Stations particpating in this contest agree to be bound by the regulations of their national licensing authority. Under no circumstances should a station be answering a CQ if it means transmiting in
Your initial reaction was correct; we still do that. The ARRL general rules for contest specify that entrants agree to be bound by the provisions and intent of the contest rules as a condition of ent
All of this is very reminiscent of the discussions of this topic four years ago. Yes indeed, What A Long Strange Trip It's Been Don't know about CQ-Contest or contesting.com. However, the ARRL Contes
Nope, the FCC rules do not allow someone who holds an FCC issued amateur license to operate under reciprocal operating privileges. See, 97.107 73, Mike K1MK Michael Keane K1MK k1mk@alum.mit.edu _____
What Amateur map? AFAIK, there has only ever been the ITU broadcasting zones as defined in the Annex to Appendix S1 to the Radio Regulations. The current ITU map, one having a total of 85 zones (75 "
I would presume in a similar fashion to how they determine the Maidenhead grid square in which they're located, a task that many hams seem to have mastered. For the purposes these zones were created,
I think one of the important words in the new rule is "publishing." FWIW, I suspect the primary intent is to discourage the proliferation of browse-able logs that could encourage those with weak mora
MARAC adopted W0QE's list of 2x4 county abbreviations for the County Hunters CW Contest because the managers of that contest do have to deal with all 3076 counties being in play at once. Whether such
"Multi-state" QSO Party weekends were mentioned specifically and that's the proper contest. The negative consequences of making changes to well-established single-state QSO parties have been noted. W
Okay, this is starting to drift away from contesting. But, no that example is wrong on two counts. First there's DXCC Rule 9 which states: "All stations must be contacted from the same DXCC Entity."
Well, I'll have to admit that I've never heard of a '5' being cut as an 'S' as indicated in that table. Of course with the Internet, there are so many places to pick supporting evidence from: <http:/
Ahhhh.... but wasn't the CQWW DX 2006 SSB deadline date 01 Dec 2006? And the posting to which you replied was made on 02 Dec 2006, after that deadline. So what's the big deal? 73, Mike K1MK Michael K
I don't know about. Fifteen years ago (91/92 season) computer generated CW had pretty much already pushed keyers and hand-sent CW into the background. 20 or 25 years ago might be more like it. An int
Yes and no. The JA bandplan does designate 7025 to 7030 for 'Narrow Digital' but notes: "The 7030 kHz to 7045 kHz segments [sic] may be used for narrow-band digitial communications with overseas stat
There hasn't been a 160-meter DX Window in the "Considerate Operator's Frequency Guide" since before QST for January 2002 (haven't check further back than that). Any change probably traces to here: <
Nope, welcome to the annual running of the CQ WW 160-meter DX contest, SSB. An era since 198? Michael Keane K1MK k1mk@alum.mit.edu _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing l
Keeping SSB above 1843 is by band plan; no SSB at 14025 is by regulation. The point about band plans not being applicable under usual circumstances such as contests has been made enough times; see It
Both. That's why Rule 9.1 of the ARRL DX Contest rules refers one to both the General Rules and the HF Contest Rules. And why section 1 of the General Rules for ARRL Contests establishes an order of
At 3800+ your signal is competing for space with other North Americans of similar strength. Below 3800 you have to find and hold a clear spot in the local European QRM which is potentially much stron
In that scenario, no contest rules would be broken, as far as I can tell. Contacts would count for DXCC because of Rule 9 (remote operating points must be located within the same DXCC Entity as the t