Remote Control Operation and the DXCC Program
After DeSoto described how DXers could count their countries worked, it wasn’t long until an award was created to recognize their accomplishments. The DX Century Club was announced in QST for September 1937. Creation of the award was due in large part to the efforts of its Managing Editor Clark Rodimon, W1SZ. In QST for November 1937, a list of DXers was published listing the DXers who had submitted their near 100 country totals to ARRL. (Yes, of course Rodimon’s total was listed…)
Among the original Century Club rules was one that required that all program participants make their QSOs from within the boundaries of their own call areas, where such call areas existed. Otherwise they had to make their QSOs from within the same country. Within a few months, recognizing that there were problems with this requirement – where DXers could move a short distance to another call area, requiring a restart – the rule was changed such that one could move a station up to 150 miles without having to re-start one’s participation in the DXCC program. This so-called 150-mile rule continued in place until mobility in the U.S. became so great in the 1970s that a change was deemed necessary. At that time, there was considerable discussion about this change. With the change to “anywhere within a single country,” the problem for large countries was resolved, though the problem was transferred to small countries – of course, that’s a different matter.
In the original DXCC listing, DXers were shown in order of their accomplishment. Those with the largest number of countries worked were at the top of the list. Those with fewer were farther down. Logic says that this order was arbitrary. How could it be any other way? Certainly those from the US Midwest could not be competing with those from the East Coast or Europe.
But, could it have been another way? Listing by countries worked implies competition. What if the listings had been alpha-numeric? Why not? An alpha-numeric listing today would greatly facilitate finding the score of a particular individual. Such a listing would also make sense since there really isn’t any meaningful competition intended by the sponsor. Any competition should be defined only by the participants.
Now, with the technological advantages we all enjoy, a dilemma exists: How to deal with the use of Internet-based remote control. Regardless of competitive aspects, there is an inherent propagation advantage gained in DXing using multiple remote stations – or just receivers – in far-flung locations, even within a single country. Many of us have an aversion to others DXing via remote control, where the DXer’s station can be anywhere – multiple locations – within any single country. But while we don’t seem to mind complicated remote control schemes – or even ‘phone patches – the internet is just too easy. This issue raises hackles among many program participants – to the extreme that some DXers feel any use of remote control is simply cheating – period.
Since the ARRL Board decision in the summer of 2015 allowing internet-based remote control points virtually anywhere, considerable discussion and discontent has arisen. Practically speaking, outlawing remote operation is really pointless as there is simply no way to enforce rules limiting this type of operation. (Of course, these remote operations have been going on for years, and the rules changes have just raised our consciousness.) Our Federal Communications Commission has its own problems regulating remote operation since the Internet facilitates operation from other countries, and only the control operator – not the station owner — is responsible.
To help address this matter, after a short introduction, the DX Forum panel at the International DX Convention in Visalia – 2016 will spend much of its hour listening to opinions from members of the audience on Remote Control DXCC. What is the solution?
If you are coming to Visalia in April – and we hope you are – come prepared to stand up and express yourself. If you cannot make the trip, write to me with your well-thought-out opinions and we’ll include them in the program.
-N7NG
Cheating by Remote
Something unusual occurred on 8. January, 2016. ZL9A, the DXpedition to Antipodes Island, ZL9A announced the following on their Webpage:
“Please note that contacts with remotely controlled stations will NOT be accepted.”
No further comment could be found. There was no indication relating how they would determine that a station is “remotely controlled.” Whether they were referring to any remote operation, or more likely illegal remote operation, such as an operator signing an illegal callsign was unclear. An example Illegal operation would be a European callsign identifying a USA remotely controlled station.
(Note, using a non-USA callsign through a USA remote station is patently illegal, though a representative of the FCC has admitted that enforcement is/would be “difficult” if the apparent control operator is located outside FCC jurisdiction, since at this point, the station owner has no responsibility.)
I assume that the ZL9A group is saying that if they hear a signal with a callsign associated with an area to which there is no possibility of propagation at the time, they will not recognize it; they will not log it. I believe it is appropriate for any DX station to take such a stand. Though we should applaud them for taking this action, due care on their part is still required.
When at H40AA, I remember a QSO with a station signing “W1__” while I was operating on Topband. The West Coast was weak but copyable, but this W1 – well after his sunrise – was sounding very much like a “local” station from the northwest of H40. (I still have a tape of that QSO and the sound of that W1.) It was not from a remote station, but most likely a “friend” make the QSO. It is usually very easy to distinguish between signals coming from the expected area and others coming from somewhere else.
With the proliferation of technology facilitating remote operation via the internet and the resulting liberalization of DXCC rules allowing the remote control operator to be in virtually any location in the Universe, I believe this abuse was and is inevitable.
This is not a bad thing, however. It is not that the cheating is occurring, as cheating has occurred virtually since DXCC’s 1930s beginning. What is significant is that it can now be more easily recognized, perhaps because it is so blatant. What needs to be done now is to “out the perps” and maybe even the station owners; let the world know what is going on. Call out such stations so that they will be recognized “on the air” by their callsigns.
The case for liberalization of the location of control points was and is based on the fact that illegal remote operation of some form or other has been common practice and will continue to be common practice. A head-in-the-sand approach accomplishes nothing. (Legal remote control is another matter, of course.)
If “outing” of these illegal practices occurs and leads to a more common knowledge of who is doing it, the decision to liberalize the DXCC remote control rules will have been worth the risk, and the practice will become self-limiting. To sweep these occurrences “under the rug” serves no purpose, and perpetuates the problem.
As time goes on, DXpeditions in particular will hear more and more of these occurrences. I lobbied for the DXCC rule change, and it is my fondest hope that the change itself will lead to an accelerated “outing” of those operators who insist on breaking the rules.
-N7NG
A Little Story
“Yes you can, but…”
Back in the 80s, I went to Clipperton twice. Each time with different teams. The first, in 1985 was a large, multinational group. The second a year later was a much smaller group, all closely related to North California. These were my first DXpeditions. Prior to these trips I hadn’t thought of DXpeditioning myself. I had wondered if I was qualified, and whether I should even throw my hat in the ring. When asked however, I jumped at the chance to participate, and it worked out, at least for me. Little did I know at the time how much of a learning experience each of these trips would be.
How the two groups worked out, and what I learned would eventually provide the material for some very useful lessons. In the first case, I learned quite a bit about personalities and how they all worked together – or didn’t. That one eventually defined the difficult job of leadership. The second case was one of much greater unity. We were all familiar with one another, and worked much more smoothly together. It was a dream. But there was still more to learn.
A short time after these trips, some of the team members learned that not everyone in the world has the same point of view regarding how you — as a group – performed as DXpeditioners. This was many long years ago, but some lessons take a long time to fully understand. If you go on such a trip, your return home will be lots of fun. Your friends will all be very happy about their accomplishments – working you.
At some point though, another truth may emerge. If you want to learn how well you really performed – on a worldwide scale – visit one of the target areas – the difficult ones – and make your case to those DXers. Depending on how honest your hosts are, you might see and hear a different point of view of your success.
In both of our cases, as we returned home, we were overwhelmed with praise about how well we performed. It was great. Everyone was happy. Of course, those greeting us were the noted locals, all having a “chip shot” to Clipperton and filling their logs with QSOs from the long to the short wavelengths. But, a few months later, some cracks appeared in the picture. In the mail, I received a letter from one of our southern contingent containing a translation of an article that appeared in the Spanish CQ magazine (Spain). It contained considerable criticism about how we had handled the European operators; what we had done wrong.
Sometime later, while preparing for a trip to Auckland Island (ZL9), I had the opportunity to meet Martti, OH2BH in Las Vegas. (I was traveling and made a point to change my return flight from Chicago to pass through Las Vegas so that we could meet for an evening.) During that evening, Martti and I spend many hours talking and discussing DXpeditioning. We talked until the sun came up. In that one evening I learned more about DXing and DXpeditioning than on any single occasion since.
Of course, what I learned wasn’t exactly what I wanted to hear. But, it had become more than clear after our Clipperton trip that we hadn’t satisfied the whole audience. So the increased clarity was helpful. Though the trip was conducted at the bottom of the sunspot cycle, solar storms notwithstanding, we still could have done better. When we had those difficult openings, we hadn’t made the best of the opportunities. We faced the “Wall of Sound” hardly even recognizing what it was.
Today, many DXers and contesters believe that if they can pull a callsign out of a pileup, they can be successful DXpeditioners. Without a doubt, finding calls in the pileup is an important DXpeditioning skill. But it is only the tip of the iceberg. Contesting requires an important skillset. DXpeditioning also requires an important skillset – a somewhat different one – though there is some overlap. If you are very good at one, however, you are not necessarily equally good at the other. A DXpedition is not a contest, and if you think it is, you will likely fail when trying your non-native activity.
To succeed as a DXpeditioner, a Contester or a DXer, start with an open mind and learn what you can from those “who can.” More than anything, understand that an education is the process of learning what you don’t know. If you ignore this, you will very likely fail.
N7NG for the DX University
DX University Summit Meeting in Rome
For many years, members of the three primary population centers have been characterized and labeled usually as a group following major DXpeditions. They are usually characterized in different ways. The Asians (primarily Japanese) have been seen as highly disciplined. According to some analysts they are disciplined to a fault. According to some DXpeditioners, the Japanese are too organized, tending to slow the proceedings. Usually though, they are a relief and a delight for DXpeditioners. Operators in North America are often described as efficient and quick. High rates are achievable when working large numbers of these operators. Much of the time they are overly aggressive, but their similarities are numerous.
European operators on the other hand are usually characterized by continuous calling and lacking in cooperation. Rates are said to suffer because of these traits. For this, they are often labeled as troublemakers. It is interesting that more often than not, we refer to “ The Europeans” as a single group. Who are these “Europeans?” Should we put them all in the same box? Are they really all the same? Or do their differences deserve more study?
To pursue this question, we first need to consider that how the members of a particular population center are characterized depends heavily on who is doing the evaluating. We need to understand that these descriptions are highly dependent on popular perceptions and attitudes.
The operating performance level achieved by various DXers depends increases greatly when the levels are determined by members of the same group. When we are reading an evaluation referring to “The Americans,” “The Europeans,” or “The Japanese,” we need to be suspicious. This is an indication that objectivity is missing, and methods and attitudes may need adjusting.
When a groups’ characteristics are described in this manner, we can all be fairly sure that more understanding is required. Would we really expect all members of a particular group to be the same? Is the makeup of the group even properly defined? What does it take to make pundits think a bit more before commenting? Well, it takes research and thinking seriously about the problem. There isn’t much room for shooting from the hip anymore.
Some members of the DXpeditioning world are very successful in dealing the vast diversity of personalities and cultures present in the modern pileup, other operators are significantly off course. This in-turn suggests that given the proper approach, most any pileup can be managed.
There are aspects of pileups that can’t be controlled. There is the pathological, deliberate QRM (DQRM). There is virtually nothing that the DXpeditioner can do to assuage these sources. On the other hand, some DQRM is provoked by the DXpedition operators themselves through their own actions. Procedures such as allowing a pileup to exceed a reasonable portion of a band is one such provocation. I witnessed a serious situation in the last week as usual on 17 meters. Opening a DXpedition with maybe only two stations, one on 17 meter SSB is almost guaranteed to create a problem. In this case, DQRM resulted directly.
So what should be done to improve the situation? Let’s consider “The Europeans.” What can we do to be able to say: “As a group, they really have it together.” Is it even possible to moderate their pileup behavior? Maybe, maybe not. It might take a radical solution, but I know we can do better because some have done it.
Martti Laine, OH2BH, is one of the most successful DXpeditioners and Contesters in our increasingly difficult times. In cooperation with the DX University Martti has written a paper describing how to successfully work Europeans. The paper is entitled: “DX Chase: It Takes Two to Tango” and subtitled: “Working Europe from the rare ones can be difficult. Here’s how to do it.”
This past weekend, October 10th and 11th, the paper was presented and discussed at a DXing Summit meeting in Rome organized by IK0FVC, Francesco; OH2BH, Martti and IK0XFD, Giordano, President of the Rome branch of Associazione Radioamatori Italiani (ARI). This paper isn’t a list of Thou Shalts or How to’s. It isn’t a list of Best Practices. It is rather a more thoughtful discussion of the differences of the world, attitudes, and lengthy discussions of some more specific operating procedures, why and how. Careful thought, study and adherence to what this paper proposes – and what follows (it’s probably a work in progress) – is almost guaranteed to improve DXpeditioning across the board.
And a caveat: (You knew there would be a catch, right?) If and when all of this fails to make us better DXpeditioners or DXers, there is a new — or revised — Q-Code: ‘QTX’. This code is a less blunt way of telling an operator – DXer or DXpeditioner – to stop transmitting for some time and then come back with a retuned method or mind. “WW2XX QTX – 10” means that WW2XX should stop transmitting and only return to the chase after spending the next ten minutes adjusting his attitude or procedure. This is sort of a penalty box. The DXpeditioner can put the DXpeditioner in the penalty box, OR the DXer can put the DXpeditioner in the box. (Good luck you say? Maybe. But if I were a DXpeditioner and I heard a series of “Z81X QTX – 30” I might think again.
N7NG
DXpedition Planning Video from K0IR
Ralph Fedor, K0IR has had the prime responsibility for planning a number of major DXpeditions. His experiences include expeditions to VK0IR, K5D, FT5ZM and K1N, Heard, Desecheo, Amsterdam and Navassa Islands. Each of these expeditions culminated in world-class results.
At the 2015 DX University session in Visalia CA, Ralph presented a program describing important aspects of DXpedition planning. There were a number of significant ideas in that presentation, not the least of which was the notion that a DXpedition owes a voice to DXpedition supporters — investors if you will — prior to the trip; that the investors are entitled to a voice in defining the DXpedition’s parameters.
Ralph has recently been named Chairman of the Board of The International DX Association, Inc., INDEXA an IRS (USA) 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization. In coordination with INDEXA, the DX University is presenting a video summary of the DX University presentation. Click here to view Ralph’s summary of that presentation.
— N7NG
The Complete DXer
Bob Locher, W9KNI is IMO, a classic DXer. Over 30 years ago – in 1983 — he published a book called The Complete DXer. According to Bob, the book was intended to make the point that DXing is a fun endeavor that requires skills that can — and must – be learned.
Bob’s book describes the “Classic DXer.” It is essentially a “how to” book as were many others published during the same era. But, Bob’s book is different – delightfully so. It was different then, and it still is. It was not written as a set of directives, laid out point by point: “thou shalt do this or thou shalt not do that.” Rather, the book was written as a narrative, from the point of view of a real DXer, describing the things that successful DXers do – as they are being done.
At the outset, I need to put this discussion in perspective. To a small degree, The Complete DXer is obsolete in the 21st century. Many changes have taken place in DXing in the last 50 years, and certainly in the last 30 years. DXing has changed repeatedly as technology has moved ahead. Further, our perspective on our own DXing continues to change as we work more and more DX without “un-working” any of it.
The most significant of these changes has been the Internet. The Internet has changed the world forever, of course, and these changes include effects on DXing. Many of the changes are not only technological, but also changes in how we view DXing. For example, DXers no longer need to sit for hours at their radios listening for needed DX stations. Moreover, since we can never “un-work” our DX, the games that we play and what we wish to work change periodically.
While “one ringer” telephone alerting networks had long existed, there was nothing like the fullyinterconnected, Internet-based DX data gathering and distribution systems that exist today. The Internet has changed DXing forever, yet all-in-all it has probably changed for the better. We are all aware of the stress placed on family harmony by DXers needing a 160 meter QSO, but not knowing: “When will you be on 160.”
Why am I recommending a 30 year old book? It’s simple: Extensive listening on the air suggests to me that many DXers need to learn some of the techniques that fall into the “classic DXer” category. Primary among them is listening; knowing what’s going on at all times.
Despite the steady flow of information provided by the introduction of the Internet into DXing, however, The Complete DXer still makes a point: DXing is fun. It describes the hunt for DX, and it emphasizes that DXing is a game that can and must be learned. The Complete DXer describes – among many other things – the technique of listening; being aware of what it going on. Absolutely nothing is more important in DXing. When it comes right down to actually making a QSO, the Internet is a no match for actually listening. The third (and latest) version of The Complete DXer provides a valuable perspective on modern DXing. If nothing else, it puts a ‘modern DXer’ into a framework to understand the all-to-often neglected essentials of DXing. The Complete DXer and a companion A Year of DX published in 2010 are very readable and helpful additions to your DX library. They are currently available from the ARRL.
— N7NG
Think About It
Martti, OH2BH and I have been spending quite a bit of time recently working on a paper that presents thoughts on how DXpeditioners can more efficiently work Europe. The idea for this paper has been in the works for long time, but was spurred on recently by some specific finger-pointing at European DXers for their lack of cooperation in various pileups. There has been some support for that complaint in the US, but at the same time, there has been opinion from Europe that the problems lay with the operating methods of the DXpeditioners. Since the DXpeditioners seemed to do fine with US-based DXers, the thought was that the problem lay with the DXpedition to Europe circuit. Since the US to US-based DXpedition QSO rate was very good, it probably wasn’t the fault of DXpedition operator technique. Already, we had two points of view.
This was just one example. It’s always easy to generalize about things. Generalizing, however is a bit of a cop out. It’s easy to lump everything into a single category rather than thinking about – and defining — all of the possible elements that might define a problem. I note that things are often more accurately analyzed in terms of a spectrum; that is not just one way or the other, not just black or white, but varying from one extreme to the other, along with all in between. Problems and solutions are usually complex. Generalizing might make you feel good in having a simply defined problem, but it offers few solutions. Solutions are usually more complex.
And so it seems with pileups. It may be that the difficulty with Europe can be defined as “a lack of cooperation.” But, it is highly unlikely that it is that simple. That term is pretty much useless if a real understanding is desired, and it suggests other ideas that probably aren’t true, anyway.
So, let’s get away from generalizations. Rather, let’s think about the problem, if in fact there is one. There are a number of parameters that can describe a pileup. One is aesthetics. What does the pileup sound like? Is it calm or chaotic? Is it running at a high rate or low? Is it angry? How is the accuracy? Is it disrupting the band for others? Is it fun?
I have long maintained that some of these parameters can be mutually exclusive. For example, if the rate and accuracy are good, what the pileup sounds like isn’t particularly important. Of course, if a pileup is chaotic, it might not be as much fun, even if you are getting in the log on every band-slot, but it might still be effective – you are in the log. So, we need to define the elements and decide what is important.
On the other hand, if the rate is low, we might be worried. Rate is important. A good rate keeps DXers thinking they will be the next entry in the log. So, if the rate is suffering, we might start looking for remedies. If we are analyzing a European pileup and US DXpedition ops, we might start by thinking about the rate at which US DXpedition operators are able to work Europe versus the rate at which they work their USA buddies. Generally, operating style and technique are assumed to affect the QSO rate and indeed, characterize the pileup. Since we maintain that the operator is primarily responsible for the nature of the pileup, a significant difference between USA and European pileups might suggest a flaw in our theory. How is the DXpedition operator doing?
What about language? Does everyone really understand what is going on? When to transmit? When to listen? Did the DXped op just call out a Southern European for calling out of turn and did that Southerner immediately realize that he was now in the log? Let’s think about it. Europe comprises some 24 “official” languages, and it is probably reasonable to assume that EU DXers being in a somewhat older demographic probably aren’t as fluent in those 2nd 3rd and 4th languages.
And, maybe there are other factors.
Within Europe, there is a more diverse viewpoint, opinion, identity, individuality, sensitivity and passion. How much have any of us thought about – or addressed – any of these factors? What do we mean when we talk about “Europe?” We often talk about Europe as though there was just one single European character. When we think about it, we should easily realize that there is simply no single, characteristic “European.”
And this is all just the tip of the iceberg. We have discovered that to point a finger at EU and make a single assertion doesn’t really accomplish anything useful. Try sitting down and making a list of all of the factors that might affect the QSO rate between Europe and US-based DXpeditioners…and when you have analyzed that one, try the same exercise with QSOs between a US pileup and Europe-based DXpeditioners.
— N7NG
A Positive Approach
By N7NG, Wayne A. Mills
While there aren’t many major DX operations taking place at the moment, plans are being made, and it won’t be long until serious DXing picks up steam again. In the interim, many of us continue thinking and working on ways to smooth the behavioral waters for DXers and DXpeditioners alike.
As usual, we operate on a principle put forth most recently by Dima, RA9USU in N6PSE’s April 27th 2015 blog: [the] “Pile-up is the reflection of the operator on the DX side.” Clearly, Dima feels that the DX-side operator is in the best position to control the pileup, to keep it from degenerating into chaos. The DX-side operator is almost by definition positioned to use a variety of tools to accomplish his goals. This in turn suggests that it is important for DX-side operators to learn and subsequently concentrate on the very best operating procedures. For some ops it is a natural process. For others, study, practice and reminders are required. Reminders – cheat sheets – because it can be difficult to keep all of the necessary concepts in mind while shoveling through a huge pile of usually raucous DXers.
Of course the “mirror” concept isn’t at all new. It was put forward long ago (1991) by OH2BH in his book “Where Do We Go Next,” and reiterated by N7NG in “DXpeditioning Basics” (1994 and 2013). It has been promoted as well as by many other DXpedition operating specialists. Operators following this principle assume that their own techniques will make or break the success of the operation. It is entirely within the province of the DXpedition operator to control virtually any situation including DQRM. The tools are available. If an operator succumbs to the feeling that the pileup is at fault, everything is lost. To move further in this direction, OH2BH and N7NG are currently preparing a detailed paper discussing the essentials for successfully working “Europeans” in DXpedition situations. The ideas are applicable to all DXers, but they are critically important for those working huge DXpedition pileups of Europeans.
The first task – and most important – in this case is to maintain a positive attitude. Assuming that there are relatively few “DX Criminals” out there is a good starting point. It is important to feel confident that any situation can be handled. The assumption of “DXer innocence” is the best way to maintain a positive attitude.
Next the operator must make a serious effort to understand the nature of the languages and temperaments of “The Europeans.” We realize that language is always an issue when working any non-native-English speaking DXers. But because of the necessary immersion in huge pileups exhibiting many languages, accents and styles, it is usually a much greater challenge to work Europe under these conditions.
Finally, it is essential to understand that there is absolutely NO single “European” DXer type. Americans and Japanese are relatively homogeneous compared to European ham groups. The European cultures vary greatly from north to south and from east to west. At least a basic understanding of DXers in Europe – their language and temperament — is necessary in order to realize that a lack of cooperation is not the primary reason for poor results. Experience supports this thesis. A persistently positive attitude will help tremendously in the pursuit of the ideal pileup.
– N7NG
What about Mt. Athos?
By Wayne Mills, N7NG
The recent episode involving Latvian hams trying to visit and operate from Mt. Athos highlights a situation which has existed for 25 years, namely that it has been virtually impossible for anyone but Elder Apollo to operate from this artificially rare DXCC location. Apparently the Latvians had verbal permission, but in the end nothing written was forthcoming…
According to the SV2ASP/A QRZ.com web page, Ham Radio was initiated following an incident as a means of communications ‘when all else failed,’ but interestingly, according to Elder Apollo (on this same page) “[Ham Radio] remains in order to keep Mount Athos at the height it deserves in terms of DXing, [and] also to prevent its removal from the DXCC list.” A curious if not astonishing motivation indeed.
Mt. Athos remains on the DXCC list according to the current rules, and rules can change; the rules are not chiseled in stone. The door to changes was open in the late nineties. Only a proper procedure should alter DXCC’s path, but make no mistake, public opinion can lead to rule changes given sufficient cause.
Mt. Athos was added to the DXCC list in 1973 as a “distinctively separate administration.” Other entities added under this rule include Kingman Reef. While the separate administration rule is gone – its premise, first distorted and then discredited – these entities remain under current rules which require that entities remain as long as they continue to meet the criteria under which they were added. In reality, they remain on the list for reasons of nostalgia. It’s difficult to take any entities away from DXers. Those who benefit from the presence of Mount Athos on the DXCC list should understand that there is absolutely no reason why totally impractical entities must remain on the list. It is simply a matter of will – and public opinion.
There are ways to change the status of Mt. Athos. That Mt. Athos is altogether too inactive –that it is too high on the most needed list – is not a reason to remove it from the entities list. It is very important to follow the current, relevant DXCC rules, and inactivity should never be a criteria for removing a DXCC entity. Yet inactivity could eventually provide motivation to change the rules.
In the mid-nineties, a “Blue Ribbon Committee” was created by the ARRL Board — the so-called DXCC-2000 Committee. This committee comprised ten superbly qualified people, Board members, staff members, DXAC members and others, each experienced in DXCC history and procedure. The composition of the committee was varied and the results it produced were comprehensive. Its wide-ranging charge was to rewrite the DXCC rules as necessary. The results were accepted by the ARRL Board with relatively little discussion and few changes. Such a committee could and perhaps should be constituted again. There is still cause for making important changes. What is required is creativity and leadership.
— N7NG
Register your comments to this and other opinions on the DX University “Contact Us” page. (http://www.dxuniversity.com/contact_form.php)
QRM and Frustration
(This article is drawn from parts of the DX University presentation at Visalia in April, 2015.)
