I agree with you Joel, DXCC is a competitive endeavor, in a different way than
contesting but competitive none the less and it's excluded from the discussions
here I believe because the focus of this list and it's membership is
contesting. The use of remote receiving sites especially for the low bands is
a game changer for DXCC as well....I don't doubt that remote transceiver sites
are being used on other continents to achieve contacts with some of the rare DX
and expeditions as well...they may not be part of the RHR system but they are
not the only game in town.
How do you police it...don't know...
I do think if there were another category to compete in...say an "Unlimited"
category those utilizing that technology under the radar now would be more
likely to move to that category and compete openly with full disclosure as
opposed to continuing to cheat in a "Legacy" category. Maybe then it would
just sort itself out.
I do agree...the genie is out of the bottle and has been for some time and we
are going to need changes to set things right or we risk diluting the process
whether it be contest events or DXCC to the point where many see it as having
lost all integrity and value. That's where many are now with the DXCC program.
Let's hope for changes to both the contesting and DXCC processes that allow for
both the Legacy (old school) ops and the new generation techie stations to
coexist peacefully and productively.
Cecil
K5DL
Sent using recycled electrons.
> On Mar 17, 2015, at 1:34 PM, "Joel Harrison" <w5zn@w5zn.org> wrote:
>
> If someone doesn't believe DXCC is a competition then you have never been
> to a DX club meeting, a DX Forum at a hamfest or attended a DX event where
> the "Stand up and count down" activity is conducted. You can classify it
> however you want, but it IS a competition just the same as a radio sport
> event because when it comes right down to it, radio sport is just a
> personal achievement with a similar plaque to hang on the wall just like
> DXCC. I enjoy both and also enjoying leaning back in my chair and admiring
> "My" personal achievements in both areas and also enjoy strutting around
> with those lapel pins on (c'mon....so does everyone else!! :-))
>
> I have no issue with remotes being used to access a person's station in a
> single location, or a person using a station remotely that is located in a
> specific geographical area and identified as such. But to utilize a remote
> station to gain a geographical advantage in DXCC or a radiosport event is
> simply not fair or on a level field. I believe we all agree on that.
>
> One can argue over current rules, whether DXCC or radio sport, until we're
> exhausted and still have not changed each others opinion but we appear to
> all agree that 1)remote operation is here and will be from this day
> fourth; and 2) Rules will most definitely need to be revised and adjusted
> to address this.
>
> One could also argue that the impact on some amateur bands is minimal but
> when 160 meters and 6 meters come in to play there is a significant impact
> and therein lies part of the difficult issue to address.
>
> I, for one, look forward to the end result because I do believe rule
> revisions need to be made in both DXCC and radio sport, but my experience
> in the area of amateur radio rules, regulations and politics says this
> will be an ongoing evolution for a long time in both areas of DXCC
> competition and radio sport competition.
>
> 73 Joel W5ZN
>
>
>> ARRL changed the rules to allow remotes within the country. I didn't. I
> don't even use remotes. The ARRL also allowed you to move around. These
> are completely different animals. Since you can move around and work
> DXCC then why not use Remote radios to work DX, ***********IF you
> want************* I worked DXCC stuff in Montana while I lived there and
> here in Colorado. Some people have chosen to start over. DXCC is a
> personal singular based award. What you do with DXCC and how you chase it
> has NO impact on my ability to chase my own DXCC.
>> The alleged IT0XXX who worked K1N from the USA, probably operated that
> radio outside our laws and regs. He failed to identify properly and might
> have put the actual station owner at risk to FCC action. Exactly who was
> in control of that radio and how was this allowed to happen? Remote radio
> owners who share their stations might want to take note. Contesting is a
> specific event on specific dates. If Andy wants to allow remote SDR
> receivers and that is in the rules then if you want to be competitive you
> better figure out how to do that ********IF you want*********. Contesting
> is a competition. DXCC is singular award that can take place over years
> and years. I can't understand how people think DXCC is a competition.
> Everyone can get DXCC Honor Roll #1. If we are all sitting at 339 and a
> new country comes up the guy that gets number 1 is not the first guy that
> makes it into the log. Everyone gets number 1 that works them and gets it
> confirmed, right? If a contest is created that allows participants to use
> remote radios anywhere in their country or allowed by all the various
> laws, so be it. Maybe it would be a big hit. It would be quite different
> than what we have now.
>> Please explain to me how DXCC relates at all to Contesting.
>> Mike W0MU
>>> On 3/17/2015 10:31 AM, Larry Burke wrote:
>>> Absolutely fascinating that you would hold this view for contesting but
> not
>>> for DXCC based on your historical comments, Mike.
>>> Larry K5RK
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of W0MU
> Mike
>>> Fatchett
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:08 AM
>>> To: topband@contesting.com
>>> Subject: Re: Topband: Use of Remote Receivers During 160 Meter Contests
> We are are going to allow remote receivers, why not remote transmitters all
>>> over the world too...It if were legal.
>>> We might as well just get on any one of the messaging systems,
> Facebook,
>>> Apple, Hangouts, Skype and have contests and free up the airwaves for
> more
>>> important stuff.
>>> You need to hear my transmitter from your location and I need to hear
> yours
>>> from mine.
>>> I am a proponent of remote radio where ALL of the receiving and
> transmitting
>>> is done from the same SINGLE remote site with the same distance radius
> for
>>> that equipment to be in.
>>> Mike W0MU
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
> www.w5zn.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|