Topband: FW: how to set up a Skype receiving beacon

[Michael Tope]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jose M. Valdes R. YV5LIX" <yv5lix at cantv.net>
>
> It is my personal view that a contact using other than 2 ways sky wave 
> radio
> propagation should not be accepted for any awards, in other word, if one 
> end
> uses her/his radio to transmit and the RX is performed thanks to Internet,
> the QSO is a fraudulent one, hamradio is about radios, and a QSO should be
> accomplished 100% using radios physically at our shacks, if I set up a
> remote radio in England and I link to it via internet and them I QSO with 
> a
> station in Kazakhstan, such a QSO  should not be valid for any awards, as 
> a
> toy to play with it is perfectly acceptable, but not as a means to achieve 
> a
> larger number of DXCC entities for awards, the challenge of amateur radio,
> and specially on 160 meters, are the difficulties to complete a 2 way QSO.
>

I think the DXCC rules state that only QSOs made from within any
given DXCC country count towards a given award total. This naturally
limits the remote receiver problem to the borders of one's own country,
which I think most would agree doesn't provide a significant advantage
when the country is geographically small (HB0 for instance), but does
provide a significant advantage when the country is geographically large
like the United States or Russia. I am a proponent of remote receivers
for the selfish reason that I live on a small lot in a very noisy 
environment
which places limits on what I can hear. For me, a remote receive site
represents a possible solution to my dilemma (e.g. how do I hear better
than I do now and still live 15 minutes from my workplace). That being
said, I  think their is a sharp distinction that needs to be drawn (for
purpose of awards, etc) between a remote receiver that is say less than
100 miles away, and a network of remote receivers scattered all over
the country.  In the former case, the remote receiver is a lifestyle 
solution
that doesn't produce a significant geographical advantage (propagation
100 miles away will differ, but not drastically), whereas having multiple
receivers 3000 miles apart does produce a huge geographical advantage.
Of course then their is the issue of sharing of remote receivers. For
instance what about the case where a bunch of urban DX club members
get together and build a shared remote receiver in some rural location
50 miles from town. Is that okay? I think most would agree that part
of the challenge of 160 is trying to exploit the available advantages to
hear better and transmit farther than the next guy (better RX antennas,
better TX antennas, better QTH, etc). So I think the question needs
to be how do we incorporate the remote base into the topbanders
arsenal  of solutions (which I think we should) without dimishing the
role of individual accomplishment and challenge?

73, Mike W4EF...................................