QSL CHEATING - A BLIGHT ON THE SWL HOBBY
QSL CHEATINGA BLIGHT ON THE SWL HOBBY
I’ve been contemplating writing this blog post for the past three years. What I have to say may upset some people. So be it!
I cannot get excited by the trend of some shortwave listeners using remote SDRs to send reception reports to the few remaining stations that QSL (either in hard copy or via email).
These listeners use the Internet to access Kiwi and Web SDRs to gather information for their reception reports. They compile the report and send it off to the station, requesting a QSL card or eQSL.
My issue is that the listener is not reporting the station's reception as heard from their location. Instead, they're reporting reception from an entirely different location, often thousands of kilometres away across the globe. They’re using someone else’s receiver to pick up the station.
What’s wrong with that, you ask?
This practice goes against the traditional and accepted standards for QSL acquisition established over many decades in the DXing hobby—QSLing is almost as old as radio itself!
When sending a report, it was always assumed and expected that the information in the report was monitored, noted, and compiled at the listening location. For instance, if Radio Romania International received a report from Melbourne, Australia, it was assumed that Romania was heard at the listener’s location in Melbourne.
Those days have gone.
We now have QSL collectors opening their browsers, logging onto many remote SDRs worldwide, dialling up Romania’s frequency on someone else’s receiver and antenna, making their report, and sending it off.
So, what’s the problem with that, you ask? The technology is now available to make that process possible. So, why not take advantage of it?
Because, my friend, you’re no longer using your own resources and radio equipment to hunt for and discover radio signals over considerable distances. That’s what DXing and QSLing are all about!
Let me share a few examples of the misuse of QSLing practices.
There’s a well-known, long-time DXer in North America who is a keen QSL hunter. In the usual radio hobby forums, this individual boasts about the verifications he’s received from flea-powered hobby and pirate broadcasters in Europe and beyond. When asked how he could possibly hear such a low-powered station, he sometimes admits that he accessed a remote SDR, often located near the station—perhaps in the same or neighbouring town. On most other occasions, he doesn’t disclose where the remote SDR is situated. Many of his monitoring reports are made when the propagation of that station’s signal would be impossible at his home location! If it's midday in summer on the west coast of North America, you wouldn’t hear a 10-watt European hobby station transmitting into a simple wire antenna on 6 MHz. Therefore, he clearly uses the Internet to access SDRs located very close to the broadcaster.
Where’s the achievement in this? What does it reveal about the person involved in such deceptive behaviour?
Recently, another DXer in Europe bragged about his QSL letter from a station in Brazil. After reading this, I thought, “Geez, that’s some good DX there!” But then I dug a bit deeper into the post and found out he’d used a Brazilian Kiwi SDR situated close to the station. Hmm… Not such brilliant DX after all! Not a massive personal achievement, really. At least he was honest and upfront about how he managed to hear the station. But that’s about all I can say about it.
Regrettably, there are many other instances similar to the examples mentioned above. It doesn't align with the spirit of the hobby! Is it cheating? I reckon it is. But then again, I suppose it’s all subjective.
In the February magazine of the Australian Radio DX Club, my long-time colleague, Craig Seager VK2HBT, wrote:
"I’m sorry, but streaming a station online doesn’t cut the mustard as a technical hobby. We all (including me) do it from time to time as listeners, and to confirm whether something we can’t hear well is indeed active, but it’s never going to replace the magic and thrill of hearing something through the vagaries of the ionosphere and the variation of the seasons, and hence doesn’t need a club – or a magazine, to cover how to do it or celebrate the achievement of technical success."
/ / / /
Don't get me wrong! I’m not opposed to remote SDRs. They’re a valuable tool, and I’ve written extensively about them on this blog over the years (see the Further Reading list at the end of this post for the links).
I regularly use global remote SDRs, with Kiwi receivers being my preferred choice. Researching frequency allocations at the beginning of new transmission seasons, identifying stations, and comparing reception from various locations, both locally and internationally, are just a few reasons for utilising remote SDRs.
