Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Excessive\s+Bandwidth\s+Rule\s+was\:\s+Re\:\s+Suggestion\s+for\s+Cabrillo\s+\-\-\s+and\s+the\s+phone\s+skimmer\,\s+new\s+idea\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+Excessive\s+Bandwidth\s+Rule\s+was\:\s+Re\:\s+Suggestion\s+for\s+Cabrillo\s+\-\-\s+and\s+the\s+phone\s+skimmer\,\s+new\s+idea\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] Excessive Bandwidth Rule was: Re: Suggestion for Cabrillo -- and the phone skimmer, new idea (score: 1): Author: Pete Smith N4ZR <n4zr@contesting.com>; Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 07:09:11 -0400; Not only that, but the number of awards thereafter could be halved, saving ARRL and other societies lots of money. But seriously, folks, can you imagine the mess that would result if the same phone o; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-04/msg00085.html (9,852 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] Excessive Bandwidth Rule was: Re: Suggestion for Cabrillo -- and the phone skimmer, new idea (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 11:52:33 -0600; I have never understood thought process behind not publicly "outing" the offenders. Most of them know they have crappy or very wide audio. They do it on purpose. The best medicine would to pass these; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-04/msg00086.html (11,257 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] Excessive Bandwidth Rule was: Re: Suggestion for Cabrillo -- and the phone skimmer, new idea (score: 1): Author: Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mymts.net>; Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 14:05:27 -0500; They either do it on purpose or they're so convinced of their technological greatness they've convinced themselves their audio is perfect. Either way, mentioning it won't have much effect: it will ei; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-04/msg00087.html (13,117 bytes)
4. Re: [CQ-Contest] Excessive Bandwidth Rule was: Re: Suggestion for Cabrillo -- and the phone skimmer, new idea (score: 1): Author: Dale Putnam <daleputnam@hotmail.com>; Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 14:06:43 -0600; and THAT.... is why it is somewhat difficult to get a Wyoming contact in some of the contests...either the audio is rotten, the operator is exhibiting poor sportsmanship, or the station is an alligat; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-04/msg00088.html (8,482 bytes)
5. Re: [CQ-Contest] Excessive Bandwidth Rule was: Re: Suggestion for Cabrillo -- and the phone skimmer, new idea (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 15:49:33 -0700; When I hear someone splattering or clicking, I'll tell them so. If they fix it, I'll work them. When someone's audio is so bad I can't copy them, I tell them so when I'm running, and pass them by whe; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-04/msg00089.html (8,895 bytes)
6. Re: [CQ-Contest] Excessive Bandwidth Rule was: Re: Suggestion for Cabrillo -- and the phone skimmer, new idea (score: 1): Author: "Bill Parry" <bparry@rgv.rr.com>; Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 19:09:31 -0500; Actually I believe that they don't know how bad they sound. After I bought my previous radio, (FT1000), I thought it was pretty good and got a lot of complements. One day W8JI sent me a polite e-mail; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-04/msg00090.html (15,375 bytes)
7. Re: [CQ-Contest] Excessive Bandwidth Rule was: Re: Suggestion for Cabrillo -- and the phone skimmer, new idea (score: 1): Author: Tom Osborne <w7why@frontier.com>; Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 09:50:18 -0700; Isn't 'excessive bandwidth' cheating? It is against the rules. Why wouldn't they 'outed' and be disqualified? I'm sure after 10 people tell you your audio is terrible, you should get the message. 73; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-04/msg00094.html (9,843 bytes)
8. Re: [CQ-Contest] Excessive Bandwidth Rule was: Re: Suggestion for Cabrillo -- and the phone skimmer, new idea (score: 1): Author: brett graham <does.cq.censure.block.this.too@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 00:54:24 +0000; Would everybody also not work somebody with a filthy signal if they were a new mult, perhaps the only station heard from an entity? Somebody around here replaced their older Big-Three-brand higher-vo; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-04/msg00105.html (7,953 bytes)