DXpeditions have always had some form of on-the-air difficulty in conducting their operations. In the early days, there were many fewer DXers, and the QRM potential was less. But, there were always DXers disgruntled by their inability to make a QSO who would transmit on the DX frequency. But, recent DXpeditions have been increasingly plagued by QRM, inadvertent and intentional.
Inadvertent QRM falls into several categories: Ignorance or IQRM, Unnecessary or UQRM, and Created or CQRM. A forth type of QRM is not inadvertent, it is Deliberate — DQRM.
Ignorance IQRM or IQRM* stems from a lack of learning about standard, proven DXing procedures. To the extent that it affects us all, this type of QRM is primarily caused by the inability of would-be DXers to operate their radios properly. This results in transmissions on the DX frequency and the inevitable reactions from frustrated DXers.
Unnecessary or UQRM is usually attributable to the UP and Frequency police. This difficulty appears to be exacerbated by the unnecessarily complex frequency controls of modern transceivers.
A third form of QRM is Created QRM or CQRM which is caused by DXpedition operators who don’t have the ability to control their pileups. (In some cases, CQRM can lead to intentional QRM.) The fundamental principle is that the nature of the pileup depends on how the pileup is conducted. It is likely that CQRM is the easiest QRM to control since it is relatively easy to guide a relatively small number of DXpeditioners.
Having defined several types of disruptive expedition-related QRM, what if anything can be done to rectify these situations? To help combat Ignorance QRM, the “DX Press” has been prolific. But one thing is becoming clear: More often than not we are “preaching to the choir.” We are NOT reaching the large percentage of casual “DXers.” They don’t read the literature, they don’t belong to DX clubs, and often they don’t know other experienced DXers. They have an interest in DX, and they start calling when they hear something interesting. We need to pay more attention to finding and working with more casual DXers.
The code is another situation. With the advent of no-code licenses, we have many new hams who want to work CW, but haven’t yet put in the time to learn it effectively. Thanks to the industry code readers are prevalent. Some DXers wish that these people would stay on SSB and RTTY, but is that what we really want?
Unnecessary QRM can be minimized by better educating DXers in the operation of their radios. In addition, frequency control in radios currently available is far more complicated than necessary and should be simplified. Transmitting on the DXpedition frequency was seldom a problem with separate transmitters and receivers.
In the case of Created QRM, QRM created by DXpedition operator’s style, more attention by DXpedition managers to procedure would prove helpful. Because there are relatively few DXpedition operators, it is easier to help these operators in using the best practices to manage their pileups than to attempt to educate thousands of DXers. If DXpedition operators consistently employ best practices, pileups will be more efficient and more fun. Following the suggested Best Practices published by the DX University and by The DX Code of Conduct – for DXpeditioners can help.
In the case of CQRM, QRM created by DXpedition operator’s style, more attention to procedure by DXpedition managers could prove useful. Following the suggested Best Practices published by the DX University and by The DX Code of Conduct – for DXpeditioners can help.
Intentional QRM is entirely another matter. DQRM is usually generated by discontented operators who wish to retaliate in some way for some reason. Perhaps some of these operators haven’t made their desired QSOs for reasons they deem beyond their control. Some of these QRMers are not DXers at all, and have had their net QSOs disrupted by DXpedition activity.
Some DQRM results from adverse, real-time interaction between DXers and other, pre-existing Amateur Radio activities. For example, DXers in pileups aren’t well known for listening to their transmitting frequencies before transmitting. DXpedition operators aren’t known for listening to their pileup frequencies, either. Opening an expedition on a narrow WARC band without a full complement of stations isn’t the best idea, but it happens. Covering certain nets and mode frequencies isn’t wise either. Some of the QRM and DQRM is caused by the operating style of the DXpedition operator; frustration experienced by DXers can lead to DQRM.
When a major DXpedition in on the air, there is much additional friction ready to be exploited. Better operating on both sides of the pileup is necessary. Putting our educational resources where they will do the most good is essential. The DX University is working in this area. If you have additional ideas, please write.
– N7NG
*The terms UQRM, IQRM, CQRM and DQRM used in this article are attributed to Chris Duckling, G3SVL.
Once Again…
Once Again…
A few weeks ago — during the FT4TA DXpedition — I was suffering. Finding that the best time to visit our son in Vancouver B.C. coincided with the Tromelin Island offering was difficult. Being from the western US, not the easiest location to work the Indian Ocean, my band-slot file for Tromelin had but one entry – FR7ZL/T for a QSO on twenty-meter CW in 1979.
So, I was looking forward to a few more and even – perhaps – the possibility of another Topband country. (Though we would not return to Wyoming before the end of the operation, it became possible to do some operating along the way – in southern Oregon. Even an 80M QSO was made thanks to a monster 3 element beam located on a wonderfully effective hill top.)
Moreover, thanks to the magic of the Internet, I was able to able read all about the operation in detail as viewed from Northern California and Colorado and Utah. What I read was mostly disappointing. It seems that the jammers and usual malcontents were out in force, and once again, there was pause to think about why all of this was taking place.
Many younger DXers – and some returning to the wars following long absences – are sure that the jamming and generally poor operating is worse than ever. “It’s never been this bad.” That is probably true unless you scale the whole picture back according to the number of active DXers. And when it comes to Tromelin, there are more than the usual number of DXers “in need.”
In the 1970s, there were a number of operations which raised a strikingly similar ruckus on the bands. At one time, I even had a few questions for a customer of mine who is (still) a professional psychologist. I was wondering why people would behave in such an anti-social way. While he wasn’t up to speed on the intricacies of DXpeditions, he did offer that people usually had – at least in their own minds – reasons for their behaviors. My point is that it was that bad, even forty years ago.
Why do you suppose that might have been – and still is today? There are lots of reasons. Those who complain the loudest – adding their own form of vitriol – are hip-shooters who never bother to wonder why these disruptions occur. They shoot first and then blame the consequences on others.
A major DXpedition is a usually a significant disruption to the “normal” operations on any and all bands. These operations often generate excessively large pileups. As I have mentioned more than once, part of the responsibility of a DXpedition ops is to limit the impact of their effort on others who are not interested in DXing. We invade these spaces with huge piles of DXers who virtually NEVER listen to their transmitting frequencies. In the case of several recent DXpeditions, 17 meters in particular has been almost fully occupied – band edge to band edge – by excessively large pileups. I am sure that at least a few non-DXers aren’t overly happy about that. Do pileups really need to be so large? Maybe, maybe not.
In addition to the disruption of non-DXers, there are very frustrated DXers who call endlessly without results. In part, this is a function of their own lack of expertise. There is evidence everywhere. They call at the wrong times, on the wrong frequencies, with their antennas pointed in the wrong directions, etc., etc. After experiencing a certain amount of frustration, their operating technique often changes dramatically. Calling sometimes becomes continuous on a poor selection of frequencies. They may become hostile and create their own form of chaos. Thinking is usually put aside.
The blame for much of the poor operating demonstrated by DXers can be laid at the feet of the DXpedition operators themselves. Their instructions are often inadequate. They don’t identify frequently, and they don’t indicate where they are listening and how they are tuning. More critically, they often don’t properly target the most difficult place in the world for them to work. When those who need the most attention are getting precious little of it, temperatures rise. As a result much of the garbage on the bands related to a DXpedition is the result of a lack of experience and good operating practices by the DXpeditioners themselves.
I hasten to add that this isn’t the whole story. There are other causes. DXers who simply don’t know how to operate their radios – split operation in particular are s significant part of the problem. Several misplaced calls – on the DXpedition frequency will generate all sorts of responses from responsible to – well – the worst possible.
Continuous callers are also a problem, although interestingly, they are not that much of a disruption. An experienced DXpeditioner can work around all but the most persistent and aggressive continuous caller. A few such callers seem to find the station being worked and QRM all attempts to compete a QSO. Yet, continuous calling is more an aesthetic problem for those listening to a pileup rather than for the DXpedition operator – he doesn’t hear much of it.
There are lots of reasons for the cacophony we hear during DXpeditions. Rather than reacting irrationally, a more reasoned analysis should take place. This analysis will be highlighted in additional articles in the coming weeks and months in this publication and on the pages of the DX University (www.dxuniversity.com)
*The DX University™ includes a day-long learning session for newcomers and old-timers wishing to hone their DXing skills. DXing resources can also be found on the DX University Website. A DX University session will again be held at the Visalia International DX Convention in April, 2015. This all-day session will be aimed at issues surrounding DXpeditioning. Contact the DX University if you are interested in using DX University resources as a framework for mentoring DXers in your area. For more information go to www.dxuniversity.com
Back to the Future
One of the perennial issues involving Amateur Radio is invigorating our hobby/service by attracting new and younger enthusiasts. Fourteen years ago, I asked “What do we do to attract new hams to the service?” My interpretation of the answer was “we do very little.” Did we advertise outside of the ham radio world? I asked. “No, it’s too expensive.” “Do we survey young folks to find our common interests?” “No.” At the time we were doing very little. We were trying to increase ARRL membership through advertising aimed at newly licensed hams. To me that seemed like preaching to a choir of diminishing size. It still does.
Then along came The Big Project, an ambitious and well-intentioned effort to introduce school-aged children to the wonders of Amateur Radio. What became of that? At the time, it seemed like a very aggressive effort to do what we always do: Try to sell the younger generation on what we loved so much about Ham Radio when we were their age. “Surely, they would love the hobby as much as we did fifty years ago” I said. Does that work? Apparently not. (There are some interesting and successful projects involving robots and other electronics learning that are popular among youngsters.) Part of the problem is that communications simply doesn’t invoke the same intrigue and adventure that it did fifty years ago, and the part that does intrigue them doesn’t interest us. To us Ham Radio is different, but talking spontaneously around the world doesn’t impress young folks anymore.
In the meantime, society has moved ahead. Have we? Not so much. We like Ham Radio the way it was. Other than peripherals, much of the new technology that has been developed has been termed “not ham radio.” Why? Because it involves the Internet. If it involves actual communicating with anything related to the Internet, “it’s not ham radio.”
Now, we have HamSphere. HamSphere is simulated Ham Radio using the Internet. Certainly that’s not ham radio. No, it isn’t by our classical definition, but it is something in which younger people have shown an interest. They are interested in ILRP and Echolink linked radios, too. Recently held was the Internet equivalent of the World Radiosport Team Championship (WRTC) called the ETRC 2014 (European Radiosport Team Championship). Interestingly some of the most progressive Ham Radio personalities are introducing these technologies to young people, aiming at integrating their interests into our legacy delights. Maybe we can integrate our different interests.
We’re so stuck in the past that even remote control operation worries us because “it gives [some of] us a propagational advantage!” Horrors!! What that seems to mean is that somehow DXing among the old guard is seen as a competitive sport that requires a level playing field, even on the largest geographic scale. Can any DXing program – with competitors living all over the globe –really be a competitive sport? The current introduction to the DXCC program states: “Individual achievement is measured by working and confirming the various entities comprising the DXCC List. This is the essence of the DXCC program.” Clearly, DXCC progress measures our individual achievement. If there is competition it must be defined locally, not by rules.
In his report to the Programs and Services Committee for the July ARRL BoD meeting, the DXAC Chairman added that “some distance limitation should be included for the remote station.” According to sources, this wasn’t really discussed, but there it is. The distance rule was added to the original DXCC rule after a month or two, and it stood for over 40 years. It was changed because the world changed. Going back to our beginnings in this area would be a major mistake.
I grew up in an era of Ham Radio that was really fun. It was simple and concise for me, and it will never be quite the same. And why should it? We live in a world that has changed. Get over it. Let’s help create a new legacy for younger enthusiasts, one that actually interests them. Let’s integrate!
*The DX University™ maintains an Internet-based website containing lots of useful DXing information. Read additional thoughts on these topics in the coming week at www.dxuniversity.com.
DX IS!
One of the best and often funniest publications on serious DXing, DX IS! The Best of the West Coast DX Bulletin is a compendium of short stories (and maybe opinions) written by Hugh Cassidy, WA6AUD, editor and publisher of the West Coast DX Bulletin. If you don’t have a copy of this book, this may be your last chance to get a one. It’s well worth the price. — N7NG
“Back in 1980 after WA6AUD shut down his highly popular West Coast DX Bulletin, my brother, W5DV, and I compiled and published a book, entitled “DX IS! The Best of the West Coast DX Bulletin”. We thought that we had fulfilled all of the requests for it within just a few months, but we still get occasional inquiries about its availability, more than 30 years later.
During a recent move, I found a supply of unsold copies, still in new condition. We have arranged to make these available through Amazon at
While we do not expect a major demand for it after 30 years, we want interested parties to be aware of its availability. If you feel that it is appropriate to mention this in the DXer, there are probably some DXers who would like to know about it. We have a very limited supply and when these are gone, that’s it.
73 de W6OGC Jim Allen
The West Coast DX Bulletin
We moved to Wyoming in 1972, and I operated five years in an apartment using a 14AVQ. It was a major hiatus in my DXing – possibly even terminal – because I left California (K6ALH) at 293 mixed on the DXCC list, and I was faced with working all of those countries again. As much of a DXer as I had always been, I wasn’t too enthusiastic about starting again from the beginning.
As luck would have it the DXCC rules changed beginning in 1977 allowing DXCC QSOs to be made anywhere in your own DXCC entity. As a result, my interest was again engaged. I gave up W7JFG for N7NG and was again up and running.
In becoming active in DXing again, it seemed reasonable to look for a source of DX information. It was probably Bob, W6RGG who introduced me to the West Coast DX Bulletin. The WCDXB had been published by Hugh Cassidy, WA6AUD and his wife Virginia as “The Marin County DX Group” since 1968. There were several bulletins being published, but the WCDXB was “local” for me, so I sent a subscription request. I received a receipt dated April 19, 1978. I don’t recall the price, but I can tell you now that it was worth every penny.
I had been active in high school and during my college days at the University of California in order to get that 293 countries worked. Now it was down to 275 due to deletions. Some of the stuff that I had worked had become very rare, stuff like Burma, Heard Island, the Andaman’s and Laccadives (Lakshadweep) and so on. I was missing some other countries that came up while I was inactive. The West Coast DX Bulletin was a tremendous help in finding the countries that I needed to fill out my list. By early 1979 I was already at the Honor Roll level. Even then, I looked forward every week to the arrival of the WCDXB.
As were most DXers, I was shocked the day I received the last copy of the WCDXB in July, 1979. I sat in front of the Jackson Post Office for some time as I read that last issue. Could it be? I had had the pleasure for only a little over a year. Cass had been hinting for some time, and finally as he said: “Sooner or later most of us learn that even the longest road has an end, the most glorious day a sunset, the beautiful melody a final note, and that even the most enthusiastic can tire.”
In hindsight, the value of the West Coast DX Bulletin was as much in Hugh Cassidy’s way of presenting the bulletin as it was in delivering DXing information. Through his stories, he included lots of interest and even some wisdom. I always found Cass’ stories had a point, something to think about. Also, I usually found it difficult to figure out what his own take was on the issue of the day.
Many of his stories are just really funny. Charles Allen, W5DV and his brother James, W6OGC published a book of “The Best of the West Coast DX Bulletin” in 1981. Every once in a while I pick up my copy and turn to a story on one of the well-marked pages and get another chuckle. They are still really good, over and over again.
According to Ross, K6GFJ, “When Cass decided to stop publishing the bulletin, he shipped his entire collection to Paul, Dunphy, VE1DX.” Paul recently shipped Cass’ collection back to the West Coast where the Northern California DX Club will have every issue scanned to be available on the Internet. So far, issues from issues from May 1, 1968 to December 30, 1975 have been published on the NCDXC webpage. After every issue has been scanned and available on line, the collection will be moved to its permanent home in the W6CF Memorial Library at the California Historical Radio Society in Alameda (CA) (www.californiahistoricalradio.com). Most likely, by the time you finish reading those issues already published, the remainder will be scanned and online.
Although many of the stories refer to operations and other DXing matters that are dated, not relating directly to today’s operations, you can easily substitute current callsigns, as most of the topics are the same and relevant, maybe more so. As Cass would say, “DX IS!” Still is? You bet!
*The DX University™ maintains an Internet-based website containing lots of useful DXing information. Visit it at http://www.dxuniversity.com. The next scheduled in-person DX University session will be held on Thursday, July17, 2014 in Hartford, CT, at the ARRL Centennial celebration.
W1AW Portable Seven
Wyoming and Missouri became two of the latest states to spend an intensive week with volunteers signing the ARRL’s callsign – W1AW portable – in a sort of a year-long pseudo contest to help promote the ARRL’s Centennial celebration. Since Wyoming has the smallest population of all states, with a ham radio operator count similarly small, I volunteered to participate and help out where possible.
The activity began last week at 0000Z on Wednesday, May 28th. Since I have a moderately successful low band station, I decided to spend most of my time on 80M and Topband with a little 40M thrown in. While the first few nights were very active, adverse weather showed up yesterday in the form of severe electrical storm activity in the West and central Mid-West. The noise level has been running around 10 to 20 dB over S9 for the duration. Nevertheless, with some 20 meter CW thrown in Sunday night, over 3,400 QSOs have been made during my stint. There have been some top-grade runs, for sure.
I suspect that the W1AW portable activity can serve a number of purposes. It certainly is helping to highlight the ARRL Centennial. It’s also lots of fun, especially for DXers would-like-to-be DXpeditioners as well as potential contesters. Perhaps expectedly, there have been great pileups, and these pileups have been very large, wide and deep. Japanese and Far Eastern callers in the morning and on the higher bands, European and African stations later in the day.
It is a fact that running a pileup is one of the most important skills in contesting and DXpeditioning. Learning how to pick callsigns out of pileups quickly and accurately is a fundamental skill for these activities, and lots of experience is the key. The W1AW portable activity is a great chance for those interested in contesting and DXpeditioning to practice these skills without having to travel offshore.
This is a real-world equivalent of the many computer-based pileup programs, and probably superior in many respects to most of them. There’s real world QRM, incidental and intentional, real QSB, a full display of “interesting” operating styles, real propagation – or not – and a whole host of other parameters. It’s a great opportunity to see what you can do on all modes, CW, SSB and RTTY.
So if you still have an opportunity, join in the fun. Tomorrow morning, I’ll be back on 80 and 160 hoping for a little quieter band, and looking forward to a quieter October/November session.
*The DX University™ maintains an Internet-based website containing lots of useful DXing information. Visit it at www.dxuniversity.com. The next scheduled in-person DX University session will be held on Thursday, July17, 2014 in Hartford, CT, at the ARRL Centennial celebration.
A New Level of Strange
A couple of interesting things occurred last week. The first was actually as humorous as it was strange. I was listening to a moderate pileup engaged in calling Rich, KE1B signing V25M from Antigua. Rich was very good about telling the callers that he was listening up. (I think he was working by numbers at the time, as well.) So, he was saying “This is vee twenty five mike, listening up 3 kilohertz for fives,” etc.
Regardless of his careful directions, there were several strong stations on his frequency calling him. That’s not particularly unusual, of course, it happens all the time, and many of us are at times guilty. What was interesting – and humorous – was the following:
After a couple of these stations calling on Rich’s frequency stopped calling at one point, and just after Rich finished a transmission to a station he was working, someone asked if the stations on the V25M frequency understood the meaning of “Up Three.” The loudest of the stations came back on and said “Yes.” OK so far. I guess, somewhat stunned, the querying station then asked why he was calling on the DX station’s frequency, if he knew Rich was listening up three. The offending station then said: “I wasn’t.”
Hmmm! I have never heard that before. Usually, a station committing that offense quickly realizes that he is on the wrong frequency and mumbles “sorry” or something like that and quickly disappears back to the pileup. No further conversation took place, and most of the callers disappeared from the frequency – not all, of course – and things went on again normally — with a few more stations calling on the wrong frequency. Apparently, some of the other offending stations simply weren’t aware enough to guess that they might be the offender.
But, this guy was a prime example of someone who really needs to spend a little more time with his radio. Did he really not know where he was transmitting? Maybe he has a new radio, full of buttons that he needs to learn. Maybe radios are getting more complicated faster than DXers can learn the frequency control functions. Anyone for some AI? (Artificial Intelligence)
On another occasion last week – several occasions in fact – DXers were having serious difficulties correctly spotting the CW signals of HT5T. This one isn’t really humorous. HT5T was variously being spotted as 5T5H, ST5H and even HT5H. There were surely a number of DXers really happy at getting Mauritania and even Sudan in the log. This could be expected, of course, since many of us have problems with the letters/numbers H, S and 5. But this was occurring a number of times. What could be happening?
I hadn’t been listening, but I decided to take some time and see what was transpiring. It seems that the operator wasn’t sending with an electronic keyer. The characters were reasonably well formed, and the information was 100% intelligible — but the characters were just not formed with the perfect spacing that one expects with an electronic keyer.
I am guessing that HT5T was being called by several DXers using code readers. Apparently, some of the code readers were having a difficult time adjusting for first letter and its less-than-perfect character spacing. They didn’t seem to have difficulties with the subsequent letters. Although some CW is poorly formed, and difficult to copy, all operators should have the flexibility to copy something other than perfectly formed characters.
As I have said in the past, don’t get me wrong: I think the use of code readers as an aid is acceptable, particularly if they are intended to lead to better natural code-copying ability on the part of the operator. I am very happy that many hams are interested enough to want to be on CW to use them. Let’s eventually get our speed up to a point where the reader is not necessary, though.
The hint for this edition is to at least try to be more aware of how you are operating your station. Understand that you are not anonymous. Be proud of your signals. If you understand that your code reader has difficulty understanding code under some circumstances, learn a little more about what is going on before you call. On both modes, watch those A – B frequency and split buttons.
*The DX University™ maintains an Internet-based website containing lots of useful DXing information. Visit it at www.dxuniversity.com. The next scheduled in-person DX University session will be held on Thursday, July17, 2014 in Hartford, CT, at the ARRL Centennial celebration.
What Should The DXAC Recommend? Register Your Opinion
In the coming weeks the DX Advisory Committee will be formulating its final report to the ARRL Board of Directors regarding potential changes to the DXCC program rules. While there are any number of issues that might come, two seem to be at the forefront in DXers minds.
One is that matter of the current country criteria. The current country criteria is not the same as was formulated by the so-called DXCC-2000 committee in 1998. As a result of world politics — and ARRL Board changes — the original 1998 criteria no longer exists.
At the same time, changes in world politics beginning well over six years ago, and currently accelerating recently may cause us to wonder where we are headed in the next decade. Ideally, DXCC country criteria should not be politically charged. Geopolitical entities with large populations should not be neglected from a DXCC point of view for political reasons. At the same time, the desire for new countries and alternately, the desire for no new countries should not be argued ad-infinitum by the ARRL and its advisory committee.
Clearly, the current criteria is broken. We need a new criteria that adds political entities to the list while rejecting those which don’t meet reasonable criteria.
The second matter is that of remote control. Originally, remote control was not really an issue. The technology just wasn’t there for its wide-spread use. The first DXCC rules allowed QSOs to be made from anywhere in your call-area, where call-areas existed. Where they did not, QSOs could be made anywhere within your DXCC country. That rule was later change to restrict your operation to a 150 mile radius of your “original location.” Since 1977, in order to accommodate our increased mobility, QSOs have been valid anywhere within one’s own DXCC country.
Today, enhanced technology utilizing the Internet makes remote control operation possible from anywhere in the world. Although enforcement is virtually impossible, DXCC rules would never be altered to allow contacts to be made with a transmitter outside the bounds indicated by a DXCC certificate. The physical location of a station will likely always define the place for which awards are issued.
Issues remain, however. From where should an operator be allowed to operate? That is where should control points be allowed? If they are restricted, how can such restrictions be enforced? There are many different combinations of equipment and control point locations to be considered.
Rules changes related to both of these matters are under consideration. Do you have some good ideas? This week’s hint is for you to be sure to contact your DXAC representative if you have a stake in these issues. Time is growing short. If you have the ideal solution, be sure to pass it along. Make your ideas known.
*The DX University™ maintains an Internet-based website containing lots of useful DXing information. Visit it at www.dxuniversity.com. The next scheduled in-person DX University session will be held on Thursday, July17, 2014 in Hartford, CT, at the ARRL Centennial celebration.
Some Bandwidth Stuff
In the beginning we had little idea about what frequency we were transmitting on. In fact, we were actually transmitting over a wide range of frequencies. Our bandwidth was huge. When crystal control came along, we were restricted to only one frequency – plus and minus limited modulation – at a time. We could transmit on any frequency for which we had a crystal, but only one at a time.
One would think that would make things simple. In the mid-20th century, while transmitting on single frequencies with VFOs we still didn’t know exactly what our frequency was. So, we often used 100 kHz band-edge markers to help us stay inside the allocated frequency bands.
Unfortunately, operating out of the band can still be a problem. While most of us have transceivers with frequency control that synthesizes signals that are accurate – and displayed – to roughly one part in a million, many of us still have difficulty staying within the limits of our authorizations. Why you say? Let me tell you!
Starting in the fifties, hams – particularly phone guys – knew about sidebands. Single sideband was new, and familiarity with the technology was widespread. Now, what we know is that the radio is on twenty meters, and the radio is set to SSB. The frequency is displayed to the nearest one-hundred or even ten Hertz. What more could we want to know? If a DX Station is calling CQ in a contest on 14.349.7 it’s inside the band limit, right?
If you are up to speed on advanced communications engineering, you will say “Wait! On SSB, you will be probably be transmitting outside the band!” Is that true? One well known contester at a big multi-multi station once told me that he was definitely inside the band because the radio displayed 14.349.7 kHz, and that band limit was 14.350 kHz.
