I agree Ken.
If I want to spend the money to build a remote station in J6 or HK or
wherever and it is legal it should be allowed. Where the operator sits
is of little consequence. The contacts are made with a STATION in J6
W0MU-1 CC Cluster w0mu.net
On 6/20/2012 5:36 PM, Ken Widelitz wrote:
> CQ Magazine, June, 2012, Page 91:
> "Contacts with a remote base station are valid for all CQ contest and award
> purposes. Award applications by a remote base operator are permitted only if
> both the station (transmitters, receivers, and antennas) and the operator
> are located in the same country (entity)."
> Are "contest" awards (certificates, plaques, trophies) "by a remote base
> operator" covered by the second sentence? Since the first sentence indicates
> it covers contest contacts, it is implied that the second sentence does
> also. Personally, I couldn't care less about CQ Magazine non-contest awards,
> but I do care about contest awards.
> If this policy applies to contests, it is a terrible policy. Policies should
> be implemented in order to have MORE entities to work in contests, not less
> (i.e., my understanding is that the 2 point NA QSO rule was implemented to
> encourage Dxpeditions to NA entities.) Also, it would be another rule where
> it is almost impossible to detect a violation.
> What difference does it make where the operator is located when operating a
> remote station? In every case, the operator simply is not at the station
> where transmitters, receivers, and antennas are located.
> 73, Ken, K6LA / VY2TT (not yet remotable, but most probably will be in the
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list