[UK-CONTEST] Short Contest Calls.

Wed Oct 3 09:21:41 EDT 2012

The reason for the low take-up of short calls is the comparatively high 
bar to qualify, making these calls only available to moderately serious 
contest participants.  So where's the danger of collapse, whatever 
events they were to be used in?

A different issue altogether is the list of contests you have to enter 
and do reasonably well in to qualify for a short call, which is 
currently the same as you can use it in (but logically doesn't need to 
be).  The present qualifying list looks about right to me.

73, Peter G3LET

Chris G3SJJ wrote:

> Clive, I am with Don on this. There needs to be some control aspect of 
> allowed events otherwise the whole system will just collapse. This is 
> not being negative.
>
> Whilst I agree that the take-up of SCCs is low I would be concerned if 
> people were applying for a call because they were only interested in 
> say the Florida QSO Party, or the new Belgian 10m Contest. Having a 
> defined list will help to sift out those kind of very minority interests.
>
> The easiest and most positive way would be for the contest committee 
> to ask for suggested events to add to the list. Do a sift and then 
> approach Ofcom.
>
> Sorry but I can't see what your problem is with this approach.
>
> Chris G3SJJ
>
>
>
> On 03/10/2012 12:22, Clive GM3POI wrote:
>
>> Well perhaps Don we can take something from the French planning laws 
>> which
>> say Anything is allowed unless there is a good reason Not to allow it.
>> Apply this to the Contest list  for a serious update. Don't get me 
>> wrong I
>> would apply a tactical view for every Contest in whether to use or not a
>> short call. So some of the time I would use one and at others I would 
>> not,
>> dependent on whether I thought POI would add to the Q numbers. 73 Clive
>> GM3POI
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: UK-Contest [mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf 
>> Of Don
>> Field
>> Sent: 03 October 2012 10:33
>> To: UK Contest
>> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Short Contest Calls.
>>
>> I'm sorry if you take my comments to be negative Clive. It wasn't 
>> intended
>> to be so. I was simply pointing out the realities. The system can, 
>> indeed,
>> be reviewed at any time and was just a few years ago (when the list was
>> extended and SCCs were made available to individuals - see below).  I
>> suspect OFCOM would be receptive to a list of 100 contests or more, 
>> but I
>> believe they are set against vanity calls because it could open the
>> floodgates. I see no way, without a list, that you can draw a line under
>> what constitutes a contest and what doesn't (CDXC HF Challenge?). So I
>> wasn't taking issue with a review, just the wording of your email which
>> seemed altogether too open-ended.
>>
>> While I was Ctst Cttee Chairman a few years ago we invited requests for
>> contests to be added to the list - we added the Russian DX, for example.
>> But got very few requests. I believe Ed GW3SQX is liaison nowadays, 
>> so drop
>> him a line.
>>
>> By the way, part of the problem in extending the SCC programme to
>> individuals was that OFCOM were worried about a sudden influx of 
>> requests.
>> Justin (who was dealing at the time) and I argued that this wouldn't 
>> happen
>> - individuals who wanted one would generally have already invented their
>> own personal contest club! Turned out we were right, but OFCOM is 
>> concerned
>> about anything that increases their workload (which vanity calls 
>> would do)
>> as they cannot reap any income in return nowadays. Adding to the list of
>> contests covered by the SCC is another matter - doesn't affect OFCOM
>> workload at all.
>>
>> Don G3XTT
>>
>> On 3 October 2012 09:06, Clive GM3POI <gm3poi2 at btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>          Well Don I can't see any problem in the system being 
>>> reviewed and
>>> expanded. The world has now moved on and short calls are with us  every
>>> day.
>>> It would just be nice to have the option of using one if I wanted for
>>> example in the SAC or UBA or any of the Russian Contests.
>>>          Perhaps the idea of vanity calls should be investigated again,
>>> however from a numbers point of view there does not appear to be any
>>> shortage of available callsigns and there will also be turn over.
>>>          It very much appears that just about everything that 
>>> appears on
>>> this
>>> reflector is  immediately viewed in negative terms rather than
>>
>> constructive
>>
