🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <18184@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> lively@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Richard
 S. Lively) writes:
>In article <1990Feb20.165153.10277@newcastle.ac.uk> C.Dennison@newcastle.ac.uk
(C. Dennison) writes:
>>
>>Well taken from the stations' point of view, why should they spend money
>>satisfying the wishes of people outside their target area, who probably won't
>>ever listen to them again anyway? OK so $50 may be a bit steep, but why NOT
>>charge for QSLing?
>
>Because from the station's point of view, the QSL is identical to any other
>trinket (such as a travel poster) which helps to promote their country's
>image to the rest of the world.  After all, it is (usually) a government-
>funded station.  If the people of the country do not see it as a reasonable
>expense, then fine.  Most listener's aren't going to complain.  But
>charging $50 definitely projects a view of the country that I don't think
>is in the best interests of the country.
>

But how many DXers get a QSL from station x, put it in the collection and then
forget about it?. OK so an elaborate QSL from some particular country may well
serve as an image booster to that country. But I still think that it's a bit
of a cheek to write to some small station thousands of miles away, broadcasting
only to a small audience, probably with inadequate funding, and then expect to
recieve a QSL. Obviously thes station charging $50 is being extortionate and
deserves in my opinion to be ignored,.b But I think it's important that DXers
appreciate the adminastrative costs involved in a small station QSLing and try
to cover these (say with IRCs or whatever), if they expect to recieve a QSL!e
+ Computing Science Dept, University of Newcastle | All opinions expressed     +
+ Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU (091 265 2486) | are mine and mine alone!   +
+ ARPA: C.Dennison@newcastle.ac.uk                |      Chris Dennison        +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++