-gigapixel-very_compressed-scale-2_00x.jpg){kind=tracking}
Absolutely not! Living in Australia, I see no point in sending comments on signal strength using someone else’s receiver and antenna in, say, the Middle East or Europe! As I mentioned earlier: Where’s the achievement in that?
But wait! It gets worse!
A few highly unscrupulous individuals take this abuse even further. They log onto the station’s website and report on the direct streaming feed—the audio from the website! They don’t even bother using any receiver on the face of the Earth! That is NOT DXing. No “reception” has occurred in the submission of that report. It’s simply streaming bits of data through the Internet. I suppose every one of those reports must be a SINPO of 55555!
 |
| One of my favourite QSLs is from Radio Verdad, Guatemala on 4055 kHz. Hearing this low-powered station via a remote SDR in Central America would have been no fun compared to the joy and satisfaction I got from receiving the signal here at Mount Evelyn, Australia |
Do radio stations worry about receiving false reception reports? Can they identify inaccurate reports of signals that probably wouldn’t propagate to the listener’s location?
It appears that most don’t! Regardless of what was in the listener’s report, most stations are simply happy to receive any kind of listener response and engagement. They then “rubber-stamp” a reply that serves more as an acknowledgment of receipt than as a confirmation statement.
There are many reasons for this, which I delve into in an article I wrote for The Spectrum Monitor magazine back in April 2015. You can download the article, “The QSL Card – At What Cost….?” from my Radio Resources page on this blog. It outlines the current circumstances that stations face regarding audience relations and remains relevant ten years after I wrote it. Recommended reading!
 |
The actions and QSL policies of stations these days leave much to be desired! They simply reward dishonest reception report practices by issuing QSLs (or more commonly, eQSLs) as a marketing strategy. They are doing a disservice to honest shortwave listeners who take the time to log reception correctly.
However, not all stations accept this deceptive activity. This week, I came across two broadcasters that dismissed reports because the listeners used remote SDRs. One was the Japanese station Radio Nikkei, which sent a polite message to a listener that read as follows:
"Greetings from the Listener Services at Radio NIKKEI.
We are grateful for your detailed reception report and can confirm that the signal you received is indeed from our broadcast. We would like to inform you, that our station does not provide QSL cards for receptions through the Internet."
The other was a low-powered hobby station in Europe, but I can’t remember the name. Nevertheless, I commend both stations for taking a stand and asking for honest reception reports from listeners’ locations instead of relying on some remote SDR on the other side of the globe or, heaven forbid, from a streaming service on a website!
OK, so what exactly is an honest shortwave listener or DXer?
A legitimate or serious DXer is someone who uses their own equipment and antennas to engage in genuine DXing. By doing so, legitimate DXers enhance their technical knowledge, gain a better understanding of propagation characteristics, learn about their local reception conditions, study frequency monitoring and spectrum usage, and explore other facets of this wonderful hobby.
A major reason I’ve remained part of this hobby for nearly 57 years is my fascination with the technical side of radio—using my own receivers and striving for the best performance from them, discovering numerous accessories that enhance receiver capabilities, experimenting with various types of antennas over the years, and taking my radio gear on field trips (DXpeditions) to the bush or along the coast. For most of my life, DXing has been a significant source of enjoyment and education. My involvement in shortwave listening was the catalyst that led me to become an amateur radio operator, now going on 47 years!
Finally, the market is filled with many recently released high-quality portable receivers. Additionally, there are plenty of legendary receivers from the past to enjoy (check out this blog’s Retro Receiver Reviews). They form the foundation of our hobby and provide a lot of fun. We should use that gear before diving into the Internet to explore the remote receivers.
I hope these few words offer insight into my perspective on this issue. You’re welcome to disagree—you’re entitled to your view. However, at least you’ll have gained some understanding of what this hobby means to me and why it’s important to appreciate how it has evolved.
Change isn’t always for the better.
73, and good DX to you.
