[Dx-qsl] RE: DX-QSL Digest, Vol 47, Issue 21

Tue Dec 18 20:42:09 EST 2007

Graham wrote, "UK Licenses are not signed...."
Technically, US licenses are not signed either. Before someone takes me to
task for this statement, refer to Sections 97.5(a) & 97.7(a) of the FCC
Rules & Regulations (CFR Title 47). The authority to operate an amateur
station in the U.S. is no longer the piece of paper that the FCC mails to
you and which lists your callsign and has a place for you to affix your
signature. The authority to operate is a license grant appearing in the ULS
database. There is even a website (not FCC) where you can print out a copy
of your license that looks almost identical to the "official" one you get
from the FCC. This website is not restricted in any way, you can print out
anyone's license if you wish. All of this rambling is only to make the
point that a signed copy of your license is literally not worth the paper it
is printed on.
By the way, my license from Belize does not bear my signature, either.
Now, my own comments on this debate:
The idea of taking the ARRL to court as a monopoly in restraint of trade
has, in my unprofessional opinion, no chance of going anywhere whatsoever.
The ARRL may, in some sense, be classified as a business, I will not debate
that point one way or the other. However, the ARRL awards, including DXCC,
are awards primarily established for the members of the ARRL. In fact, US
amateurs must be ARRL members to participate in the awards program; an
exemption is made in the case of non-US amateurs. They are ARRL awards. As
such, the ARRL has the sole right and the responsibility to set the rules
under which the awards are achieved, including what constitutes a valid
confirmation of a contact. Do I agree with the LOTW program in all
respects? No. Do I feel that the LOTW authentication process is overly
complicated for what is essentially a hobby? Yes. However, the fact remains
that the ARRL owns the awards and therefore has the sole authority to set
the rules.
There is no monopoly, nor is there any restraint of trade. Nothing the ARRL
has done prohibits any individual or organization from establishing their
own awards and setting the rules under which they may be achieved. In fact,
the reverse is true. eQSL has their own equivalent of DXCC, as does
WorldRadio Magazine. They have set the rules for their own particular
awards and established what method of confirmation is required. In the case
of the eQSL wards, you have to pay for their "premium" memberships and ALL
confirmations must be through eQSL. That is more restrictive than DXCC from
the ARRL; but eQSL has every right to establish those criteria. I do not
see W4SCO complaining about eQSL having a monopoly in restraint of trade.
The only "monopoly" is the de facto one that DXCC is the premier DX award
and is more in demand than all of the other DX awards combined.
I feel that it is extremely arrogant for W4SCO to presume that, if he could
contrive an electronic QSL system with absolute security and that is totally
invulnerable to any kind of falsification, he can force the ARRL to accept
confirmations through his system. They are ARRL awards, & the ARRL sets the
rules. As a retired IT professional, I can attest that this goal of
absolute security can never be achieved. But even if it could, the ARRL
would simply not be required to accept it.
73, Ray, K9DUR