I've had some e-mail exhanges with Billy Lunt, KR1R, (kr1r@arrl.org) at the
ARRL Contest desk, with JP Kleinhaus, AA2DU, (aa2du@netcom.com) chairman of
the ARRL Contest Advisory Committee(cac@arrl.org), and Bob Cox, K3EST,
(k3est@netcom.com) of the CQWW Contest Committee, trying to understand what
the current rules are for contesting and the Internet. It wasn't as I
expected (surprise).
Both CQWW and ARRL have no problem with a PacketCluster network being
connected to the Internet as part of the normal interconnectivity of
electronic worlds.
CQ's policy goes on to say that you can't spot yourself (no self promotion),
and that you can't be directly linked to the Internet. That means you can't
have your own PC connected to the Internet to access someone else's packet
node(one of the many available these days). Under ARRL rules direct links to
the Internet are permitted.
Whether a direct connection is something that gives anyone a real advantage
is another question. I didn't ask but assume that an Internet connection to
a "live" receiver isn't permitted under either set of rules.
I bring these up because the written contest rules from both CQWW and ARRL
were not clear to me, and I think there is room for more discussion about how
this evolving technology fits into contesting. I'd prefer to have the rules
for both CQWW and ARRL the same, at least for how the Internet is handled.
(Besides all that, sometimes I think our competition is one step ahead of
us.)
What do you think? (send comments to the ARRL and CQ also)
73 Tom
President
Yankee Clipper Contest Club
Note: I don't know how the rules are interpreted for CQ WPX but they are not
necessarily the same as CQWW.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail: frenaye@pcnet.com
Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box 386, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444
>From Pete Smith <n4zr@ix.netcom.com> Sat Apr 20 12:24:23 1996
From: Pete Smith <n4zr@ix.netcom.com> (Pete Smith)
Subject: First contest station
Message-ID: <199604201124.EAA17348@dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com>
Recently, while cleaning out my late parents' apartment (a melancholy but
necessary undertaking) I ran across my first logs (April 1954-November
1955). And that inspired me to add to the first contest stations discussion
ongoing here.
First licensed in April 1954 as WN8QZR. Heath AT-1, 25 watts input, a
Hallicrafters S-38B receiver, and a random wire. Matching? What's that.
In just about a year (the limit in those days) I updated to General, and my
folks helped me buy a Globe Scout (single 6146, 65 watts CW, grid modulation
for AM!). Shortly thereafter, I got an RME 4350A receiver, for the
then-outrageous sum of $140 (paper route money). Doesn't sound like much
till you consider that the wage index for those days, compared to today, is
over 8:1, so that receiver cost the equivalent of $1100 today. Then I
talked my folks into letting me a) build a 20-meter quad in shop class in
school out of aluminum and oak (!) and b) put it on the roof of the house on
20 feet of Rohn 25. A great idea, except this was before people widely
understood that quads needed to be longer than dipoles, and so I had a quad
that looked really good at about 14.5 mHz.
My first contest was the 1956 CW Sweepstakes, and I was hooked from then on.
Best memory of those days was the single 813 amp that K8BQD and I built for
the ARRL DX Contest in about 1958. It used a tube-type TR switch (a 6BQ6, I
think), lifting received signal off the Pi network for real QSK! Midway
through the contest, we briefly ran the amp into an open circuit, and
destroyed the TR switch so thoroughly that there was nothing left inside its
chassis except a little bit of brown goo, and the tube itself was powdered.
I suspect that design may have been a little marginal!
73, Pete Smith N4ZR
n4zr@contesting.com
>From Bill Fisher, KM9P" <km9p@akorn.net Sat Apr 20 13:30:49 1996
From: Bill Fisher, KM9P" <km9p@akorn.net (Bill Fisher, KM9P)
Subject: Contesting and the Internet?
Message-ID: <199604201230.IAA01598@paris.akorn.net>
At 10:36 PM 4/19/96 PDT, you wrote:
In a way I like CQ's rule where you can't connect yourself to the internet.
My take on this is that they have decided that there is no way for you to
prevent your cluster from being connected to an internet gateway, but you
can prevent yourself from doing it directly. Seems reasonable at first
glance.
However, I think of guys like K4VX, WB0O, and other remote stations that
don't have access to a local packet cluster. The internet access is an
obvious solution for these guys to enjoy all of the spots that the rest of
us enjoy. You prevent them from making direct connects and you further
isolate them from the advantages the rest of us in urban areas enjoy. Or
they simply have a friend nearby connect up to the internet directly and
pipe the spots over. So why make a rule that is very simply worked around?
It won't be long before K1EA, K8CC or N6TR come up with a TCP/IP networking
option for their programs. Restricting this kind of capability seems silly
to me.
Just an opinion.
Bill, KM9P
---------------------------------------------
| Contesting Online... The ultimate |
| source of ham radio contest information |
| http://www.contesting.com |
---------------------------------------------
>From k5na@bga.com (Richard L. King) Sat Apr 20 15:20:16 1996
From: k5na@bga.com (Richard L. King) (Richard L. King)
Subject: Contesting and the Internet?
Message-ID: <199604201420.JAA09934@zoom.bga.com>
>At 10:36 PM 4/19/96 PDT, KM9P wrote:
>However, I think of guys like K4VX, WB0O, and other remote stations that
>don't have access to a local packet cluster. The internet access is an
>obvious solution for these guys to enjoy all of the spots that the rest of
>us enjoy. You prevent them from making direct connects and you further
>isolate them from the advantages the rest of us in urban areas enjoy. Or
>they simply have a friend nearby connect up to the internet directly and
>pipe the spots over. So why make a rule that is very simply worked around?
>
>It won't be long before K1EA, K8CC or N6TR come up with a TCP/IP networking
>option for their programs. Restricting this kind of capability seems silly
>to me.
>
>Just an opinion.
>
>Bill, KM9P
I have to agree with Bill on this one. Even if you have access to a local
PacketCluster, you will find that all PacketCluster networks are not created
equal. My direct comparison between the YCCC network and the local network
here in the Austin area reveals a tremendous difference in activity. The
ratio is well over 50 to one. Yes, for every one DX spot here, there would
be 50 spots on the YCCC network.
So a multi-op or a single-op assisted would be at a big disadvantage here
compared to someone on the big east coast networks. If someone here used
internet to link to the YCCC or FRC, that would help a bit. But it certainly
wouldn't create any unfair advantage. The local would still have to deal
with spots arriving late and the geographical difference in location.
So what's the big deal? Why would there be rules against doing it? Is this
the first example of trying to limit technological advances in contesting?
73, Richard - K5NA
K5NA@BGA.COM
|