Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule

[Jim Brown]

On Thu,1/29/2015 9:22 AM, David Raymond wrote:
> Remote stations are a complex issue and as Tree says, obviously, a 
> game changer.  That said, the further you get into it, the worse it 
> gets.  We know stations are obviously using very distant remote sites 
> for DXCC purposes (as witnessed with EP6T, and others).  No doubt 
> there will be EU stations using NA remotes for K1N (if the control 
> operators permit).  I think many, if not most of us believe this is 
> out and out cheating. 

Yes, it is cheating.  So is starting topband DXCC at one QTH, then 
moving 2,000 miles and keeping those DXCC countries from the old QTH.  
But the League re-wrote their rules to make it legit. BAD call.

> Clearly there needs to be a category for remote operation, maybe of 
> any kind. 

The noise issue is the real game-changer here. We are all getting older, 
the places where we can afford to live are getting noisier. There are 
states I can't work QRP on the east coast because of their local noise 
-- indeed, there are lots of guys in TX I can't work, even though I 
could work W4CB, NO3M, WD5R, WQ5L, and a station in FL whose call I've 
forgotten.

So I DO favor a rule that permits remote RX within some reasonable 
distance for at least some classes of operation, and in most contests. 
The distance should not be enough that it gives you an advantage for 
propagation, nor allows you to escape the trash that your own 
transmitter puts out.

How about this?  An SDR on the internet that can be accessed by multiple 
stations, in the same manner as a Skimmer? If YOU can use it, any other 
station within the mileage limit can use it.

73, Jim K9YC