9. Re: [CQ-Contest] Excessive Bandwidth Rule was: Re: Suggestion for Cabrillo -- and the phone skimmer, new idea (score: 1): Author: Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com>; Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:53:24 +0100; <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; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-04/msg00108.html (8,332 bytes)
10. Re: [CQ-Contest] Excessive Bandwidth Rule was: Re: Suggestion for Cabrillo -- and the phone skimmer, new idea (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 10:26:01 -0700; On Mon,4/13/2015 6:53 AM, Paul O'Kane wrote: However, the rules make no attempt to define excessive bandwidth, and I'm not aware of any penalties having been imposed for this reason alone. If I'm wro; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-04/msg00110.html (11,120 bytes)
11. Re: [CQ-Contest] Excessive Bandwidth Rule was: Re: Suggestion for Cabrillo -- and the phone skimmer, new idea (score: 1): Author: "Randy Thompson K5ZD" <k5zd@charter.net>; Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:53:30 -0500; I think we all know "excessive bandwidth" when we hear it. I.e., you can hear the splatter or clicks for many Khz before you tune on to the signal. The CQ WW DX Contest issued a number of warnings fo; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-04/msg00111.html (11,423 bytes)
12. Re: [CQ-Contest] Excessive Bandwidth Rule was: Re: Suggestion for Cabrillo -- and the phone skimmer, new idea (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:57:15 -0600; Randy, How about adding a something in the LCR reports if you received an excessive bandwidth report or you received 3 reports. That way the station, if they are looking at the LCR's would have a hea; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-04/msg00112.html (12,081 bytes)
13. Re: [CQ-Contest] Excessive Bandwidth Rule was: Re: Suggestion for Cabrillo -- and the phone skimmer, new idea (score: 1): Author: Pete Smith N4ZR <n4zr@contesting.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 06:29:56 -0400; 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; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-04/msg00114.html (14,021 bytes)
14. Re: [CQ-Contest] Excessive Bandwidth Rule was: Re: Suggestion for Cabrillo -- and the phone skimmer, new idea (score: 1): Author: Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:57:47 +0100; 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; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-04/msg00116.html (11,251 bytes)
15. Re: [CQ-Contest] Excessive Bandwidth Rule was: Re: Suggestion for Cabrillo -- and the phone skimmer, new idea (score: 1): Author: "Bill Parry" <bparry@rgv.rr.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 09:02:00 -0500; How about we go back to the old way we used to use for ARRL contests. If you get two OO reports for the same contest you are disqualified! Sometime the old ways are the best! Bill W5VX --Original Mes; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-04/msg00117.html (16,296 bytes)
16. Re: [CQ-Contest] Excessive Bandwidth Rule was: Re: Suggestion for Cabrillo -- and the phone skimmer, new idea (score: 1): Author: Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 15:02:50 +0100; 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; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-04/msg00118.html (10,248 bytes)
17. Re: [CQ-Contest] Excessive Bandwidth Rule was: Re: Suggestion for Cabrillo -- and the phone skimmer, new idea (score: 1): Author: Barry N1EU <n1eu.barry@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 11:33:10 -0400; I heartily concur with Pete's suggestion. There should be a spirit of actively encouraging reports and recordings toward cleaning up the bands during contests. My experience is that the majority of o; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-04/msg00119.html (16,903 bytes)
18. Re: [CQ-Contest] Excessive Bandwidth Rule was: Re: Suggestion for Cabrillo -- and the phone skimmer, new idea (score: 1): Author: Joe <nss@mwt.net>; Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 11:08:38 -0500; That is the best idea I have read so far! Joe WB9SBD <http://www.qsw.me> QSW.Me The Place To Find That Contact You Need And CQ-QSO Just To Make QSO's http://cq-qso.com/ <http://cq-qso.com> On 4/14/20; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2015-04/msg00120.html (11,241 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 18
Page: [1]