So what is going on? The fact is that the single sideband transmission power spectrum generally occupies a range of frequencies roughly equal to the bandwidth of a voice. This bandwidth is necessary to convey the information contained in the transmission. Pure CW – key down – takes no bandwidth; add some modulation, such as keying and maybe a bit of ripple, and even CW takes some non-zero bandwidth, but very little.
SSB on the other hand, takes roughly 2.7 kHz of bandwidth, starting about 300 Hz above the carrier frequency and extending usually to about 3 kHz. Some newer radios limit the frequency at the high end of the signal, thus limiting the bandwidth, allowing you to creep a bit closer to the band edge. This is done either by limiting the audio frequency response or using a narrower filter in the transmitting chain. (If you think that the transmitting bandwidth is affected by the bandwidth setting for the receiver, check again. Only a few radios do that.)
The rule of thumb has always been to stay about 3 kHz away from a band edge of your sidebands extend in that direction. For example, you should only transmit on 14.347 USB or 7.128 LSB.
Knowing where your sidebands might be of interest to others, as well as your regulator. This came to my attention the other day listening to the operator of a major DXpedition who was on 20 meter single sideband. He was on 14.205 kHz listening from 14.220 to 14.230. Now everyone knows not to venture into the slow-scan television frequencies. (Even though these frequencies weren’t occupied at first, eventually, someone came up and started complaining.) The DXpedition operator eventually heard the complaints. He said that he hadn’t listened above 14.230, but he would move down to 14.225. Nice guy! But if he had been listening at or below 14.230, what was the problem? The problem was that to avoid 14.230, one must keep the carrier frequency below 14.227 in order to limit one’s sidebands from extending beyond 14.230. The DX operator should have known this.
Over the years with frequency control so much better than in the past, we have forgotten. Just “set it, and forget it.” At ARRL we resurrected the Frequency Measuring Test partly because of this problem. Accurate frequency readouts don’t tell the whole story. But you know all this, right? This week’s hint: Do some research, and learn how to stay inside the allocated bands.
Perceptions
During the extraordinary DXpedition to Amsterdam Island in January-February 2014, although the expedition ops were cranking out QSOs at amazing rates, there was the usual grousing about all sorts of misbehavior on the DXpedition frequencies, on the bands, and of course on the various spotting network comments lines. According to many, the poor behavior was the worst ever.
Yes, there were many examples of DXers transmitting on the DXpedition frequencies, some intentional, most inadvertent – people who need to listen better and/or learn how to operate their radios. And yes, there was also some degree of deliberate QRM (DQRM) on the DX frequencies. Yes, the “problem” is becoming worse. There is also much more activity because of more DXers and more DXers chasing many more band-modes. Perceived poor behavior begets more poor behavior. More people trying to use the same frequencies leads to congestion. When DXers hear these examples of poor behavior on the bands, they don’t like it. And why should they, it’s annoying.
Yet Ralph Fedor, K0IR, the team leader was moved to make the following comment in the Twin City DX Association’s Grayline Report http://www.tcdxa.org/Newsletters/March2014Grayline.pdf :
“DXers and DXpeditioners perceive things differently. DXers hear what’s happening on the DXpedition’s transmit frequency. DXpeditioners hear what’s happening on their receive frequency. My perspective is this: Callers were generally courteous and orderly. If I struggled with a call, others generally stood by until I completed the QSO. I experienced no jamming on my receive frequency. If I called for a specific continent, I generally experienced cooperation. Of course there was an exception from time to time; perhaps just a simple mistake. So, in my personal experience, pileups were a pleasure to work —- worldwide.”
Ralph is a very nice guy, and probably doesn’t want to upset anyone with negative comments. Yet, I know from my own personal experience that there is truth in Ralph’s observation. Intentional QRM on the DX frequency is a serious problem for some DXers, especially if they are perhaps within one skip distance from the DQRMer. But, there are always other stations to work while the DQRM continues. Some DXers hear the DQRM, others don’t.
There are also many DXers calling in the pileup out of turn. (DXers also hear these calls because many of them are searching through the pileup for the station being called.) These calls happen for a number of reasons. Many are inadvertent, many are caused by unfortunate timing. These transgressions are easy to discern when listening with two receivers, one on the DX station, one listening to the pileup. These calls might disrupt the DXpedition operator if they are intentionally timed and placed to purposely interfere with the DX operator. The DX op has an excellent tool to combat these calls, however: He can move his listening frequency. Frequency agility is a wonderful tool.
In the end, these apparent disruptions aren’t nearly as bad as they seem to DXers. If the QSO rate is good, and the accuracy is high, the problem is primarily aesthetic, but it doesn’t sound good to the sensitive ears of deserving DXers.
This week’s hint for DXers is to think about what is happening in these major pileups, try to understand why people do what they do. And, try very hard to disregard those factors that don’t really affect your probability of getting in the DXpedition log. It is really to your advantage to devise a way around these situations while others are busy hand-wringing — N7NG
This post originally appeared in The WeeklyDX™, Helpful Hints No. 60 from the DX University™ 24. March, 2014
Remote Control DXing and DXCC
One of the issues currently under consideration by the DXAC is that of remote control of a DXer’s station. It is important to recalibrate our existing programs with respect to current and future remote control techniques because it is here, and it is being used extensively. Remote control is virtually impossible to control under any sort of rules. With the remote equipment available now, such operation is virtually impossible to detect. Failure now to fully address remote control rules and restrictions will subject our most beloved programs to ridicule. There are several remote control configurations, which must be considered independently. One such configuration is operating a station or stations in various locations within one’s own DXCC entity.
One of the concerns highlighted in a 2008 DXAC report on remote control was the idea of “propagational advantage.” The idea that the ability to remotely control a station located anywhere within a DXers own country provides a DXing advantage seems to be a hang-up for many DXers. Why is this so?
(Before discussing remote control, we must stipulate that when controlling an amateur radio station remotely, it is the location of the transmitter, receiver and antennas, that is definitive. According to current DXCC rules, a station — the transmitter, receiver and antennas — must be located within one’s own DXCC entity. The control point must also be located in the same DXCC entity. It is also necessary to understand that the laws of amateur radio operation at the station location must be followed.)
According to the original DXCC rules (1937), a DXer could make contacts from any location within his own DXCC country. This was a simple rule that made lots of sense in 1937. Shortly thereafter, however, the “rule” was changed such that QSOs had to be made from within the same call area where call areas existed, or in the absence of call areas, from locations within 150 miles of the “original” location. The 150 mile rule was in place until late 1977 and early 1978 when it was phased-in in favor of the original rule. The reasons for the 1977 change to Rule 9 was different – a much more mobile population – but the result was the same. This article is not a discussion about DXCC Rule 9.
It seems that almost from the very beginning there has been a sense that the resulting “propagational advantage” is somehow unfair. Just exactly whom is this advantage over, and how is it unfair?
The concept of a propagational advantage only makes sense in the context of competition. Somehow DXers – perhaps from the very beginning – assumed that chasing DX within the DXCC program was competitive – some form of competition. Maybe it was natural for DXers to be competitive. Perhaps it was natural for DXers living in a small area to be competitive, but as far as I know, no such competition has ever been set forth in the DXCC rules. If DXers wish to compete in some manner, they can create their own set of rules and in fact they often do just that.
A New England DXer might be viewed as having a large propagational advantage over a “Suffering Six” in California as there is such a large number of easy-to-work entities just across the Atlantic. Of course, this advantage is inherent. It has nothing to do with remote control. In a way, it might seem that by supporting restrictive rules, east coast DXers are trying to keep the poor Westerners “in their place.” Or, perhaps by promoting limits on remote control, some west coast DXers with big stations might be trying to maintain their own advantages over local DXers with small stations.
Really, there should be no such concept as propagational advantage in DXing because there should be no official competition. If DXCC were a competitive endeavor, it would be unfair on its face – by definition. DXing is inherently unfair. Propagation differences between widely separated areas make competition meaningless. Some DXers will have bigger antennas and more power — some even more yet!
Instead, DXCC is — and should be — an award recognizing personal achievement. How could it be otherwise? If you want to compete, you can participate in a contest. In contests, there are usually categories of recognition for competitors in different areas or regions. There is no such categorization for DXers. DXCC is not competitive, and the rules should not suggest that it is.
Unfortunately, despite the personal achievement aspect of DXCC, certain basic elements of the DXCC program seem to support competition. Consider the periodic listings of individual DXCC standings calculated to a single point. Consider as well the Honor Roll listings. Finally, consider the Top of the Honor Roll. These all tend to suggest competition. “I got to the Top of the Honor Roll in 12 years!”
After dismissing competition, we are left with one’s own personal values. If a DXer utilizes large, remotely operated stations in various parts of a large country to accumulate his totals, that DXer is establishing his values. There’s nothing wrong with that. He has simply defined the terms of his accomplishments. If another DXer fastidiously makes all of his Topband QSOs from a single location, he is speaking of his values. Many people say that those who cheat at DXing are only cheating themselves. This is true when thinking in terms of personal values. When DXers cheat, they are defining a certain set of values. (Most people know who these people are, and it doesn’t matter much.)
To maintain the integrity of its DX programs, the ARRL must deal with the remote control issue with rules that are consistent with current technological trends and usage and its ability to enforce them. The rules must lead the way in a rational manner. Failure to do so – and perhaps even returning long obsolete rules – will harm the program and lead to increasing controversy.
The Bigger Picture
(2014.01.20)
In early November, Rick (The Locust) Hilding, K6VVA released a video that he called “The Big Picture of Expedition Operating and its Direct Relationship to Anti-Social Pileup Behavior.” That was a mouthful – in several ways. You can find it here:
http://dxing.at-communication.com/en/k6vva_video_big-picture-expeditiion-operating/
It’s funny and accurate. Bernie McClenny, W3UR presented a followed-up piece in How’s DX? – QST for February, 2014 – backing up many of Rick’s thoughts.
These articles – and many others — help to get the point across: Pileup behavior could be better. But as Rick emphasizes, the primary responsibility for an orderly and enjoyable pileup belongs to the DXpedition operator. A secondary responsibility belongs to the DXers in the pileup. The DX op must set the scene – the rules – the DXers must then follow them.
The bigger picture is one of understanding who is in the pileup, what they are perceiving and why they appear to behave poorly. One theory is that the masses of DXers fit a “normal” or Gaussian distribution described by the usual “bell” curve. The number of DXers is on the vertical (y) axis while the degree of their experience is on the horizontal (x) axis. Among those of us analyzing pileups, most of our thinking has centered on the more experienced DXers, because they are those with whom we are most familiar. I believe there are relatively few of these most experienced DXers. What I believe we fail to understand is that by far, a greater number in the pileups are much less experienced. These are the casual DXers.
In recent years, I have become much more sensitive to the existence of the casual DXer. These folks are interested in DXing. They like to work hams in far off places, and maybe even chase awards. Yet, they haven’t been exposed to the literature, or the on-the-air experiences that lead to the expert status of the most experienced. Frankly, there aren’t all that interested in spending the time to learn, either. Yet, they should be encouraged and mentored. Most of all, when identified, they should not be ridiculed or harassed because of their inexperience.
You could argue all of those who disrupt a pileup do so with intent, the DQRMers (Deliberate QRMers). There is no question that these malcontents do exist of course. I maintain however, that the DQRMers are relatively few. More often, we hear interference that is caused by circumstance, ill-timing, inadvertent calling, or the inability to operate a radio properly. These problems are not resolved by brute force or ridicule. It is necessary to understand the problem. Then craft a solution. As an example, Rick (‘VVA) has determined by experiment that sending a partial callsign two or three times can lessen out of turn calling. This in not because the DXpeditioner is expressing discontent, but rather because those with poor timing are finally hearing that he is trying to work someone.
So, what can we do? We can all help by identifying these casual DXers and welcoming them to the world of serious DXing. It is certainly possible for them to remain casual while still learning and understand more advanced DXing techniques. We need to understand that while many of us are “Professional Amateurs” some of us are just amateurs. We need to do a better job of understanding who is in the pileups and how to deal with them effectively.
The DX University is a resource for DX learning. The in-person sessions are an excellent opportunity for casual DXers to rub shoulders with more experienced DXers. There is much to learn. Perhaps more than anything, though it’s attitude. If you haven’t met a newcomer or casual DXer recently, make an effort to find one (!) Join the world!
de N7NG
*The DX University™ is a day-long learning session for newcomers and old-timers wishing to hone their DXing skills. In person sessions are being scheduled for 2014, including sessions at The IDXC in Visalia in April, and the ARRL 100th Anniversary Convention in Hartford, CT in July. DXing resources can be found on the DX University Website. For more information go to www.dxuniversity.com
Why Doesn’t It Count?
