Many details seem to match.
Like the contest. It was not yet CQ WW.
There is a possibility I remember the year to wrong decade.
It may have been in 30's.
56MHz was probably not in ham use anymore in late 1946.
And, it was not FM - it was AM on lower end of VHF.
Spotting networks have existed from the beginning of the Radio
73,
Jukka OH6LI
2016-12-23 7:34 GMT+02:00 David Siddall <hhamwv@gmail.com>:
> Jukka,
>
> There must be a misunderstanding. PVRC wasn't founded until 1947. And
> the World Wide contest has always been called "World Wide" since its first
> run in 1939, sponsored by Radio Magazine. After WWII, Radio Magazine spun
> off CQ Magazine. The 'World Wide" contest was resumed in 1948 as "CQ World
> Wide". There has been no name change over the years. BTW, in that first
> post-WWII contest in 1948, all 40 zones were active! This is summarized
> with citations in the Nov. 2016 CQ Magazine's Contesting column, which I
> author.
>
> WRT PVRC, of which I am a past president, the first PVRC entry into CQWW
> club competition was in 1955. PVRC placed third. (It didn't win until
> 1960.)
>
> I think there may be a time period misunderstanding with what you heard.
> In the mid-70's, there were incidents of the FRC listening in to PVRC's
> spots, and vice versa. It wasn't a big deal, although I remember calls to
> turn down the power on PVRC's repeater.
>
> Now we all benefit from each other's spots worldwide if we want to, and
> the world is a better place!
>
> 73, Dave K3ZJ
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Jukka Klemola <jpklemola@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The first real debate about local spotting network with one club winning
>> over the other club was in 1946 in DC area.
>> I think the other club was PVRC or PVRC predecessor.
>> CQ WW was not yet called CQ WW.
>>
>> I forget who wrote me about it. Shame on me.
>> The story was extremely fascinating.
>> N2AA might know at least a part of it all.
>>
>>
>> The spot QSP traffic was on some band that does not exist anymore.
>> Maybe 56MHz if I am not mistaken.
>> The other club was monitoring the traffic and I reckon they won.
>>
>> I got a good explanation of it all but I have lost it during some change
>> of
>> my email system.
>>
>> If anyone knows what it was and who were the two clubs that had the really
>> vocal debate, I would appreciate to re-learn that part of contesting
>> history.
>>
>>
>> 73,
>> Jukka OH6LI
>>
>>
>> 2016-12-22 8:36 GMT+02:00 <donovanf@starpower.net>:
>>
>> > Hi Jack,
>> >
>> >
>> > There were many more phases of spotting network development
>> > than you're aware of.
>> >
>> >
>> > It began with voice networks in the 1960s (maybe before). Soon
>> > adjacent clubs discovered that they could listen to each other's
>> > voice spotting networks, especially those voice spotting
>> > networks that started to use higher power and well sited repeaters
>> > during the 1970s and 1980s...
>> >
>> >
>> > The next revolutionary step was AK1A's Packet Cluster software
>> > in 1985, initially operated as individual packet nodes, then soon
>> > "clustered" together via relatively short distance RF packet
>> > backbones. Some of the RF links started to be operated at higher
>> > data rates.
>> >
>> >
>> > Those of us who had contacts in the telecommunications industry
>> > were able to "borrow" unused bandwidth to link more distant
>> > Packetcluster nodes.
>> >
>> >
>> > Soon those of us who had access to the internet primarily through
>> > universities started to use it to interconnect distant nodes, before
>> > long it started to interconnect to nodes in Europe and Asia. This
>> > much broader DX cluster interconnectivity placed severe loads
>> > on the typical 1200 packet RF backbones and user connections.
>> >
>> >
>> > When the public internet began to be widely available in the early
>> > to mid 1990s, end users started to connect to PacketCluster nodes
>> > via the internet. Direct user connections via the internet caused the
>> > bandwidth requirements to explode again and the RF backbones and
>> > user connections started to fade away. VE7CC and the DX Summit
>> > soon appeared providing direct internet access to hundreds of users.
>> > Very few RF user links are in use today and essentially all of the
>> > RF packet backbones are gone.
>> >
>> >
>> > The next revolution was VE3NEA's CW Skimmer. Before long
>> > N4ZR and his team developed the Reverse Beacon Network
>> > of interconnected CW and RTTY Skimmers. The bandwidth
>> > requirements exploded again (and again, and again) which lead to
>> > the development of much faster "DX Cluster" software such as
>> > AR-Cluster Version 5 and many major reliability and storage
>> > upgrades to the Reverse Beacon network servers.
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm sure we've not come to the end of this 30+ year development
>> > of DX spotting technology.
>> >
>> >
>> > 73
>> > Frank
>> > W3LPL
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >
>> > From: "Jack Haverty" <k3fiv@arrl.net>
>> > To: cq-contest@contesting.com
>> > Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 11:02:06 PM
>> > Subject: [CQ-Contest] SO(Team) and SO(A)
>> >
>> > The recent NAQP conversations got me thinking...
>> >
>> > On 12/16/2016 10:03 AM, Steve London wrote:
>> > > the original rules, in the Jan/Feb 1986 NCJ:
>> > >
>> > > Entry Classification: Single-operator and multi-operator unlimited.
>> > > Multi-operator stations may be multi-transmitter but are limited to
>> one
>> > > signal per amateur band. Use of helpers or spotting nets by single
>> > > operators is not permitted.
>> >
>> > Just an observation...on the way that the term "spotting nets" has
>> > evolved over 30 years, and some ideas:
>> >
>> > Thirty years ago, "spotting nets" involved amateur operators
>> > communicating over amateur radio to exchange spotting information.
>> > IIRC, these were mostly local voice networks using 2, 6, or maybe 10
>> > meters to exchange spots within a groundwave/line-of-sight region.
>> >
>> > Phase 2 was the advent of amateur packet on 2 meters, and similar
>> > "spotting nets" followed as computers appeared in ham stations.
>> >
>> > All of that involved communications by amateur radio, with computers
>> > getting involved as a new technology used both in spotting nets, logging
>> > programs, etc.
>> >
>> > Phase 3 was the advent of the Internet, and the movement of "spotting
>> > networks" to utilize other forms of communication and operate over a
>> > much larger region, even global.
>> >
>> > Perhaps a reasonable "next step" for contest organizers to consider
>> > would be to look back to Phase 2 - e.g., allowing an SO(A) category to
>> > use "spotting networks" if, and only if, they are implemented using only
>> > amateur radio communications.
>> >
>> > It might also be interesting to permit SO(Team) entrants, instead of
>> > being just a collection of uncoordinated SO operators, to use such
>> > "Phase 2" spotting networks, just amongst themselves, and explore how a
>> > Team can actually cooperate to better scores - e.g., finding mults,
>> > moving them, etc. This might also generate some of the "social
>> > networking" aspects and competitive environment of Team rivalries to
>> > attract younger hams?
>> >
>> > Parts of the Internet can be, and have been, implemented over amateur
>> > radio. The technology exists, but there's still quite a few challenges
>> > to using such an "Amateur Internet" for spotting during contests. Our
>> > communications just isn't as fast or widespread as the Internet's fiber
>> > infrastructure. But these challenges are all technical and don't
>> > require lots of money, land, or aluminum. Can today's advantages of
>> > spotting networks in contests be achieved using only amateur radio for
>> > communications?
>> >
>> > Just a thought...
>> > 73,
>> > /Jack de K3FIV
>>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|