Multi Single Band ???

Fabio Schettino i4ufh at
Mon Dec 2 23:28:34 EST 1996

Jon, sm3ojr wrote :

>The following scores are claimed by the SL3ZV "Multi Single Band"
>effort 1996 ...

Is a Multi Single Band, as I have understood, 2 to 6 Single Op.
Single Band with the same call ???

Is this "CATEGORY" allowed from the CQWW Board ??

We are interested to know what exactly the Board think about it,
because we have some difficults to obtain 6 2x1 call for the IG9
activity, but not for one ....

73 de Fabio I4UFH


>From broz at (John Brosnahan)  Mon Dec  2 23:14:55 1996
From: broz at (John Brosnahan) (John Brosnahan)
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 17:14:55 -0600
Subject: CQ contest rules query II (and more)
Message-ID: <199612030013.AA16011 at>

1)    re: Moving mults from other bands:

>Actually a quick look in the CQ WW CONTEST HANDBOOK is all that
>you need.  My 94 book (about pg 24 / 25) says no problem - do it.
>Many detailed questions about CQ WW appear in this Handbook.

>The final word from Wayne Mills N7NG reguarding moving stations from other
>bands to the band you are contesting, is a quote from Bob Cox's "CQ WW
>Contest Handbook under annotated rules. And I quote him; IT IS PERMITTED TO

Guess I should buy the book for all of these details, but I know that I
don't like this
interpretation very much.  We choose single band efforts because, at any
given time,
I only have antennas up for one band.  But this interpretation of the rules
that I need to put up antennas for a number of bands in order to be competitive
in a single band category and it means that I really need a two rig setup so
one rig can tune for mults on other bands.  Not my idea of fun nor my idea
of what
a single band effort should be--it should be an effort ON A SINGLE BAND!
Not something
that requires that you be an all band effort that only submits a score for a
single band.

2)   re:  Zero Point QSOs and busted call penalties

Another issue was raised recently about working 0 point QSOs by stations needing
a zone or country multiplier.  Many stations don't work or don't log QSOs
with contacts
wiothin the same country.  I don't know if the CQWW Contest Handbook addresses
this issue or not, but George, W0UA, raised a related issue just after the
contest.  Will 
a busted call on a 0 point QSO result in a penalty?  If it does there is no
reason to
work 0 point QSOs and every reason NOT to work them.  You risk a possible
QSO penalty
for a down side and have nothing for an up side!   Maybe the Handbook
addresses this
issue, but if not, then it should be clarified and if there is a penalty
potential for a 0 point
QSO I would feel compelled to advise any operators of my station not to work
any more
0 point QSOs than necessary for us to get the needed mults.

73 John

John Brosnahan   W0UN
24115 County Road 40
La Salle, CO 80645

INTERNET: The long-awaited solution 
for instantly displaying one's ignorance globally.

>From WYLIE at (Tom Wylie)  Mon Dec  2 23:49:55 1996
From: WYLIE at (Tom Wylie) (Tom Wylie)
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 23:49:55 GMT
Subject: Contesting and the Internet
Message-ID: < at>

The more I dabble into the Internet the more I worry about the future of
Contesting.  Things used to be really simple in the old days.   You just got
hold of the mike and hollered CQ CONTEST and started scribing with the
perncil.   Then, along came personal computers and simple logging programs.
Next came dupe checking.  Bigger, faster, programms quickly followed.
Along came the packet cluster.  No sooner arrived than interconnected via
computer and integrated into station.   About the same time, rig and rotator
control arrived on the scene.   Up until now, everything has been almost
inevitable in the ever increasing level of technology in the Amateur
station.   Technology has allowed the personal skill of the operator to be
honed into excellence.   Even at this point in the sun spot cycle, records
are being broken.

Now, I am looking seriously at the Internet.   Already we have arguements
and rules about interconnects between the Internet and the Contest Station.
Stations in the outback might argue that due to lack of local packet
cluster, there is no reason why they should not connect to an Internet
Cluster via telnet or whatever.

However, WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE?    Contesting has now become a contest
not of skill in operating, but a contest as to who can pour the greatest
amount of money into a station.   Who has the greatest amount of bucks can
win!   Skill comes a long way second.   Gee, if you cannot operate from your
own backyard, just go down to the Carribean...  It is a well known fact that
there are only about half a dozen locations in the World where you can win CQWW?

I would like to draw a firm line under Internet.   Just by dabbling into the
Web and looking at various facilities and programms that are CURRENTLY
available, not to mention the future, it seems just a matter of time before
someone is caught cheating, by connecting via the Internet to another
location in the World.   With telnet, real audio, so on and so forth, it is
just a matter of time until you can seriously operate a remote transmitter
anywhere in the world via your own home PC.   You wont
even need your own radio.    At midnight zulu when the band is closed in
Europe, why not operate via a remote station in California, and when
propogation starts to go from there, QSY to Singapore or where ever.    Why
spend money in going to Aruba, when you could pretend you are there and
operate an Aruba station from your own home.........Guys are operating their
HF rigs via 2m links, why not via an Internet link?    IT IS ONLY A MATTER

Internet and ham radio should be kept separate and NO inter connection
should be made or allowed.   Jeez, I sometimes worry about packet!

Your views please gentlemen!

de Tom - GM4FDM
wylie at

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list