[UK-CONTEST] Draft of new licence

[Colin G3PSM]

Ed, we also suggested getting rid of the suffixes altogether but the 
lawyers weren't having any of that.

73

Colin, G3PSM

Ed - G3SQX wrote:

>I agree with Don (G3BJ).  The requirement to use /A is unnecessary, and is
>in fact, an additional requirement rather than a relaxation.  It's
>pointless.  If people want to use /A instead of /P, that's fine, but let it
>be an option.
>
>In the USA, and some other countries, there is no requirement to use /P (or
>anything else) at an alternative or portable location.  I think this could
>be optional here as well, and people would simply announce their location as
>required.  What's the problem with that?
>
>73,
>
>Ed, G3SQX
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Don Beattie" <g3ozf at btinternet.com>
>To: "Uk-Contest at Contesting.Com" <uk-contest at contesting.com>; "Colin G3PSM" 
><colin at g3psm.net>
>Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 2:56 PM
>Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Draft of new licence
>
>
>  
>
>>Colin,
>>
>>Thanks for the background. I don't mind the concept of an Alternative
>>Address (to differentiate from /P and "portable") but why, if the change 
>>is
>>pre-notified, is the /A suffix needed ?
>>
>>I seem to remember that the original context of /A (many years ago) was:
>>
>>a) Pre-notification of operation at alternative address: use normal call
>>b) No pre-notification of operation at alternative address: use /A and
>>announce location
>>c) Portable location: /P
>>
>>I would have thought that (a) and (c) would have been the way ahead. Look 
>>on
>>it as the same as advising Ofcom of a change of address, and then to 
>>change
>>it back after the operation ! In that case - no need for /A !!  (:-)
>>
>>73
>>
>>Don
>>
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>UK-Contest mailing list
>UK-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>
>  
>