(2014.01.06)
We occasionally run into situations where various organizations are not able to quickly ascertain the validity of certain rare DX operations for award credit. In the “modern era,” there are very good reasons for sponsoring organizations to be diligent in verifying that amateur radio operations are properly authorized. Each organization must convince itself that such operating is proceeding according to the local rules. It can be difficult to determine how to do it in a manner that respects all parties.
For a number of reasons, it is important for organizations – such as ARRL — that encourage amateur radio operation from many of the various countries of the world through their award programs, to do their best to make sure that these operations are properly authorized. Recognizing amateur radio operations in countries that do not authorize these operations could harm future amateur radio operation in these countries.
DXCC Rule 7 states that “Any Amateur Radio operation should take place only with the complete approval and understanding of appropriate administration officials. It goes on to say however that “In any case, credit will be given for contacts where adequate evidence of authorization by appropriate authorities exists, notwithstanding any such previous or subsequent edict or policy.”
The intent of the latter statement – in particular the reference to adequate evidence of authorizations – is intentionally non-specific. This is meant to suggest that there may be evidence other than the commonly issued piece of paper that can serve as proper authorization.
A written license document is commonly issued in many countries of the world. The “usual” paper document is a convenient means for organizers to determine proper authorization. In this case, only the authenticity of the document need be determined. But, the means by which the various countries of the world issue “adequate evidence of authorization” is not required be uniform throughout the world, however. In general, it is possible that some countries routinely authorize amateur radio operation with no written documentation at all.
Such practice can cause difficulties for amateur radio organizations. It is entirely reasonable for these organizations to create and enforce their own rules regarding accreditation. It is their right. At the same time, it is the right of sovereign nations to act in most any manner they see fit. Where differences exist, it is not reasonable that an amateur radio organization insist that a national administration comply with the organization’s rules. Itis reasonable for the organization to attempt to find a solution, however.
Let’s say that a particular nation chooses not to issue certain documents authorizing amateur radio operation, but chooses rather to authorize such operation – say – verbally. Must the resulting operation really be ruled invalid by an amateur radio organization because no paper document exists? In such cases, it is useful for the amateur radio organization to utilize a degree of ingenuity to convince itself that such an operation does indeed meet its requirements. Indeed, this usually happens.
If the operation is fully authorized and perhaps even encouraged by the government, but cannot be verified in the “usual manner” should the operation really be ruled invalid? Hopefully not. Amateur radio is not created by a piece of paper. It is most definitely in the best interest of a DXing program for its administration to do its utmost to facilitate any such legitimate operating.
The DXing community is now anxiously waiting the submission of “proper authorization” for a certain rare DX operation.” In this case, the awards administration is in a difficult position because documentation in “the usual format” has not been forthcoming. Yet, the DX operator may be in a difficult position as well as it seems that he is unable to comply.
It is important that the relevant organization – ARRL in this case — make a proactive effort to convince itself that the operation is either authorized or that it is not, lack of the “usual” documentation notwithstanding.
According to DXCC rules, adequate evidence of authorization by [the] appropriate authorities should be sufficient. Simply waiting for the operator to submit the “standard documentation” is not the most creative solution to the problem, and will probably fail. I believe ARRL will solve this problem. Until then, we must wait patiently…
de N7NG
© 2014, The DX University™ The DX University is an on-line resource for DXers and DXpeditioners. It also conducts day-long learning sessions for newcomers and old-timers wishing to hone their DXing skills. In person sessions are planned for 2014, including sessions at the International DX Convention in Visalia, CA in April and the ARRL 100th Anniversary National Convention in Hartford, CT in July. See www.dxuniversity.com for more details.
“Am I in the Log?”
Some of this week’s discussion has been covered before, yet we continue to see similar situations every day. I am going to suggest a method for working DX that will make you better than the Internet. It’s about on-line logs.
The Internet log was first used in the mid-nineties. While I am not sure of the original motivation for using an on-line log, one argument for such a log is certainly that it can reduce duplicates. Along these lines, the on-line log can also reveal when a DX op has busted a callsign. If the DX op says one call and logs another on ‘phone, the call will not show up in the log, but looking at the log might reveal who was actually logged. This seldom happens on CW, of course, since with computer logging, if the computer sends your callsign correctly, you can be reasonably sure that it is correctly entered into the log.
The on-line log can promote QSLing via OQRS by drawing attention to that QSLing facility. The use of the Internet can even complete the entire QSO/QSL process by submitting files of signed QSO records to Logbook of the World.
One has to wonder though, if the on-line log doesn’t actually facilitate or even encourage poor operating. In fact, one has to wonder if the use of the Internet doesn’t encourage a form of cheating. How could this be?
Most award programs are based on two-way QSOs. If you rely excessively on an internet listing of your QSOs, are you really even making two-way QSOs? One well-known low-band DXer once stated publically that if he found his call in an on-line log, he would claim the QSO even if he didn’t think that he was in the log. Is that a two-way QSO? One has to wonder.
DXers often ask: “What is the definition of a QSO?” The answer is that a QSO must involve some exchange of information from each side of a QSO to the other on the band and mode in question. This suggests that in – each direction – if no information is exchanged or if all information is exchanged via another means – for example the Internet – then maybe a valid two-way QSO has not actually taken place.
What is the solution for the DXer? In the eighties and nineties, DXers were prone to making many duplicate contacts. For the most part, they were making “insurance contacts.” They were trying to get insurance because they were not sure of their contacts. This resulted from sloppiness on the parts of both the DXers and the DXpeditioners.
In recent years, many DXpeditioners and DXers have realized that it takes two operators to make a good QSO. The DXpeditioner has a responsibility to give the DXer a reasonable chance to know that he is in the log correctly. Today, DXpeditioners are counseled to “just work dupes.” Log the [likely] QSO and move on. An apparent dupe in the log may be caused by either party, so let’s not waste time arguing about it. Likewise, if you are a DXer, don’t worry about dupes. If you are not sure of a QSO, work the station again. He owes it to you.
Is Internet communication a valid substitute for “a good contact?” Absolutely not! Simply put, if a DXer isn’t sure about the DX station having his call correct, he should call again, and he should continue to call without sending a signal report until he is certain that his call has been recorded correctly. When he is sure that his call has been recorded correctly, he should send a report and finish the QSO. (Mind you, this is not license for you to call and expect a good QSO when the propagation is so poor that you can only hear the DX station on peaks. Good judgment must be utilized.)
Yes, it is always possible that the DXpedition operators will still make some error that will cause your QSO not to be in the log, but the chance is not great. In over fifty years of DXing, mostly using this technique, I have less than two handfuls of “not in the log” contacts, and ironically, the majority of those have been with expeditions employing on-line logs! On-line logs should not be a crutch for poor operators.
de N7NG
How DXpeditions Can Work the Most Needed Areas
When DXpedition operators are faced with a selection process regarding whom to work, there are ways to approach the problem. One method used in the past is the “pilot” program. That is, selecting one or several operators around the world to field comments and complaints from DXers about what areas the DXpedition should be working. This method has some merit, but primarily only to relieve the DXpedition members from having to deal with these DXers. What this method usually lacks is the current QSO statistics. Without specific knowledge of what has already been worked, it is difficult to know how to proceed.
If the DXpedition organizers and operators know what has been worked by the DXpedition, and if they know what the demand is based on the most recent “most needed lists,” it is a relatively simple task to determine the current target area or areas.
What is a target area? Quite simply, a target area is an area of the world that is in most need of QSOs with a DXpedition. From the Indian Ocean, call areas 5, 6 and 7 in the United States might be considered target areas. Of course, there may be more than one such area.
Once a target area or areas are determined, it is a simply a matter of finding the necessary openings and point the calling to those areas. For most target areas, there is really no chance of working too many stations located in these areas. Each and every opening to one of these areas should be worked until no further contacts can be made. Complaints about such an operating practice should simply be ignored. Nothing can justify complaints from those in an area with less demand. This is another case in which the DXpedition operators must exert and maintain control.
Observations from South Sudan
On November 13, a multi-national group of six DXpeditioners left the far North bound for a low-band operation from South Sudan. As South Sudan is very near the Equator, this was quite a temperature shock. The group included Dietmar, DL3DXX, Wayne, N7NG, Martti, OH2BH, Pertti, OH2PM, Veijo, OH6KN, Olli, OH0XX, and Hans, PB2T. Part of the trip included an ‘introduction to Ham Radio’ workshop for telecom ministry officials of South Sudan. What follows are some observations on our operating and our pileups.
After nearly a week of operating in South Sudan, Z81X, we have made a number of observations about the pileups. Interestingly, what we have found is mostly positive. We are operating with an emphasis on the low bands, of course, and that means an emphasis on CW.
My observations indicate that the pileups are controllable and well controlled. Our CW speed has been be moderate, not more than maybe 30 – 32 WPM. Keeping the rate up is very important, however. To minimize frustration, a DXer should feel that the very next QSO will be with him.
Veijo, OH6KN says that in his opinion, the operating is better than he had expected. The DXers seem to hear better while the CW ops are better in general. Overall, DXers seem to have more patience, and they are listening more.
As an operator, Veijo likes to be consistent. He listens up and down and tunes outside the pileup frequently, making only one frequency on each frequency.
When there are problems, they are usually continuous callers, and those who don’t seem to be able to hear. Veijo thinks very few of these are malicious, however. He sends CW at a speed of about 28 WPM. He tries to maintain a regular rhythm, and when sending partials, he does so several times. This aids stations in knowing what is going on. As do others, Veijo feels that the pileup is indeed a reflection on the DXpedition operator.
(During our conversation, I mentioned that — in the case of Z81X — I thought in many cases, the European operators were better than the USA operators, or the US operators aare not as disciplined. We both thought this was a little strange, but after thinking more about this, we both realized that it is a function of distance. That is, it’s the 1/R relationship between the apparent quality of the pileup and the location of the DXpedition, where R is the distance between the DXpedition and the calling population. Simply put, the quality of a pileup decreases as the distance between them increases.)
Another of our operators, Olli, OH0XX indicated that his pileups represent nothing new. DXers seem as comfortable with him as he has been with them.
Olli feels that where problems exist, they are exacerbated by the newer methods of alerting DXers of what is on the air. Skimmers, Reverse Beacon Networks and other Spotting networks simply contribute to more DXers in the pileups, and more DXers leads to a greater potential for friction.
Olli does feel that DXers skills have decreased with time, with more reliance on brute force rather than finesse in their approach to a pileup.
Still, Olli advocates ignoring the various hassles. He simply doesn’t let himself recognize any difficulties. He always has the option to simply move from a troublesome frequency and move on. He feels that consistency on his part is key to good pileup behavior. On CW, his usual sending speed is about 30 WPM.
A third interview was with Dietmar, DL3DXX. Dietmar is one of the world’s premier Topband operators. Again, Dietmar doesn’t feel that the pileup operating experienced by the operators on this trip is exceptional, one way or the other. His key to keeping the pileup under control is to keep the customers happy. Keeping the rate up and being consistent is part of his approach. His operating speed – not on the low bands – is around 34 – 36 WPM. To do this, he admits that he has to assume more of the burden to make sure that he gets the call signs correct.
All agree that consistency is important. DXers want to know how you will be approaching their QSO. They will be listening to how you handle those who come before. Consistency will instill confidence in them, and that leads to good behavior.
I’ll be adding more thoughts… plus I’ll have an additional interview with Martti Laine, OH2BH
de N7NG
Learn From History: Something Newer DXers Need to Know
Chod Harris, VP2ML/WB2CHO, who edited the The DX Bulletin and started The DX Magazine, told me once that when the mail was slow, he asked one of his contributors to write something attacking Lists and Nets. This was always guaranteed to generate traffic!
When one of the locals was criticized for arranging schedules with a rare DX station the other day, he wondered aloud about the difference between 1) a DXer moving a rare DX station from band to band and 2) having mass schedules – many callers – with a very rare station and orchestrating the resulting on-the-air goings on. Personally, I don’t see the comparison. Essentially, the local was establishing a mini DX net. Now, handled properly, there is absolutely nothing at all wrong with such arrangements.
The conversation tended toward describing questionable goings on, however, and listening to this narrative, I was reminded of earlier times when “lists and nets” were more prevalent than today. DX nets were common in the seventies. Some loved them and some really, really hated them – maybe more so. In a DX net operation, the net control station – the Listmaster – would start by making a list of callers from a large pileup. He would then call the DXers one at a time, sometimes identifying them by their last two letters and give them an opportunity to call “The DX.” If a valid QSO was made, the Listmaster would pronounce “Good Contact!”
To be fair, some of these DX operators were not really interested in DX, pileups or even working DXers. In fact, some of these DX ops really disliked pileups, so the nets performed a service of sorts. The DX ops only wanted to talk to their friends from their far-off location. But in trying to be polite, they often found themselves inundated by an eager Listmaster and his DXer followers. The Listmasters were very important, and were looked up to by the eager ones.