Rob Wagner VK3BVW
FURTHER READING:
A Fresh Look at Online SDRs – Part 1
A Fresh Look at Online SDRs – Part 2
Online SDRs: Impacting the Way We Listen to Shortwave
The QSL Card – At What Cost….?
CLICK HERE for VK3BVW Live Stream (Clublog)
| QRZ callsign lookup: |
© Rob Wagner, Mount Evelyn DX Report, and contributors 2012-2026
Hello Rob! I concur wholeheartedly with you regarding all of this, which I imagine most of us “old time” DXer’s will do. I got into the hobby as a teenager in high school when the thought of listening to voices from faraway lands invoked a magical feeling of mystery and thrill. When I learned you could actually write to these stations and receive mail from them, I was hooked. Each day, when I got home from school, I would check the table where my mother would lay out any relevant envelopes (often bearing colourful stamps) that had arrived in the mail that day. After managing to hear a sought after distant station, the other half of the fun was waiting (sometimes for months) for that reply, and hopefully QSL, via the “snail mail.” Yes, the Internet and e-mail were still science fiction at that point!
ReplyDeleteI used to carefully tuck away my verifications in albums or shoeboxes, and still have most of them to this day. In order to preserve radio history, I have scanned a large part of my collection and saved them to my Internet Archive page.
However, as the 21st century arrived, with the Internet, online streaming and e-mails now in full swing, the QSLing part of the hobby lost its lustre for me. As many stations dropped from the airwaves in favour of the new format, the selection of interesting DX targets began to shrink dramatically. Most of my equipment has sat in storage in our garage for nearly a quarter century.
Recently, I have rediscovered the world of shortwave radio. However, it is a much changed world from the one I once knew. The Kiwi SDR’s enable me to tune into a station on the other side of the world with amazing clarity, while still giving me that “feel” of hearing a signal coming in over the airwaves. It is enjoyable to sit back and listen to the programs on stations like Radio Pilipinas, RNZ or Radio Thailand, however, I have no interest in trying to get another QSL.
Dan, thanks so much for your wonderful story, which matches very mu ch with my own experience, especially the early days that we both fondly remember. My issue is not with remote SDRs. As I mentioned in the post, I use the Kiwis for research of the shortwave spectrum. My "beef" is with misuse of SDRs for reception reporting. It is there that I see some abuse when trying to get QSLs from broadcasters. Like you, personally, I have no further interest in QSLs. But I do still drop emails to stations to let them know I am listening to their transmissions. Very 73, Dan. Rob - VK3BVW
DeleteThanks for your feedback. Yes, SDRs are very useful tools, especially if your location is difficult (e.g. noisy) for reception. Sometimes, SDRs make listening easier when you are aiming to hear a specific station. But, for me, using them for reception reports has very limited value when there are so many wonderful receivers available. 73, Rob VK3BVW
ReplyDelete100% Agree.
ReplyDeleteI am stunned. I had no idea there were SWLs who are this unscrupulous. It's flagrantly unethical. Thanks for shining a light on it!
ReplyDeleteClay NF7X
And...WPE6GBF, from back in the day! ;)
Thanks for reading the post and your comments, Clay. 73 de Rob VK3BVW
DeleteGreat, Sir! Totally agree with you. Likewise, personally, I am not opposed to the use of remote SDRs, but for my captures and sending of reports I only do so from my personal SDR, located in my QTH, and connected to a physical antenna, that is, a local receiving device. Long live the DX!!! And unfortunately there are and always will be dishonest people, but in the end, the real DXer knows what a genuine QSL is from a genuine listen. 73!
ReplyDeleteThanks for your support and views on SDRs, which align closely with my own views. 73 de Rob VK3BVW
DeleteIf i send a reception report i write that i use a WEB SDR in this place, lot of radios stations answer to me. But the WEB SDR is not very far from me. In the past i has good antennas, now i have fun to listen with WEB or KIWI SDR.
