[SFDXA] DXCC Rule Proposal Survey

[Bill]

> A motion was passed at the July 2014 Board of Directors Meeting to task
> the Programs and Services Committee (P&SC) with looking at the use of
> remote stations in the DXCC awards program. Here is the actual motion:
> 
> "WHEREAS the DX Century Club (DXCC) is the premier ARRL award program,
> and has amateur operator participants worldwide; and
> 
> WHEREAS remote controlled stations are becoming more popular and
> represent new advancements in computer and radio technologies; and
> 
> WHEREAS remote controlled stations both commercial “for hire/rent”
> and private pose both opportunities and challenges within the DXCC
> program;
> 
> NOW BE IT RESOLVED that the ARRL Board of Directors hereby tasks the
> Programs and Services Committee to closely examine this issue and
> consider the possible advantages, disadvantages and any potential
> ethical issues as it relates strictly to the DXCC program. The PSC
> should report its findings and any recommendations back to the ARRL
> Board no later than the January 2015 Annual Meeting of the ARRL Board
> of Directors."
> 
> As I am a member of the P&SC, I'll be directly participating in the
> examination. I'll try to summarize the basics and to impartially
> summarize the arguments on both sides. 
> 
> Currently the DXCC rules require that all contacts for a DXCC award
> must occur from the same entity. In other words, If you move around the
> continental United States, contacts made in any of the 48 states count
> towards that DXCC award. Other than requiring the operator to be in the
> same entity as the receiver and transmitter, the rules are currently
> silent on the use of remote stations that are located in the same DXCC
> entity.
> 
> Years ago there was a rule that said all contacts for an DXCC award had
> to be within 150 miles, but that language was removed quite some time
> ago.
> 
> With the advent of the Internet, it has become commonplace for amateurs
> to be able to remote control their stations while they travel or
> otherwise are away from their home station. There are now clubs that
> offer remote access to a well constructed station as a membership
> benefit. There are also now commercial operations that charge for the
> use of their remote stations which may include stations located
> throughout the continental United States (and elsewhere).
> 
> Below are the arguments from both sides that I have heard most
> frequently. There are other arguments on both sides of the issue.
> 
> The arguments in favor of restricting the use of remote stations
> generally center around what is perceived as an unfair advantage
> available to amateurs using premium stations located in other parts of
> the country. It is often easier for a station in the Northeast to work
> stations in Europe and stations in the Northwest to work stations in
> Asia. The argument is that, for example, a station in Florida using a
> well equipped remote station on the West Coast to work a rare country
> in the Pacific is not fair.
> 
> The arguments in favor of continuing to allow remote operations for
> DXCC award credit include: DXCC is an individual achievement, not a
> contest; someone who has physically moved around or visited within the
> 48 continental States gets credit for all DXCC entities contacted from
> any of those states—technological advances now allow that "movement"
> to be electronic; and some amateurs have two homes located in different
> areas of the country and use an Internet connection to operate the main
> station when they are at the other home.
> 
> If you support the idea of limiting the use of remote stations for DXCC
> award credit, send an email before 9/15/2014 to yes at arrlse.org that
> includes your callsign in the body of the email.
> 
> If you oppose the idea of adding any new restrictions to the use of
> remote stations for DXCC award credit, send an email before 9/15/2014
> to no at arrlse.org that includes your callsign in the body of the email.
> 
> Please only send one email and add any comments you would like to.
> Comments that explain specific restrictions or conditions you would be
> in favor of are particularly helpful. I won't have time to respond
> individually, but I will read all emails received. 
> 
> Thanks & 73, 
> de K4AC
> 
> ARRL Southeastern Division
> Director: Doug Rehman, K4AC
> k4ac at arrl.org