[Dx-qsl] New DXCC Rules

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

AA6YQ wrote:

> 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.

What ARRL did made very little difference other than to allow one to
control a remote station from outside his/her own DXCC country.  For 
example, if VA3XYZ is a snowbird, he can now control his home station
while spending the winter in Florida and have those QSOs count for his
VA3XYZ DXCC.

It is what ARRL *did not do* that makes the difference here.  There is
no prohibition against playing "dial a station" with multiple remote
superstations in one's own country to "chase propagation" or gain
geographic advantage particularly on 6M and 160/80M.  Use of commercial
remote stations could make a difference of 500 "countries" in DXCC
Challenge on 160/80 and 6 meters over a modestly equipped station in
a single location - even if that location was one of the "advantaged"
coasts.

While, in this day and age where careers take an individual from coast
to coast, it is unfair to require a DXer to "start over" if a move
results in a change of QTH outside a call area, or require "snow birds"
pursue separate DXCC awards summer/winter,  the Board and DXAC need to
consider rules that would limit the use of remote stations to a single
"home station".  Thus a "road warrior", "snow bird", or individual with
CC&R issues that prevent maintaining an effective station can use his
or her *own* station for DXCC but not abuse commercial superstations to
gain a temporal or geographic advantage.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2015-01-24 2:23 PM, dx-qsl-request at mailman.qth.net wrote:
> 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