>>> discussion.  Or have I got that wrong.?
>>> 73 Clive GM3POI
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: UK-Contest [mailto:uk-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On 
>>> Behalf Of
>>> Don
>>> Field
>>> Sent: 02 October 2012 17:05
>>> To: UK Contest
>>> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Short Contest Calls.
>>>
>>> That was then Brian.
>>>
>>> But I am puzzled by Clive's posting. As an ex-law enforcement officer,
>>> Clive knows that there must be some sort of framework. Asking for 
>>> the use
>>> of SCCs for "all contests" is meaningless (and, in any case, this isn't
>>
>> the
>>
>>> place to ask for it). What are "all contests". Does it include US State
>>
>> QSO
>>
>>> Parties? Does it include the FOC Marathon or QSO Parties (which are not
>>> actually billed as contests)? Does it include the GM3POI memorial 
>>> contest,
>>> which runs all year on all bands (or could)?
>>>
>>> So, either it becomes a general vanity call (which, in effect, is 
>>> what has
>>> happened in Scandinavia and elsewhere) or there has to be some sort of
>>> definition. Which there already is - in the past the question has been
>>> asked "What contests should be on the list". As far as I know, 
>>> modern-day
>>> OFCOM has never refused any (frankloy, they wouldn't know one from
>>> another). So if Clive wanted, say, the Stew Perry events, the Oceania
>>> contest or whatever, I suspect he only has to ask (the appropriate
>>> person(s)).
>>>
>>> The only other consideration is that, I am led to understand (and 
>>> SJJ may
>>> well recall), that there was a concern about allowing SCCs in 
>>> domestic HF
>>> events would not go down well with the more casual entrants who didn't
>>> want, or didn't have, SCCs. Whether that argument still applies, who
>>
>> knows?
>>
>>> Don G3XTT
>>>
>>> On 2 October 2012 16:56, brian coyne <g4odv at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It never did make sense to me why the scc's were limited to major
>>>
>>> contests
>>>
>>>> I don't recall how the Regulator was named in those days but I do know
>>>> that RSGB had to go cap in hand and tugging at the forelock to ask the
>>>> slightest favour.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe RSGB (HFCC) thought that was the most they dare ask for! Chris
>>>
>>> (SJJ)
>>>
>>>> may know the answer to that one.
>>>>
>>>> 73  Brian 5B4AIZ.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>> It is now 16 years since short calls were first made available. To
>>>>> date 33 individual and a total of about 180 calls have been issued 
>>>>> out
>>>>
>>> of
>>>
>>>>> 520 available.
>>>>> Is it not now well overdue  that we now  be allowed to use these
>>>>> callsigns in ANY Contest. Listening on the bands in any smaller
>>>>
>>> contests
>>>
>>>>> shows the regular use in other Countries of short calls.
>>>>> I am sure that Ofcom would be open to such a request, and it should
>>>>> be routine for the CC to encourage their use in in Many of  their
>>>>> Contests.
>>>>> I cannot see the point of holding a contest call that you cannot use
>>>>> in any Contest.
>>>>> 73 Clive GM3POI
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> UK-Contest mailing list
>>>> UK-Contest at contesting.com
>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> UK-Contest mailing list
>>> UK-Contest at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> =======
>>> Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
>>> (Email Guard: 9.0.0.2308, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.20700)
>>> http://www.pctools.com/
>>> =======
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> =======
>>> Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
>>> (Email Guard: 9.0.0.2308, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.20700)
>>> http://www.pctools.com/
>>> =======
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> UK-Contest mailing list
>> UK-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> =======
>> Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
>> (Email Guard: 9.0.0.2308, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.20700)
>> http://www.pctools.com/
>> =======
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> =======
>> Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
>> (Email Guard: 9.0.0.2308, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.20700)
>> http://www.pctools.com/
>> =======
>> _______________________________________________
>> UK-Contest mailing list
>> UK-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>