Re: [IRCA] Cuban call signs (was: AM BCB Loggings.............

["WD9INP/4" <WD9INP@xxxxxxx>]

640 is not in British Columbia! Hi.

73,

Charles A Taylor, WD4INP
   Greenville, North Carolina
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ira Elbert New, III" <ien3@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: [IRCA] Cuban call signs (was: AM BCB Loggings.............


> So is this correct or incorrect...tha way I have this logged?
>
> IEN-GA Ira Elbert New, III, Watkinsville - SONY ICF-2010
>
> 640 BC CU Havana - 08/12/06 2258 - TOH ID and Cuban music. Good signal 
> with
> slight fades. "Havana, Cuba...Radio Progreso". (IEN-GA)
>
> Bert New
> Watkinsville, Georgia
> Proudly Serving You Since 1964!
>
>
>
>
>>From: "W. Curt Deegan" <WWWR@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Reply-To: Mailing list for the International Radio Club of
>>America<irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>To: Mailing list for the International Radio Club of
>>America<irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Subject: Re: [IRCA] Cuban call signs (was: AM BCB Loggings.............
>>Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 18:54:30 -0400
>>
>>Allowing that there was a mistake in the call sign listed in the posting
>>that began this thread and acknowledging the common practice of using call
>>signs in reports, I must say I do not see much reason to include call 
>>signs
>>for Cuban stations, IMHO.
>>
>>Only a handful of Cubans even acknowledge call signs in their on-line web
>>material, when it exists, let alone use them on the air.  Reporting them
>>therefore, is by definition a compromise if not a stretch.  The only place
>>Cuban call signs commonly appear is in the WRTH -- or lists derived
>>therefrom -- and those are usually based on historical data not current
>>realities.  Even less meaningful are the entries in the FCC database
>>because they are based on the official listings filed by Cuba, which has 
>>no
>>interest in providing accurate information to international governing
>>bodies.
>>
>>Since Cuban stations hop about on a whim, the only sure things are the
>>frequency and network being carried, as are actually heard.  Unless it has
>>been DFed, even the location is a bit of an uncertainty, again most often
>>based on WRTH entries.  Though facilities move far less frequently than do
>>frequencies and networks carried, Cuban broadcast facilities have been
>>noted elsewhere from listed.  Still, location as best determined, is a
>>third valuable component for identifying stations received.
>>
>>Another largely meaningless piece of information is the power listed for
>>stations.  At best an historical presumption, since this also changes as
>>the need arises, such as to blot out Florida and other SS
>>stations.  Witness the recent coming and going of powerful Cuban stations
>>on 530 and 1620 to block Radio Marti.
>>
>>Not to take cheap shots at WRTH, most of it entries are as accurate as is
>>reasonably possible.  But call signs just don't mean anything in Cuba
>>anymore.  Using them is less meaningful than would be sequence numbers 
>>from
>>some list.
>>
>>Since the same call sign may appear on more than one station listing, even
>>using them for reference purposes is only marginally useful.  But, if a
>>call sign MUST be assigned, for 870 RR it would be CMDT.  A call sign
>>listed in the '06 WRTH, I would note, on two different frequencies,
>>carrying two different networks, in two different cities, in two different
>>provinces, in two different regions on the island.
>>
>>As I say, only the frequency and network as heard by the DXer are
>>certain.  In this instance though, the location has not been found to be
>>substantially different from that listed in WRTH.
>>
>>Not to fault Robert either, everyone seems to fall into using listed call
>>signs, doing this out of the expectation they mean something.  It just
>>isn't the case in the Castros' Cuba.
>>
>>As an example, if someone reported hearing Radio Reloj on 950, I too would
>>ask for more detail -- since I can hear two at the same time -- and would
>>have to accept the WRTH location as delineation since neither have a call
>>sign listed at all.  The only better reference would be something such as
>>observed direction, were that available.  And even that is only accurate
>>enough to discern different stations when taken relatively near the 
>>source,
>>not something DXers are generally able to do.
>>
>>My personal listing of Cubans is by frequency and network, with best
>>estimate of location.  Location either as shown in WRTH or when available,
>>from directional observations by myself or the several far more 
>>experienced
>>DXers located here in Florida, or the occasional results of cruise-by
>>observations.
>>
>>I bring all this up by way of discussion for those who may not be aware of
>>the vagaries of Cuban radio, rather than to argue about what is proper 
>>form
>>for DXers in general, or to take issue with any particular report.
>>
>>Everything else aside, 870 RR Sancti Spiritus, is still a nice catch for
>>Robert in Ontario.
>>
>>Curt
>>-------
>>W. Curt Deegan
>>Boca Raton, (southeast) Florida
>>
>>
>>At 02:45 PM 9/2/2006, you wrote:
>>
>> >The owners of CHML 900 in Hamilton ON must be pretty
>> >peeved with Castro for this...
>> >
>> >--- Robert Ross <va3sw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >  All of these Logs are made with the DRAKE R8B and an
>> >  80 Meter Dipole
>> >
>> >  870    CHML Radio Reloj  Sancti Spiritus, CUBA
>> >  Aug/28   0036
>> >  EDT     SS     VG
>> >  Male with News Items in SS. Clock Ticks and "RR" in
>> >  CW on Minute.
>> >  NEW STN.
>> >  ROSS, ONT.
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>IRCA mailing list
>>IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>http://arizona.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/irca
>>
>>Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the
>>original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the
>>IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers
>>
>>For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org
>>
>>To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRCA mailing list
> IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://arizona.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/irca
>
> Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the 
> original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the 
> IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers
>
> For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org
>
> To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> 


_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://arizona.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/irca

Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers

For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org

To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx