qsl-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Richard F DiDonna NN3W

DXCC has always been an individual achievement.  Always.

##  I agree.

DXCC has never been an equal footing competition.  Operators use their own equipment, their own time, and operate from stations
featuring different geographies and different topographies.

##  I disagree.  The ARRL/DXCC sees it otherwise.  They publish the DXCC and 5B standings which puts everyone, everyone, into the
same competition.

>>>Yes everyone is in the same competition, but as Rich NN3W pointed out the competitors are not on an equal footing. DXers whose
QTH is 100 miles from an auroral zone are competing with Dxers whose QTH is on the equator. DXers with a single QTH are competing
with DXers with multiple QTHs within the same large DXCC entity. DXers who are limited to equipment for which they scrimp and save
to build by hand are competing with DXers who happen to live near a well-funded club or contest station with monoband stacks and
four-squares.

>>> Other than in contrived situations like WRTC, no two DXers have identical operating conditions. Whoever originally established
the ARRL DXCC awards decided to mostly ignore these variations. Over the years, DXers in large numbers have pursued these awards,
despite the fact that the playing field is not remotely level and cannot ever be level. Changes in technology must be addressed one
way or the other, and there may be no option that pleases a majority of DXers, much less all of them. 

>>>It would have been better for the ARRL to have setup an online forum on which DXers could weigh in, and see what their fellow
DXers had to say. While this probably would not have changed the outcome, there'd be less of a concern that the changes were made
without broad input.

         73,

                Dave, AA6YQ