[Dx-qsl] (not so) New DXCC Rules

Sat Jan 24 15:22:56 EST 2015

seems to be a misunderstanding about what was actually done / not done. remote operation has been allowed for DXCC for the past 40 or 50 years - there has been no change to that fact. the only "change" made by ARRL now is to specify that the CONTROL OPERATOR of the remote station does not have to be in the same entity as the remote station. however, and more importantly, the DXCC award remains linked to the entity where the remote station is located. so if I want to have a qso count for my USA DXCC award, the remote station I use must be somewhere in the USA. I can be "on the far side of the moon" when controlling the remote, but the remote must be in the USA to count for my KF2O DXCC. (and I must have a USA license to operate it.) some folks seem to think the "new" rules allow them to control a remote located in say, Japan, to make a qso with say, Pratas Island and count it for their USA DXCC. not so. the remote must be located in the USA for it to count for USA DXCC.

most of the negative criticism seems to be that "anyone can do it if you can move around the country using remotes". there is some truth in that (if you reside in a large enough entity). but it is equally, or more, true that "anyone can do it" using telnet packet spots; or with 4 squares and tremendous towers, or with fantastic (expensive) receivers, or a hilltop location 100 feet from salt water, etc. etc. this continues to allow antenna restricted amateurs to use a technology that keeps them on the air; it continues to allow you to operate your HOME station remotely if you are on vacation. and many other similar positives. and if you kill off remotes, then it is only logical that you also eliminate travelling around to different stations, which would give the same advantage; or having two or more homes in different parts of the country working under a single DXCC award. so someone making a job change would have to "start over" DXCC to keep them from gaining an advantage. 

the reality is that in 1950 not many hams worked 200 countries (if any) but since then there has been so much technological improvement that ARRL had to create a Challenge award because achieving DXCC or even top of the honor roll, had become so commonplace. and top of the honor roll has been done without remotes by most of the present list. remotes is simply one more technology in use, and ARRL has chosen not to stand in its way. frankly I think it is far less important than packet spots - would you give up packet spots to get remotes? standing in the way of technology usually gets folks trampled.
Hank KF2O