[CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem

[Yuri]

>>>Owning a station is not even necessary.

Yes, Bob, you got it! 
This is what is being promoted as a future of HAM Radio. All you have to do now is to own a computer and save some $$$ to pay for the remote access to one of the "big stations".
Obviously, not the HAM Radio you and I and many others enjoyed for the majority of our lives.

73  Yuri  VE3DZ

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces+ve3dz=rigexpert.net at contesting.com] On Behalf Of robert wa1fcn
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 9:23 PM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem


GE Ria

         Well I have been chasing DX for 54 years and I have most likely read

         about your report of remote operation being OK for DXCC, tho I

         really do not remember it now.  All I can say is Wow, I think I

         need to reread about this rule. You may remember my previous

         posts of my dissatisfaction with ARRL rules pertaining to  DXCC and FT8.  Now this.

         Why did I work so hard to get DXCC of 286 on 40 meters when this is

         available and FT8 to boot!  Not cool Ria.

                 73 BoB WA1FCN

On 2/3/2020 1:57 PM, rjairam at gmail.com wrote:
> ARRL declared this type of remote operation OK for DXCC some years ago 
> - you can operate from W6, work Macau, minami torishima, Philippines 
> etc then hop on a remote on the east coast and work Europe and Africa. 
> Hop on a southeast remote and work ZS, PY, LU, CE, CP etc. Owning a 
> station is not even necessary.
>
> 73
> Ria, N2RJ
>
>