[Top] [All Lists]


Subject: NCJ article on CONTEST RULES
From: HENRYPOL@aol.com (HENRYPOL@aol.com)
Date: Thu May 23 13:34:38 1996
At the risk of being severly flamed (that's OK; got a new fire extinguisher
with the new fishing boat), I am curious as to why there has not been any
thread started relative to KR2Q's extensive article in the latest NCJ about
Contest Rules.

Is it because all of us are guilty of breaking at least one of the rules as
defined by Doug (re: CT's F8 feature)?  So we don't want to talk about it!

Or, was all of this discussed and "put-to-bed" at Dayton? 

Question: Should this article be REQUIRED READING for each operator before
every major contest?

Henry Pollock - WB4HFL

>From jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid)  Thu May 23 18:17:24 1996
From: jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid) (Jim Reid)
Subject: FASC: Drop  "CW", not a Joke!
Message-ID: <>

At 05:22 5/23/96 -0700, you wrote:
>Jim, can you clarify one thing for me?  It seems to be "given" that deletion
>of the Radio Reg requirement for CW as a qualification for HF licensing
>would lead directly to the loss of CW allocations and the demise of the
>mode.  Why is this the case?

Hi Pete,  I am not at all sure that the CW allocations will be
dropped.  In fact,  looking at the three paragraphs of the
FASC position paper which led to their decision,  they seem
to be assuming that, in the future,  the amateur HF band
spectrum space allocations will be enlarged as "other
services need for HF space declines",  or words something
like that in para 9.13 I think it was(have not printed the
document out,  it is 60kb!)

Their stated reason that S25.5 should now be dropped seems to
be that it will be dropped somethime in the future anyway,  and
that their probably won't be time actually at either WRC-97
or WRC-99 to adequately discuss it because of tremendous time
pressure on the agenda for other (more important to them?) items,
so they decide to drop it now!  And they will accept comments on
the issue only thru June 1996.

Thats the reason I felt I should raise the flag.  In fact if I knew
how to do it,  I would ask both Trey and Lyndon if the entire
FASC document could be posted on their reflectors,  world wide;
since I believe this issue will be of profound importance to the
character of Amateur Radio well into the next century.

And the community of active CW DX'ers and Contesters ought to be
discussing,  rationalizing their own thoughts,  and most important
getting them down and sent to the  IARU FASC,  and getting to it NOW.

Aloha and 73,  Jim,  AH6NB

PS: Passing the 20 wpm test a few years ago was one of the greatest
and thrilling pleasures of my life;  I had PERFECT copy,  but was
trembling so bad,  I nearly could not hold the pencil!!  But
what a joy it was; was special since I was already retired and
many said,  It can't be done at your age.

>From jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid)  Thu May 23 18:26:01 1996
From: jreid@aloha.net (Jim Reid) (Jim Reid)
Subject: CW Issue: From Dave Sumner, K1ZZ
Message-ID: <>

>From: "Sumner, Dave,  K1ZZ" <dsumner@arrl.org>
>Subject: Re: FASC position: Drop CW from ITU Trea
>To: "Reid, Jim (AH6NB)" <jreid@aloha.net>
>Cc: Ed Hare <ehare@arrl.org>
>Dear Jim:
>>On rec.radio,amateur.misc Jim Reid <jreid@aloha.net> wrote:
>>>Please notice that the appointed FASC Committee has
>>>already concluded that "para S25.5 should be removed
>>>from the IARU treaty";  thus the ARRL and IARU special
>>>committee has already decided that CW ought to be removed
>>>as a binding treaty obligations on nations signing the
>>>ITU regulations must require CW skill to qualify to operate
>>>in the HF amateur radio spectrum bands.  This poisiton is
>>>clearly stated in 9.14 of their April position paper, and
>>>the reasons for this conclusion are given in 9.12 and 9.13.
>>>They now seek comment on this position along with what
>>>should be the technical and operational requirements for
>>>an amateur radio license in the HF spectrum.

Direct from Dave Sumner, K1ZZ

>I don't read rec.radio.amateur.misc (or any other news groups -- not enough 
>hours in the day) but occasionally some postings are forwarded to me.
>Just to clarify things, the present status of this matter is simply that a 
>committee created by the IARU Administrative Council and appointed by the 
>IARU president has generated and made public, for the purpose of stimulating 
>comment, a discussion paper that includes some tentative conclusions of the 
>committee. No decisions have been made by the IARU; indeed, the committee 
>has not even made recommendations for decision to the Administrative 
>Neither has anything been decided by the ARRL. An ARRL committee is working 
>in parallel with the FASC, but that committee has not reported to the ARRL 
>Board (the body that determines ARRL policy). Right now, that committee is 
>determining how best to gauge membership opinion, which will be an important 
>part of its eventual report.
>David Sumner, K1ZZ
>Member, IARU FASC and ARRL WRC-99 Planning Committee

>From pgerba@crl.com (Peter Gerba)  Thu May 23 19:12:51 1996
From: pgerba@crl.com (Peter Gerba) (Peter Gerba)
Subject: FASC: Drop "CW", not a Joke!
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960523105054.6632A-100000@crl7.crl.com>

Anyone know what % of ARRL membership are holders of the "No Code Tech." 
ticket.  I believe (I'm a member) the League's primary interest in Ham
Radio is the marketing and selling of books and related items.  The money
comes from publishing and the bigger the market the greater potential for

I'm a member of a VE group. The majority of the people we test are 
testing for the "No Code Tech." ticket. They want to get on 2 meters and 
that's it.  People testing for General who don't plan to test further 
often say that they will never use CW and are glad to be done with it. 
The folks who take the Extra exam generally say that they like CW and 
plan to make CW a good part of the "hobby".

73, pete  kn6bi

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>