Frank, I agree that it is not an infraction of the rules if the remote operating point, transmitter, and receiver are all in the same DXCC country. The question of whether it's in the spirit of the DXCC Challenge or the DXCC Rules is a little more problematic. But geography doesn't always produce fairness - those of us in the Black Hole of the Midwest are constantly reminded of that! I hope all of our prayers for sunspots will soon be answered. Maybe 6 months from now we'll know if we are indeed at the bottom of the cycle! 73, Cliff K0CA -----Original Message----- From: Frank Fallon [mailto:n2ff@optonline.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 11:08 AM To: Cliff Ahrens Cc: arrl-odv; dpatton@arrl.org Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:15435] FW: [dxac-i:1049] Remote operation - has it gone too far? Cliff, Interesting, but it is not an infraction of the rules as it is from the same DXCC entity. Now, if he had or used a similar set up in Alaska or Puerto Rico it would be a different story. Also, if I were to jump on a cheap Jet Blue flight for LA and get on 10 meters from a friend's station I could also get to work him on 10M with my N2 call. While I can see AD1C's problem of fairness, it is not an infraction and also not really something that is enforceable. I may not like the fact that it is possible to use a remote Internet site to get on 10M and do this sort of thing but I just don't see how practical a method of controlling it can be established. I think, were we to prohibit it, it would be unenforceable. With more sunspots these concerns diminish. I pray for sunspots every Sunday! In fact, it's been so bad lately, that I find myself doing it in the middle of the week. 73 de Frank...N2FF.... Cliff Ahrens wrote:
Here's an email from Jim Reisert AD1C to the DXAC-I reflector about remote operation in the DXCC program. This will likely be a hot policy issue, if it isn't already!
It will be interesting to see what the feedback is from DXAC members. I thought the board would be interested.
Cliff K0CA
DXAC Board Liaison
*From:* Jim Reisert AD1C [mailto:jjreisert@alum.mit.edu] *Sent:* Monday, April 16, 2007 5:04 PM *To:* dxac-i list *Subject:* [dxac-i:1049] Remote operation - has it gone too far?
Hello fellow DXAC members,
I have heard from two different sources in the last week about stations who are near the top of the DXCC Challenge ladder who are making some of their contacts remotely, for example, an East Coast station using a remote transmitter located on the West Coast to work Swains Island on 10 meters, a band otherwise unavailable to most of us in the Northeast. In reading the DXCC Rules as published on the ARRL web site (which seems to match the printed January 2007 edition), I found only these two references to remote operation (the _underlining_ is mine):
http://www.arrl.org/awards/dxcc/rules.html
*8. All stations contacted* must be "land stations." Contacts with ships and boats, anchored or underway, and airborne aircraft, cannot be counted. For the purposes of this award, _remote control operating points must also be land based_. Exception: Permanently docked exhibition ships, such as the Queen Mary and other historic ships will be considered land based.
*9. All stations must be contacted* from the same DXCC Entity. The location of any station shall be defined as the location of the transmitter. For the purposes of this award, _remote operating points must be located within the same DXCC Entity as the transmitter and receiver.
_Is this really within the spirit of the DXCC Challenge, and in the spirit of the DXCC award program in general? Of course, the playing field is never level, but it seems to me that have some have found a way to unlevel it even further.
I have no axe to grind, being far down the list myself.
Thoughts, anyone?
Thanks & 73 - Jim AD1C
-- Jim Reisert AD1C, 7 Charlemont Court, North Chelmsford, MA 01863 USA +978-251-9933, <jjreisert@alum.mit.edu>, http:// <http://www.ad1c.us/> www.ad1c.us <http://www.ad1c.us/>