To: | cq-contest@contesting.com |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL Rule Change for Remote Ops - Always Multi-op? |
From: | Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com> |
Reply-to: | k9yc@arrl.net |
Date: | Mon, 31 Jul 2017 09:27:42 -0700 |
List-post: | <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com> |
On 7/31/2017 12:59 AM, Paul O'Kane wrote: Remote "ham-radio" operators - are not tainted by a whiff of RF. may be using a station remotely (maybe even one they have built, and even built the remote control system for) BECAUSE where they live is surrounded by RF noise! Or because deed restrictions prohibit antennas. are sending and receiving internet-audio streams or may be using radio links to control their radios 73, Jim K9YC _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest |
Previous by Date: | Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Assisted - Is it just another Urban Myth ?, K9MA |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [CQ-Contest] 2017 Hawaii QSO Party, Wes Plouff |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL Rule Change for Remote Ops - Always Multi-op?, Paul O'Kane |
Next by Thread: | Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL Rule Change for Remote Ops - Always Multi-op?, Barry |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |