I have skin in the game. It's respect for international law. In the 21st Century, we do not recognize nations invading and annexing the territory of their neighbors. My understanding is that the USA
you should stop displaying your ignorance and disrespect of international and countries regulations and memory of hams who lost their lives and licenses. It's clear that politics and contesting don't
No. Just focus on what we had (have?) in Italy, something called "Seborga". The difference is that Russia has somewhat more influence than Seborga. Sometimes, like it or not, might is right. from Seb
According to the ARRL Letter of November 13, the ARRL is recommending some changes in VHF/UHF contest rules - recommendations that, if carried, are likely to set a precedent for HF contesting. http:/
<snip> Yet, power levels never get anywhere near the level of hand-wringing despite actually being an infraction of actual laws in most countries compared to the overwhelming dread someone might be l
<snip> I always believed and I still do, that SOAB/SOAB(A) should be merged to eliminate one of the many ways cheaters have to cheat in our hobby and ruin it. LU5DX is correct, and we could eliminate
My comments refer to the fact that contesting community clearly seems to give up traditional skillsets in favor for internet, RBN, clusters, decoders, call databases etc etc. Many traditional skills
Except that no traditional skill represents an alternative communications mode to ham-band RF. Hmmm - not sure the way we use the Internet in contests that it is an alternative to ham-band RF. I can
The current qualification rules are the result of long and intensive discussions and a unanimous decision of the WRTC2018 Organizing Committee. We are most grateful for the discussions in various mai
Putting this usually endless and useless assisted/unassisted and single-op/multi-op discussion behind for now, If they're so useless, why then does CQ recognise the value of having separate categorie
<snip> Like Charly and others opine - the essence of ham radio contesting has morphed into another hobby in which the Internet appears to be the center hub. For those who use it, love it, couldn't/wo
On Saturday afternoon, during the 10m contest, I was surprised to be called by a very loud YO4. Condx were such that the band was not open to central/eastern EU here in Colorado at that time. Given t
<snip> Of course you are always free to discuss the qualification rules and we are always open to any comment. But with the discussions we followed on different mailing lists and the feedback we got
On 12/01/2015 17:16, Fred Kleber wrote: In the recent NAQP contest, there was a station who used 'JESUISCHARLIE' for his name. This name is too long to fit in the standard Cabrillo field for operator
For those of you who are interested in cross-entity remote operation, it will now count for both contesting and DXCC, for stations on both ends of the QSO. The transmitter country will determine the
The ARRL Contest Update for February 25 reports that A team of operators mounted the first totally remote <http://www.arrl.org/news/no-one-in-the-shack-as-station-logs-4200-contacts-in-arrl-dx-cw-con
<snip> We need the networked contesters as well. And what ever comes after that, I say we need them too. When amateur radio becomes just one more cog in the Internet of Things, it will have ceased to
<snip> Will be interesting to see where in the results these filthy signals I recorded end up. I suggest that all this talk about excessive bandwidth will remain just so much hot air until and unles
We do, but what we don't know is whether CQ agrees with our subjective observations. The CQ WW Committee is not omnipotent. We don't spend hours tuning through the SDR recordings looking for bad sign
And how about setting up a separate e-mail address for such reports? I'm thinking that would encourage people to report bad sigs, and would serve notice to deliberate violators that a report is just