Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule

[Larry Burke]

Agree... let's cut out the middleman and just pay for a QSL directly. 

Tom's suggestion was a valid one. If we don't like the direction the ARRL
has been heading with this we should let our DXAC rep, Programs & Services
Committee rep, and Division Director know. The commercial remote businesses
encouraged their customers to lobby their ARRL reps and look how the rule
turned out. As I understand it, the treatment of remotes for DXCC credit is
a work in progress. Make your voice heard -- loudly and often.

BTW, the minutes from the ARRL January Board meeting shows only two
Directors went on record as opposing the recent DXCC rule changes -- K5UZ
and K7CEX. 


- Larry K5RK


-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Renwick [mailto:ve5ra at sasktel.net] 
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 6:54 PM
To: 'Larry Burke'; 'TopBand List'
Subject: RE: Topband: CQWW160 Remote receiver rule

When you see full page ads in QST for commercial remote operation, then you
know the rules have really changed.  It advertises 185 antennas, 50 towers,
18 stations, 15 amplifiers, 9 states, 2 continents and then says "What are
you waiting for?"

Why don't we just quit all this foolishness and cut through a 'minor' point.
Why not just send the dxpedition a few hundred dollar bills and get
confirmation on all bands, all modes.  Against the rules you say.  So who
says there are any ethics left when operators now set their own ethical
limits.  

I see little difference between buying contacts and using a commercial
remote station.  This also has the benefit leaving the bands open for
'smaller' home stations to have some fun and actually work the dx.

Doug