ReplyDeleteHi Rob. I must agree with you and with others on here. It is the 'magic' of hearing those far-away places that has led many of us to a life-long hobby and interest, amateur licences and, often a career in a technical field. I do also explore the world of remote SDRs, but will never report a station using them.
ReplyDeleteThe other thing is the use of wide band recording. Unless I had been physically at the location where it was made I would never contemplate using these to obtain a QSL. I have recordings made in Thailand but not by myself . I have had lots of fun going through these
but would never claim that I was there physically or attempt to obtain a QSL. I will say that the level of skill and expertise needed to extract the most out of these recordings is often the same as in a 'live' session.
Something else you may care to comment on: are QSLs really relevant these days apart from the amateur fraternity? To me, they are largely a thing of the past and it has been many years since a report has been sent by any means. After all, audio recordings are readily made, stored and recalled these days.
Regards, John S.
G'day John! Thanks for your excellent comments and feedback. I agree with everything you mentioned there.
DeleteRe: the relevancy of QSLs today: In my article, "The QSL Card...At What Cost?", I wrote:
"....in the view of many shortwave broadcasters, the importance and relevance of reception reports has diminished significantly. Detailed technical information about signal strength, interference, and propagation characteristics are of no interest to a station’s programming staff. They just want to know your thoughts on their program content. Their reply with a QSL card is merely a glorified acknowledgement of your report and a “thank you” for taking the time to write and provide feedback, in the hope that you will continue listening in the future. Call it a marketing exercise!"
The full article is on the Radio Resources page: https://medxr.blogspot.com/p/radio-resources.html
So, you are correct, John. From the station's perspective, the QSL card has lost its usefulness. They have access to the same remote SDRs that we have. If they reply, it is not because of any technical information they are seeking. It's a simple courtesy to the listener. But it costs in staffing and resources - things that the broadcasters just don't have at their disposal as governments globally cut funds and close stations.
73, John.
Hi Rob, I must agree with your comments. QSLing a distant station with your own equipment is what makes the hobby fun. I must admit I have sent reception reports to a few European pirates using a Web SDR on a few occasions though I made it clear which receiver I was using and it's location. This was when the University of Twente Web SDR first became available. Probably around 10 years ago. These pirates were over the moon that their small low powered station could be heard in Australia using modern technology even if it was sort of cheating and had no problem sending a QSL. Probably the only more mainstream station i sent a reception report using this receiver was the Italian time station - Italacable as I really liked the QSL design. Once again I did make it clear it was from the Twente receiver as it would be impossible to receive in Australia with stations like WMV on the same frequency. They had no issue and sent out a QSL card. I think forms of cheating QSL cards has always gone on even before Web SDRs. I remember reading a few stories about certain characters that would use reception reports published in some of the radio hobby magazines to cheat a QSL card. I no longer send out reception reports and haven't for quite a few years. As you mention their usefulness is now questionable with so many web SDRs around.
ReplyDeleteRegards,
Laurence H
Thank you for some insightful comments, Laurence. Yes, the traditional QSL card is fast becoming redundant these days. Yet, for some people, they remain the sole reason for participation in the hobby. Thanks for checking in. 73 de Rob VK3BVW
DeleteI enjoyed your excellent commentary on cheating, remote SDR's, streaming stations, QSLs, etc. Although I cannot really disagree on your view of all this, I believe that the real issues are tied to motivation and integrity, not so much on technical details. I have been a DXer since 1952 and have used a long line of analog, digital and SDR receivers from a no-name USN receiver and a Hallicrafters S-38C in my earliest years up to my current Perseus SDRs. Having said all that, on March 26, 2005 I logged my first remote receiver station, Radio Uganda, using a "DX Tuner" receiver in Sweden (QTH Rommele) and from then on I have mixed my own radios with various remote receivers and their networks - not all of these were SDR's as I remember that some of the earlier sites used Icom R-75's, for example. And yes, I have collected QSLs from many of these. However, I have always been up front with the receiver QTH when sending a report or sharing the log with any club listservs. My motivation in doing this has always been to maximize the DX "value" (KW/mile or similar measures) of any given reception. A good example is listening to Radio Warsan (a 1 KW SSB station in Baidoa, Somalia) using a receiver in NZ or Eastern Australia rather than Europe or the Middle East. Of course many of these receptions were of lesser DX "value" than others but satisfied some other objective. I have found that using remote receivers has been as great a technical challenge as using my own receivers (with the obvious exception of designing and installing your own antennae) and with new challenges such as adopting to different antenna arrays, geographic locations and associated propagation challenges. I do not lose any sleep over collecting QSLs - if the station sends one, great - if not, equally great. I record every station I have heard since 2002, so if some one wants to check the accuracy of my ID, I can produce a recording which beats receiving a "QSL" which may or may not be a "verification". I try to maintain an Excel file with every recording I have (which is a pain to update!). My only regret was not starting this MP3 recording habit (and an associated file naming convention that includes the receiver site) much earlier when DX was at its peak. As a Navy guy, I moved many times in my life with a large variety of receiver locations even as I was using my own equipment. As you stated, some stations do not QSL remote receiver logs by policy and that's OK too. I am way behind keeping track of QSLs and I'm sure if there was a list of worldwide DXers and their list of verifications, I would somewhere near the "Anchor Man" (a term from the US Naval Academy for the person standing last in his/her class). To me this hobby has been about the friends I have made, both among my fellow hobbyists and station staff members over the years and maintaining absolute integrity in all my hobby dealings, whether writing reports or sharing logs. I still have two Perseus receivers and a variety of portable radios here at home but at 85 years of age I probably won't be installing antennae farms anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, thanks for writing on this topic as it will make the current generation of hobbyists think more clearly and unambiguously about hobby ethics!
Thank you for a really interesting comment there, VikingOne. Really great to hear your thoughts. On recordings: Yep - same boat here! I made a few recordings on an old reel-to-reel when I was a young bloke. I guess I thought the stations would always be there. I should have made hundreds of recordings from the 70s and 80s. Sadly, I didn't. But the few that I did make bring back many fond memories. 73, Rob VK3BVW
ReplyDeleteI have first read yer blogs twice in the paper before writing you this story.
ReplyDeleteFirst, note that I'm not only a DXer but also a blogger with many pages, all related to gadgets and shortwaves: one for the logs , one for gadgets and a third for signal analysis and other radio-related topics.
After a long time of listening to the radio and since 2019 with SDRs, I was finally forced to be only with one laptop and a router due to isolation in one room, as the family and parent conditions forced me to move between 3 places in the last 4-5 years. My final point is in the city with the radio setup as noted above. If you are interested in more detail, I have put the story on a separate web page:
Let's move on to the topic at hand.
Although I have read from an email that kSDRs, as I call them (please add this term to the jargon!), are very easy to cheat with, I totally disagree with that . The thing is very simple. Instead of doing what a typical Xer can do, i.e., just sending an email and noting that he heard the station without adding some foolproof information that an RSDR can offer , he is surely cheating . I was always a sincere radio listener, and especially after the use of SDRs, I preferred to send the material below to the radio station that goes two steps further than a typical report with SINPO: (Just think of using the SDR console.)
-An audio recording. If you are interested in long recordings, it may be better to re-convert them at lower bitrates. In such cases, we recommend using WMA.
-Screenshot of the SDR programme; this can show the spectrogram and also some of the waterfall.
-if possible, a long waterfall as derived from SDR Console It is beneficial for the station to be aware of any potential interference.
-A screenshot of the Signal history. This is useful for the propagation effects.
This is my norm of sending emails to radio stations. Note that I am totally against SINPO as far as SDRs are concerned. I still prefer sending a audio rec instgrad of adding SINPO
The same things can be done easily with a WebSDR or kSDR with the timestamp active. Note that the user MUST first convert the WAV file into MP3 format.
All this above information might be helpful to any radio station as a PROOF OF RECEPTION. Always send this material packed into a zip file . Most times I had responses except from stations not accepting SDR reports.