Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+FCC\s+on\s+CW\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+FCC\s+on\s+CW\s*$/: 20 ]

Total 20 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] FCC on CW (score: 1): Author: Tom Frenaye <frenaye@pcnet.com>; Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:18:13 -0400; Let's keep the discussion to contests and contesting issues. I've declined a couple of messages that had to do with the FCC's plan to drop CW - there are plenty of other places for that discussion. I; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00338.html (8,266 bytes)
2. Re: [CQ-Contest] FCC on CW (score: 1): Author: "John Geiger (NE0P)" <ne0p@lcisp.com>; Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 21:30:28 -0500; OK, how do you think the FCC's proposal is going to affect the level of activity in CW only contests? 73s John NE0P ________________________________________________________________ __________________; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00340.html (10,219 bytes)
3. Re: [CQ-Contest] FCC on CW (score: 1): Author: "N7MAL" <N7MAL@CITLINK.NET>; Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:29:29 -0000; Today I attempted to make a posting concerning the FCC Notice of Proposed Rule-making(NPRM) to eliminate the code requirement for obtaining an Amateur Radio license, thereby killing CW contesting. Th; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00347.html (10,186 bytes)
4. Re: [CQ-Contest] FCC on CW (score: 1): Author: John Warren <nt5c@texas.net>; Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 07:29:23 -0600; Absolutely no effect whatever. Irrelevant. They're not proposing a rule to limit you to 10wpm are they? John, NT5C. _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00349.html (9,170 bytes)
5. Re: [CQ-Contest] FCC on CW (score: 1): Author: "Barry " <w2up@mindspring.com>; Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:45:44 -0400; No short term consequences, but I expect to see activity to start dropping in 5-10 years, as old farts are not replaced with younger farts. Barry W2UP-- Barry Kutner, W2UP Internet: w2up@mindspring.c; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00351.html (9,663 bytes)
6. Re: [CQ-Contest] FCC on CW (score: 1): Author: Art - W6KY <art-w6ky@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:42:47 -0700 (PDT); I agree with Mal (Ouch! That hurt!).. I can also see all 'Major CW' contests being eliminated in a few years. There will still be FIST and QRP contest, but how many real contesters will those attract; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00361.html (11,604 bytes)
7. Re: [CQ-Contest] FCC on CW (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:05:06 -0400; Nope. It may affect the level of activity in Phone contests. (Or just the number of complaints received after a major Phone contest....) Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net Quote: "Not; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00366.html (8,971 bytes)
8. Re: [CQ-Contest] FCC on CW (score: 1): Author: John Warren <nt5c@texas.net>; Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:35:24 -0600; Where in the world did you get that idea Art? Nothing could be further from the truth! The ARRL Board has emphasized that updated voluntary band planning by mode, well coordinated with amateurs world; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00373.html (8,560 bytes)
9. Re: [CQ-Contest] FCC on CW (score: 1): Author: "John Geiger" <ne0p@lcisp.com>; Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:05:26 -0000; I can see the FCC soon eliminating the CW subbands. The FCC has already stated (not in these exact words) that CW is no longer important, and the NPRM is closer to W5YI's petition than the ARRL's. W5; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00374.html (12,685 bytes)
10. Re: [CQ-Contest] FCC on CW (score: 1): Author: Jim Smith <jimsmith@shaw.ca>; Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 20:00:41 -0700; Here's a third option. Invite non-contesters to do a few multi-ops (SSB) with you. Do the same with CW, using one of the many CW to text software apps so they can make contacts without knowing the co; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00425.html (9,135 bytes)
11. [CQ-Contest] FCC on CW (score: 1): Author: Tom Frenaye <frenaye@pcnet.com>; Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:18:13 -0400; Let's keep the discussion to contests and contesting issues. I've declined a couple of messages that had to do with the FCC's plan to drop CW - there are plenty of other places for that discussion. I; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00927.html (8,266 bytes)
12. Re: [CQ-Contest] FCC on CW (score: 1): Author: "John Geiger (NE0P)" <ne0p@lcisp.com>; Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 21:30:28 -0500; OK, how do you think the FCC's proposal is going to affect the level of activity in CW only contests? 73s John NE0P ________________________________________________________________ __________________; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00929.html (10,219 bytes)
13. Re: [CQ-Contest] FCC on CW (score: 1): Author: "N7MAL" <N7MAL@CITLINK.NET>; Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:29:29 -0000; Today I attempted to make a posting concerning the FCC Notice of Proposed Rule-making(NPRM) to eliminate the code requirement for obtaining an Amateur Radio license, thereby killing CW contesting. Th; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00936.html (10,186 bytes)
14. Re: [CQ-Contest] FCC on CW (score: 1): Author: John Warren <nt5c@texas.net>; Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 07:29:23 -0600; Absolutely no effect whatever. Irrelevant. They're not proposing a rule to limit you to 10wpm are they? John, NT5C. _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00938.html (9,170 bytes)
15. Re: [CQ-Contest] FCC on CW (score: 1): Author: "Barry " <w2up@mindspring.com>; Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:45:44 -0400; No short term consequences, but I expect to see activity to start dropping in 5-10 years, as old farts are not replaced with younger farts. Barry W2UP-- Barry Kutner, W2UP Internet: w2up@mindspring.c; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00940.html (9,663 bytes)
16. Re: [CQ-Contest] FCC on CW (score: 1): Author: Art - W6KY <art-w6ky@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:42:47 -0700 (PDT); I agree with Mal (Ouch! That hurt!).. I can also see all 'Major CW' contests being eliminated in a few years. There will still be FIST and QRP contest, but how many real contesters will those attract; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00950.html (11,604 bytes)
17. Re: [CQ-Contest] FCC on CW (score: 1): Author: Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>; Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:05:06 -0400; Nope. It may affect the level of activity in Phone contests. (Or just the number of complaints received after a major Phone contest....) Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net Quote: "Not; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00955.html (8,971 bytes)
18. Re: [CQ-Contest] FCC on CW (score: 1): Author: John Warren <nt5c@texas.net>; Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:35:24 -0600; Where in the world did you get that idea Art? Nothing could be further from the truth! The ARRL Board has emphasized that updated voluntary band planning by mode, well coordinated with amateurs world; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00962.html (8,560 bytes)
19. Re: [CQ-Contest] FCC on CW (score: 1): Author: "John Geiger" <ne0p@lcisp.com>; Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:05:26 -0000; I can see the FCC soon eliminating the CW subbands. The FCC has already stated (not in these exact words) that CW is no longer important, and the NPRM is closer to W5YI's petition than the ARRL's. W5; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg00963.html (12,685 bytes)
20. Re: [CQ-Contest] FCC on CW (score: 1): Author: Jim Smith <jimsmith@shaw.ca>; Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 20:00:41 -0700; Here's a third option. Invite non-contesters to do a few multi-ops (SSB) with you. Do the same with CW, using one of the many CW to text software apps so they can make contacts without knowing the co; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2005-07/msg01014.html (9,135 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1]