The usual routine went like this: The managers of Lists and Nets sort of “cornered” sometimes unwitting operators at a rare DX station and coaxed them to move to the net frequency and participate on a net with the intention of providing contacts to multitudes of eager – but somewhat lost – DXers. Nets or schedules themselves weren’t themselves that bad, but they became very questionable – bordering on unethical – when the net control operators went to extreme lengths to fabricate a “Good Contact.” Afterwards, of course, the Listmaster would subsequently bless the contact by saying “Good Contact.” Of course on occasion he failed to formalize the contact. I recall one case where about ten minutes after a questionable QSO, a poor KB6 ask the net in a rather sheepish tone: “Could someone please tell me if that was a good contact?” These were the good old days.
In 1979, before the International DX Convention in Fresno, [California] a high-profile debate between luminaries was touted in the pre-convention literature. There would be a monumental exchange of ideas (and maybe vitriol) on Nets and Lists. I was there, and I would have to say that nothing new was discussed, and among that group, there were few supporters of nets. The Big Debate fizzled. Fresno was a joint meeting of real DXers, north and south. (In case you missed it, let me emphasize again that lists and nets aren’t inherently unethical, but they do tend to degenerate.)
Today though, we may again need to discuss ethics and even morals. If you claim a QSO what are the parameters that define that QSO. I have often been asked: “What constitutes a good contact?” Generally speaking, an exchange of information – including callsigns – is all that is required. No assistance in exchanging that information can be sought or supplied. That is a bare minimum. To the best of my knowledge, no organization requires a signal report, although a signal report is often cited as being necessary. There are many variations and ways to go astray, of course. If a third party says “over,” he is acknowledging that the DXer can’t hear the DX station and is telling the DXer to finish the QSO anyway. If a DXer learns the callsign and even the signal report on the Internet, rather than on the band, there may be a problem.
Suppose you move a multiplier to another band in a WW DX Contest – 80M to 160M. You already know his callsign – a priori knowledge – and you have mutually decided on a frequency. You go to the new band, and you hear a station. You hear a signal, but just barely – ESP. Maybe you hear two letters, enough to be pretty sure it’s the station you want. You already know the exchange – the CQ Zone — so you log it. Is that a good contact? Well, it’s up to you – and him – isn’t it?
There are many rules in DXing that simply can’t be enforced. There are issues concerning power, the Internet, and remote control. Too much power is illegal, but other things are not areas for which you will run afoul of the authorities. I believe each of us has to openly define our own values in working DX. This idea will command more thought in the coming months and years. There’s not much else to do about these issues except talk about them.
*The DX University™ is a day-long learning session for newcomers and old-timers wishing to hone their DXing skills. The most recent scheduled session was on Friday, 20 September at the W9DXCC in Elk Grove, Illinois. In person sessions are being scheduled for 2014. DXing resources can be found on the DX University Website. For more information go to www.dxuniversity.com
More On Remote Control
On direction of the ARRL Board of Directors, the DX Advisory Committee is currently charged with reviewing the DXCC rules. Potential changes are to be passed to the Board for their consideration. Among the current pressing topics are the DXCC country criteria and the use of remotely controlled stations. In the June 4th 2012 issue of the WeeklyDX™, I talked about remote control in the 21st century.
Operating via remote control has significant advantages. If one is unable to sustain an antenna system or worse, is prohibited from even transmitting, remote operation can be the solution. Living under restrictive covenants is but one situation. For DXing, however, other factors come into play.
In the beginning, and for many years, all DX QSOs were required to be made “from within a radius of 150 miles of the initial location” (Rules for postwar DXCC, QST for Mar. 1947, p. 69). This limitation was practical for the time and was perhaps intended to foster or at least accommodate local competition. At some point, this restriction might have been seen as keeping Westerners in their places.L In reality, however, there is no real competition because there is no level playing field.
In the seventies, this concept was challenged. At that time in the United States, the population was becoming increasingly mobile. The thought of giving up formal DXCC chasing because an employer or alternate employment required a distant move was not well-received. Many DXers pretty much gave up DXing after a long-distance move.
The issue was discussed for several years, and finally in 1977, DXCC Rule 9 was changed to allow contacts for DXCC credit to be made anywhere within a single DXCC entity. This solved the mobility problem, but another problem loomed. In large countries such as the USA, major differences in propagation could be expected within the geography that was allowed. Many DXers took advantage by traveling to opposite coasts to work DX from propagationally advantageous locations. With some justification, others still loathe this practice.
Today, DXers can leverage Rule 9 to even greater advantage. Using the Internet, they can operate easily from distant locations still within their own DXCC entity. In principle, the latest equipment, simply installed allows DXers to transmit “legally” from anywhere within their DXCC entity, giving them great “competitive” advantage.
And, there are many additional possibilities that aren’t currently DXCC-legal. One can operate a station at a remote DX location – say in the Azores Islands – while enjoying one’s home environment – or any other environment, for that matter. Alternately, one could operate one’s single – or multiple – home station(s) while traveling anywhere in the world.
Extending that idea, one could operate a very rare station – say Campbell Island – while residing on an offshore vessel. This could be very useful. But, why even bother to go there? Just plant a remote station on an island and stay home next time. Variations on this theme are already being contemplated.
None of this even touches the ability to use remote receivers at distant locations, either close by to eliminate local noise on Topband, or on another continent to be able to hear the unhearable. What about the use of such remote receivers on both ends of a QSO?
And, what about the extensive use of undetected remote equipment in contests? Judicious use of remote equipment will defy the most extensive detection attempts –and do we really want to expend the energy to detect such cheating? My own discussions with others suggests that I don’t come close to realizing what possibilities already exist, not to mention those yet to be invented.
Some who argue against these concepts might say: “Just make these things against the [DXCC] rules.” In many cases, the transgressions would be clear; that is, we could easily recognize activities contrary to the rules. In others, we might have only our suspicions: “That QSO was simply impossible at that time.” In most cases, however, while we’d have our suspicions, we simply wouldn’t be able to prove the transgressions. How much energy do we really want to expend to locate and “prosecute” an ever increasing number of such cases?
These remote operating variations are already being accomplished! Such operating is impossible to detect. We cannot stop it. As I have said in the past: “The twenties and thirties style of operating recognition has been made obsolete by technology.” Like it or not, a new – or modified – form of program structure is necessary – even past due. Those among us who long for DXing as it was in the beginning – when we were beginners – will likely be disappointed, but if changes aren’t made to adapt to the modern world, the modern world will consume our traditions.
So in this respect, in what direction should DXing go? We could all stick our heads in the sand. To some extent, we have been doing that for some time. DX operating has always had discretionary aspects. How much power will I run? Who can make a QSO from my shack? Can I make QSOs for my DXCC from someone else’s shack? Can someone make a QSO for me from his or her shack? Can I work my own station while on a DXpedition to a very rare location?
Should we ignore an order of magnitude increase in the use of these methods? Try to control them? Or should we think outside the box? Perhaps all we need to do is recognize the options and remind DXers of the reason for awards. After all, most of us have long been defining our own DXing in an ethical way. We can make definitive statements– forewords to the rules – concerning what is “right. The least we can do is lay a guilt trip on those who persist in pushing the envelope.
While in Newington, I always told those who asked that there are many DXCC rules that simply cannot be enforced. That in the end, the correct way is for each of us to decide for ourselves how to conduct our own DXing activities. You should be open about it and be able to defend it. There is no other way.
ABOUT THE DXAC
At its July (2013) meeting, the ARRL Board of Directors approved a resolution “that the ARRL Board of Directors tasks the Program and Services Committee to request the DX Advisory Committee (DXAC) study and, if warranted, recommend changes to the DXCC Rules for the ARRL Board of Directors to discuss.”
So, just what is the DX Advisory Committee? What does it do? We could talk for hours about the DXAC, but here are a few highlights.
A Little History
DXCC began in September, 1937. Ham radio was suspended during WWII, and DXCC was restarted in 1947. Between the 1947 restart of DXCC and 1960, relatively few new countries had been added to the list. There were about 290 countries on the DXCC list. Then something interesting happened: Around 1960 or 1961, the first of the world’s top DXers had worked all of the countries on the list. This brought one of DeSoto’s thoughts into play. DeSoto in his 1935 article said of his method for counting countries and the resulting list that “This has the added advantage – from the ham viewpoint – of creating a long list, offering the widest possible realm of achievement; and who will fail to find that an attractive feature?” Most DXers need something to work at all times, others not so much. In that difference of opinion developed some difficulties.
These events led to a new era in which there was a major impetus to add new countries. Many DXers welcomed these additions. Many did not. Some welcomed the challenge, others seemed to wish for an award that came, was achieved and then went away to make way for others. With little guidance or direction, DXCC program management was asked, petitioned and otherwise “encouraged” to create rules – or not – that added countries to the list. There was little guidance.
Creation of the DXAC
At some point, things got a little out of hand. Some country additions made little sense, and in some cases the rules were abused in order to keep things interesting. Well, they were interesting, that’s for sure. But rancor usually prevailed, so in 1971, a committee was created to advise the ARRL on matters concerning the DXCC program. This was the DX Advisory Committee. Among the first committee members was our own Bob Vallio, W6RGG. Among the first projects was “Modifying current criteria under which countries have been defined for the ARRL Countries List. This could result in either deletion or annulment of non-administered islands, rocks and reefs from the Countries List and prohibition of further additions of this type to the list.” Surprise!
The DXAC
The original advisory committees were initiated in March 1969, one for contests and one for VHF repeaters. A motion leading to the creation of the DX Advisory Committee was made in July, 1969. New members of the DXAC were listed in QST for March, 1971. The original DXAC had a total of ten members, and a staff liaison. The purpose of the DXAC was to advise the ARRL on DXCC matters, but new country issues were the primary concern. Today, the DXAC has one representative from each ARRL Division and one from Canada for a total of 16 members.
As time went on, matters within the DX Advisory Committee seemed to become more contentious and more complex. About half of the committee wanted more countries, almost at any cost, and the other half wanted no part of new ones. Their arguments were very creative. What constituted a country? Issuing postage stamps? National flags? A military? Separation? It was all debated. We had reefs (“good grief, another reef”) and we had the infamous “separate administration,” whatever that was. All were intended to make new ones to keep DXers occupied. At one point in the seventies, perhaps out of frustration, the ARRL staff – Awards Committee – decided that if the DXAC voted to accept or not accept a proposal for a new country, that would be the end of the discussion. This resulted in a complete abdication of staff responsibility in deciding new country matters, giving the DXAC an uncontested mandate. For nearly 20 years, the DXAC ran the show.
Time for a Change?
Finally, in the mid-nineties, the DXAC decided that neither Scarborough Reef nor Pratas Island would be granted DXCC country status. Evidence was sketchy. By most accounts, however, Scarborough fully met the qualifications for status at the time of the filing of the application as did Pratas. The DXAC claimed that they had a minimum size rule “in the works” at the time of filing, but it hadn’t been implemented. In the end, the ARRL Board decided that both Pratas and Scarborough Reef would be added to the list.
The Board decided that matter, but the Board did more. They “clarified” their intent in creating the DXAC as an advisory group and restored the long missing input from the ARRL staff in DXing matters. They also modified the “Rules and Regulations” for advisory committees, creating a precise procedure for considering relevant matters. Finally, the Board created an ad hoc committee to study and create – if necessary – a new set of DXCC rules, the so-called DXCC-2000 Committee. The DXCC-2000 Committee did a good job in reconsidering all of the DXCC rules. So good, in fact that the DXAC had virtually nothing to do for over 15 years.
Interestingly, the DXCC-2000 committee’s country criteria included a rule that would likely have covered the addition of Kosovo to the DXCC list, the so-called IARU Rule. Unfortunately, this rule was eliminated by the ARRL Board in 2004. The reason the rule was eliminated was political, and while it impacted the program, the action wasn’t directed at the program. As a result of the change, ARRL has been faced with over five years of “limbo” for Kosovo.
Time for an Update?
Finally, the ARRL Board at its July 2013 meeting resolved that ARRL Board of Directors task the Program and Services Committee to request the DX Advisory Committee (DXAC) to study and, if warranted, recommend changes to the DXCC Rules for the ARRL Board of Directors to discuss.
In its current assignment, the DXAC’s task will likely emphasize two major issues facing the DXCC program 1) rules governing remote control and 2) rules concerning the DXCC country criteria. This is the first significant assignment for the DXAC in nearly 20 years, and it will constitute a significant test of their ability to carry out a useful advisory role. Some have suggested that the Board action is a delaying tactic intended to push a Kosovo decision far enough into the future that the UN or the ITU might resolve the matter. Maybe that’s cynical, but it has been five years.
