On 19 Apr 96 at 22:36, frenaye@pcnet.com <frenaye@pcnet.com> wrote:
> 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.
Astounding.
>
> 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.
But you can link to your next door neighbour, to whom you have loaned a
PC for the weekend, and that one is connected to the Net. Right?
>
> 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'm not sure that any assumptions are safe, given that the fundamental
one that Net connections are not allowed has turned out to be incorrect.
Your note brings loads of very nasty issues to mind regarding
enforceability and what devious people could get away with. Since there
is no logical difference beteen a packetcluster and any other piece of
software, there doesn't seem to be anything to stop one simply
installing an IP switch in a box and connecting through that; after
which one could use the Net however one liked during a contest. You
won't catch me operating in any contests where this is allowed.
--------------------------------------------------------
D.R. Evans NQ0I / G4AMJ : devans@lynx.colorado.edu
al019@freenet.uchsc.edu
"Palindor Chronicles" information and extracts:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~romigj/drevans.html
--------------------------------------------------------
>From Jim or Tim Spaulding <tjs@dfw.net> Sun Apr 21 01:48:46 1996
From: Jim or Tim Spaulding <tjs@dfw.net> (Jim or Tim Spaulding)
Subject: Contesting and the Internet?
Message-ID: <Chameleon.4.01.3B.960420175234.tjs@hamradio.dfw.net>
I agree with KM9P. Assistance to a contest station, whether from a spotters,
2M spots on packet or otherwise, or the internet is really the same. Those
of us who do not enjoy the support found in metro areas should not be
penalized. Contest rules need not place restrictions on the form of
assistance used.,
73 de Jim W0UO/5
>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 barry@w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) Sat Apr 20 15:41:17 1996
From: barry@w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) (Barry Kutner)
Subject: Contesting and the Internet?
Message-ID: <iVRomD1w165w@w2up.wells.com>
"Bill Fisher, KM9P" <km9p@akorn.net> writes:
> 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?
>
Bill - There are plusses and minuses of being remote. The negative is
lack of packet cluster access. the Plus is the big antenna farms that
grow in the stix.
My understanding is that the Internet connects are one-way, i.e., the
station receives spots. Is that fair? Here's a multi-multi with a big
score just sponging off everyone else's spots. Here in PVRC/FRC land,
guys like W3LPL are at the top of the "number of spots" stats every
contest. So they give and take. Taht sounds fair to me.
73 Barry
--
Barry N. Kutner, W2UP Internet: barry@w2up.wells.com
Newtown, PA Packet Radio: W2UP @ WB3JOE.#EPA.PA.USA.NA
Packet Cluster: W2UP >WB2R (FRC)
.......................................................................
>From David L. Thompson" <thompson@mindspring.com Sat Apr 20 22:33:57 1996
From: David L. Thompson" <thompson@mindspring.com (David L. Thompson)
Subject: Contesting and the Internet?
Message-ID: <199604202225.SAA07325@borg.mindspring.com>
For the CQ WW 160 Meter Contests, I view internet as another media for
"alert" messages. Originally there were nets on 2 meters that verbally
passed on spots such as the 147.510 frequency in Metro Atlanta. Then
packet came along and most spots were passed by packet. Internet (WEB or
E-mail) solves one big problem...how to manage a large group of spots that
most packet programs (even those connected thru large PC's) stumble on. I
see internet (is K1EA [or anyone] building an intranet vehicle to tie all
the major packet clusters together? Those of you into telecommunications
will know what I mean) as the repository for spots and a natural step in the
automation of contesting.
Any station that uses internet will be a multi op station for the CQ 160
regardless!
Spotting one's own station while not illegal is in bad taste.
73, Dave Thompson, K4JRB
CQ WW 160 Meter Contests Director
PS will be posting the 1996 claimed scores (same as sent to CQ for August
publication) in early May. Will show the top 75 scores both modes
regardless of class. Final results will again be in the December CQ.
Still waiting on 1995 certificates!
>From Eddie Stark <100560.3667@CompuServe.COM> Sat Apr 20 23:47:01 1996
From: Eddie Stark <100560.3667@CompuServe.COM> (Eddie Stark)
Subject: NEED ROOM FOR DAYTON
Message-ID: <960420224701_100560.3667_EHK56-2@CompuServe.COM>
Dear friends;
I am Eddie EA3NY, I was late (as usual) to reserve a room for Dayton, anybody
have an aditional room or want to divide the cost of the room???
I will rent a car, maybe you need it too????
pse send e-mail to : 100560.3667@compuserve.com
Tnx in advance
Eddie Stark
EA3NY / S07NY / EA9AM
>From Jim Reid <jreid@aloha.net> Sun Apr 21 00:11:50 1996
From: Jim Reid <jreid@aloha.net> (Jim Reid)
Subject: Contesting and the Internet?
Message-ID: <1.5.4b12.32.19960420231150.00702e58@aloha.net>
Aloha,
Have been trying to get W6GO, keeper of the SF Bay Area Cluster
to allow OH2BA to post spots to his world-wide internet page.
We have no useful DX cluster here in KH6/7 land, and would be
helpful, I think, to know what is being heard in California.
Not that far East of Hawaii. So far no interest by them to
allow a telenet tap onto their cluster. Jukka only takes info,
he posts back nothing. Brad Wyatt told me, the Bay Area Cluster
tried a link with Europe awhile back, and they got to much info
back that was of no use to them around SF, so they dropped off.
This would not happen allowing Jukka to post their spots on the
internet.
Interesting topic, but I suspect there is a fair amount of "if we
have them spotted, why share them with you?" attitude, tho
would hope this is not the case.
73, Jim, AH6NB, jreid@aloha.net
|