[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW/KL7 in lower states

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW/KL7 in lower states
From: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 11:06:01 -0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>

I'm missing the solution part of that. How would that be any different than signing W5GN/1, other than having one less character and making things more ambiguous for logging programs since many countries have legitimate 2-number callsigns?

Dave   AB7E

On 11/2/2012 10:35 AM, Barry Merrill, W5GN wrote:
Long ago, I suggested to the FCC that one simple solution
would have been to double up the number in the callsign,
at least for the continental 48, so I'd be W51GN if I
operated for one-land.  (And WPXer's would have gained new

Obviously, that was too complicated for the FCC.


Barry, W5GN

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
James Cain
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 11:52 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] CQWW/KL7 in lower states

I am ancient enough to remember that when my parents moved us to a new house
about three blocks away I had to sign WA9AUM/9 for months until the FCC
finally changed my license.

Now, I would have no problem with signing K1TN/9 if necessary. After all, as
a Big Gun Contester, I only send my call sign once per hour anyway.

jc K1TN

CQ-Contest mailing list

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