So, there you have it. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Functionally, the DXAC has had its ups and downs as has the program. For DXCC matters, the Board should probably leave decisions to the experts. Surely the Board of Directors has better things to do.
de N7NG
DXpeditioning Basics – 2013 Revised version Now Available
DXpeditioning Basics by Wayne Mills, N7NG was originally published by ARRL and INDEXA in 1994. Much of the original version is still relevant. A new, updated version has now been published on the DX University Website. To see the new version, go to DXUniversity > DXpeditioning Tools > Publications > DXpeditioning Basics – 2013.
How About a Real DX Contest?
With the fall and improving HF conditions come DXpeditions and the contest season. DXpeditions usually offer new ones for the multitude of DXers. Contests offer aficionados the opportunity to compete with others in the never ending runs of “DX” stations that fill their logs. These same contests also offer DXers the side benefit of adding some new ones to their band-totals. Contest pileups are relatively small and easy to break because they are spread out over much more activity than is usual.
The first ARRL international DX contest was announced in QST for March, 1927. That article described “An International Relay Party,” “A World Wide Contact Contest to be Held in May.” The official name of the contest was in keeping with the traffic handling themes of the early ARRL. Participants applied to ARRL for a unique exchange that was to be sent to the DX station during each QSO. Three points were received for each exchange received and one for each exchange sent. The contest began at 0000Z on May 9th and ran for two full weeks!” My DX mentor, W6BAX finished in first place in the 1931 running of the ARRL DX Competition. He won with a grand total of 3,000 points. The score was calculated essentially the same as it is today – except four points per complete QSO rather than 3 – and I estimate that his log contained something like 30 QSOs in 25 countries.
Besides the memory of full power AM pileups on 14,203 kHz, my personal recollection of contesting in the fifties was that there were far fewer DX stations to be logged, especially on the West Coast where I grew up. As a result, much more time was spent in the Search and Pounce (S&P) mode. There were more DX stations in the fifties – than in the thirties — of course, but still relatively few US and Canadian contesters called CQ or “ran” Europeans. Generally, we tuned up and down, down and up the bands.
A two weeks long “DX” contest today would probably not be very popular. This is true because what we know today as DX contests today are really “running” contests. Many operators like to run. Running is fun, but for two weeks? Probably not. Most serious contesters aren’t really interested in whom they work, but how many. In some contests multipliers are more important than others, where the multipliers come almost automatically in the flurry of QSOs. In contrast, I suspect that the DX contest of the thirties was much more of a true DX contest, where the number of multipliers worked was much higher in relation to the number of QSOs.
Early in my time spent in Newington, I talked about a “new” form of contest – a “real” DX contest, where working countries – multipliers – was the primary objective. CQ Magazine sponsors the Marathon, with an objective of working the most countries in a single year. The Marathon has a number of different classes, but the full year length restricts the number of DXers who can seriously compete.
Comparing running contests to true DX contests – or the Marathon – is similar to a comparison of sports car racing versus a US style sports car rally – an event of precise timing, rather than speed, brawn versus brain, if you will. This comparison exists in a number of different sports activities.
I don’t in any way advocate eliminating what has become the traditional DX contest. I like running contests, especially from off-shore locations. I have participated in a many of these contest from a number of places in the world. But, I would love to participate in something more of a true DX contest, where listening and identification of distant signals was the goal, a true test of DXing skills.
*The DX University™ is a day-long learning session for newcomers and old-timers wishing to hone their DXing skills. The next scheduled session is on Friday, 20 September 2013 at the W9DXCC in Elk Grove, Illinois. You are welcome to join us. Register at www.dxuniversity.com
The DX University sponsors a Webpage that contains ideas and suggestions for DXers and DXpeditioners alike. A revised version of DXpeditioning Basics is now available on the DXU Website. Another recent addition is the DX University Blog. For more information, go to www.dxuniversity.com
Yet More on DXpeditioning Spending
Although I had planned to digress into some history this week, as we begin to make plans for the DXpedition season, the topic of DXpedition funding comes up again. Though I have covered this particular angle before, something came up the other day, and I wanted to make a comparison.
Specifically, US Vice President Biden in response to a question from an audience member admitted last week that the availability of federally backed loans and outright grants has contributed to the vast increase in the cost of higher education in this country. The combination of large sums of money dumped into the higher education system and market-based institutions has led to greatly increased costs. Now perhaps uncharacteristically, I personally support significant spending for education. (We seem to have a severe shortage in the area of education.) The unintended consequence of almost unlimited funds leading to almost unlimited costs is not desirable, however.
The same economics come to play in DXpedition funding. The availability of excessive DXpedition funding may be leading to excessive DXpedition spending. Two years ago at the Visalia IDXC, addressing the DX Forum, I stated that “…as long as DXers make funds available, DXpedition organizers will spend the money.”
DXpedition organizers define ambitious projects. They make pleas for the funds, saying that if such funding isn’t provided, there will be no DXpeditions.
In an article just out in Carl Smith’s latest DX Magazine, Bill Horner, VK4FW says “You seriously need to get off your arse and put your hand in your pocket and show support.” There isn’t any mention or discussion of the details of the expedition, its goals, the number of operators, the length of stay, etc. Just dig down and support it.
The money comes, the expeditions are carried out and everyone is happy. Are they really? Big funding may make sense for large expeditions to the “Southern Islands.” Transportation is expensive as is incorporating 35 operators for 30 days. Yes, we need to make the most of the opportunities when going to these locations. But do we really need to work everyone 27 times? I wonder if many DXers might be really happy with two or three QSOs for Mixed, Phone and Digital modes and spend only $400K rather than a full-blown expedition for $2M.
It’s true that one way or the other DXers must support DXpeditions if they wish to have rare DX to work. The proliferation of Ham Radio and DXers in the world today – relative to 30 to 50 years ago is such the most of the stuff we need comes from the efforts of DXpeditions. At the same time, however, the popularity of the multi-band and multi-mode awards has spawned expeditions to very rare and even less rare destinations that by some measures are simply over the top in their scope.
If DXers do come up with the big dollar amounts required for several big DXpeditions per year, fine. If they do it without objections, even better. Will some DXers suffer from too few DXpeditions to destinations of lesser demand? Probably. As long as this scenario is sustained, that is fine.
At some point, however, more and more DXers will likely ask: “Why is it necessary to spend such huge amounts for major activity from the less rare locations.” Is it really necessary to have 40 operators for a month on a mid-latitude island spot at the cost of nearly $400,000? Though this type of mega-mega DXpedition has become popular, at some point we might find that it isn’t really necessary. The answer may well be that it isn’t.
It is still be possible to activate even the rarest places with more modest efforts, smaller boats and fewer operators, who work six-hour shifts and spend less time on the beach. While this type of operation might not be possible to fill all of your Challenge slots in one fell swoop, it will be possible to provide an all-time new one and a couple of extra QSOs for newer DX aficionados. Unlike the US Federal Government – with its unlimited resources (sarc) – DXers will at some point reach their contribution limit. “Are we there yet?”
*The DX University™ is a day-long learning session for newcomers and old-timers wishing to hone their DXing skills. The next scheduled session is on Friday, 20 September at the W9DXCC in Elk Grove, Illinois. You are welcome to join us. For more information on this session, go to www.dxuniversity.com
Club Log OQRS Survey Results
For the past few months Michael Wells of Club Log has been running a survey about Online QSL Requests (OQRS). The objective of this survey has been to understand the preferences and mood of the DX Community.
The survey asked whether charging should be allowed, and whether it should remain mandatory to offer bureau cards. The survey also asked for suggestions about amounts that would be acceptable if charging were permitted, and invited any other comments.
According to Michael, “The important question is about bureau cards that can be ordered free of charge from Club Log when OQRS is used.”
You can see the survey questions here, and the results here. All of the information in the results is in the public domain, and any publication wishing to use the data is welcome to reproduce this information.
A Forward to the DXCC Rules
The WeeklyDX™ Helpful Hints No. 46 from the DX University™*
(2013.06.24)
Let’s face it: The twenties and thirties style of operating recognition has been made obsolete by technology – and other circumstances. That was true a decade ago, and it continues today, at times more so. To some extent, award rules have never been more than guidelines. While manager of the Membership Services Department at ARRL, I frequently answered questions about “what is legal” with respect to DXCC rules. Because of advanced technology, some of the DXCC rules have become irrelevant or even obsolete. So when I was asked what was “legal,” I typically told people that in the end that they must create their own definition of how they apply the less-than-specific rules. Do you want to take advantage of every loophole, or do you want to maintain some particular criteria? Do you want to adhere strictly to the rules, or will you fudge a bit on those rules that no one will know about? Few will ever know.
Since many of the DXCC rules are in reality unenforceable, each individual must decide for himself just where to draw the line in taking advantage of that which award sponsors can’t control or enforce. DXCC Rule 9 allows you to make QSOs from anywhere within your DXCC entity. But is that fair? Should I make QSOs from another location, maybe across the continent? Can someone else make a QSO for me from his location? Even if I am at the other end of the QSO?
There are rules about where you can reside, rules about who can make a QSO from your station, or from where you can make a QSO. There are also rules about operating your station by remote control. The use of remote control is growing fast, and with the growth is coming many new issues to deal with. More about remote operation later.
The part of the QSO information that can be actually proved is little more than what is written in the QSO confirmation record. In the most basic case, that information consists of only time, date, band, mode of the QSO, and the callsign of the station that a DXer has worked. Everything else – your operating parameters – is taken in good faith.
So far, I have only touched peripherally on the matter of cheating. Some of the above queries relate to ethical variations, while others would clearly involve cheating. Now, don’t get me wrong: Though cheating is quite easy to spot – a QSO very unlikely to have taken place, for example – the vast majority of DXers don’t engage in such practices, but it does happen. I know. When the operator at T5X reports that two North American stations were louder on Topband than most of the Europeans he was working, you know something is amiss.
Many of the practices that were highly technical and difficult a decade ago are now easy and commonplace. The latest controversial technology is remote control operation. The currently available, Internet-connected hardware can make remote operation from anywhere in the world very simple. Yet, when a security screener at Hartford’s Bradley Airport tells me that “it’s the twenty first century” when he sees my Bencher paddle, whether we like it or not, the world may have moved beyond us. We will have to learn to live with it though, since there is no practical way to stop or even slow it.
And in many ways we don’t want to stop it. The advantages of remote operation are obvious when we consider that more and more developments are limiting the erection of outside antennas. Many of us are hampered by these regulations. Skimmer technology can make listening obsolete. Code readers are a mixed blessing. They bring more hams into the CW realm, but that technology isn’t quite up to speed yet.
How are we to deal with these issues? Bending the rules has always been practiced to some extent. The DXCC program was initiated in September of 1937. The first disqualifications for altering cards were revealed in June of 1939! They caught on quickly.
I believe most DXers already abide by the informal approach to the rules. Most of us have a keen sense of fairness. Building a large country total on 160 meters from a remote station on the East Coast and allowing people to assume the QSOs were made from the West Coast could be called a number of things, but fair play isn’t one of them. Yet it’s legal. You can commute to the East, or you can operate a remote station. The remote station has a place, but this isn’t it. I believe most would agree.
And this leads to the rub. Many DXers say “it’s only a hobby,” and “so what if they cheat, they’re only cheating themselves. But, we have lists. We have the Honor Roll. We have the Top of the Honor Roll. The ARRL web pages reveal all of our totals to the world. Those who abuse the rules are right up there with all the others. That’s not fair either. So how do we draw the line? Should we rely less on the lists that we strive to top?
Cheaters have been active since the beginning. As earlier noted, several newly minted DXers who were already missing from the DXCC listing in less than two years following the introduction of the first DXCC program. They weren’t mentioned by callsign, but quoting the author: “…we’ve decided never to mention them again on this page.” Since then, many disqualifications have taken place, more are due.
To put us all on the same footing might we articulate a “DXCC Rules Philosophy” right at the beginning? A forward to the DXCC Rules right after DeSoto’s fundamental October, 1935 QST article about how to count countries worked? Stipulate how we expect DXers to behave, and to bridge the gap between old and new, to create a less painful transition between coming technology and tradition?
For serious DXers, these are touchstone issues. No one can enforce all of the rules, but everyone should know what is expected. Let’s give honorable DXers something to point to when confronted with others’ who are less conscientious in their view of the rules. Such a preamble won’t stop cheating, but it will help to clarify our standards.
I expect you might have some comments. Please write to n7ng@arrl.net .
*The DX University™ is a day-long learning session for newcomers and old-timers wishing to hone their DXing skills. The next DXU session will be in Friedrichshafen next weekend, and following that, DXU and the Mile-High DX Association will present a session on June 27th at the Rocky Mountain Division Convention at Estes Park, CO. You are welcome to join us at future sessions. For more information on upcoming DX University sessions, visit www.dxuniversity.com
de N7NG