The Skimmerdebate is getting more sterile by the minute, with most postings
simplyreiterating emotionally held beliefs.
Let’s startby knocking a few myths on the head:
- CW is inherently a mode to be copied by ear. Nonsense. Visit any
museum of telegraphy and you will see that it was originally envisaged
as a machine application. Yes, those of us who have the skill value it
and like to match our skill against that of others. But there is
nothing sacrosanct in “human” copying. If we want to insist on that
route, fine, but let's not pretend that there is no alternative.
- Because technological change has been adopted in the past (keyers, PC
logging, etc.) any future developments can and should be accepted
automatically. Again, nonsense – take this to its extreme and in a
few years there will be no need for human intervention at all (probably
already possible and has been for a while, even pre-Skimmer). And where
will the “fun” element be then?
- There is also the group who think it is simply a matter of external
assistance vs. local (technological) assistance (network/packet vs.
what is in the shack). Again, nonsense – if only it were so simple!
- Then there are those who keep entertaining us with extracts from the
current contest rules. Irrelevant! They were written in the past
without any prophetic ability to see into the future.
- That contest sponsors should not dictate what is used in the shack.
Nonsense – they absolutely have to, as in other sports! (the only
unique feature of amateur radio as a technological sport is that we
don’t have stewards on site checking our adherence to the rules,
hence WRTC, but that doesn’t alter the necessity for a rule-based
approach and some honesty in following those rules)
So what isthe debate we should really be having?
I want touse an analogy. Some years ago I recall having a fascinating
conversation withthe late Harvey Postlethwaite, who at that time was the
chief engineer for theFerrari Formula 1 racing team. He told me that the
majority of his time wastaken up not with technological innovation (though
his team had huge resourcesat its disposal) but in negotiating with the
ruling body of the sport as towhat was and what was not to be allowed. Just
like in amateur radio there were(and continue to be) two aspects:
- Trackside assistance – telemetry allows not only monitoring from
the pits, but also, potentially, control, leaving the driver with
little, if anything to do (just like external, networked assistance in
amateur radio). The general concensus with F1 is that monitoring is
allowed but the driver has to drive (sound familiar?)
- In-car assistance – nowadays cars could be built to do things like
maintaining a pre-determined (optimal) distance from the car in front,
following a pre-determined course, saved in a database, etc. But the
governing body has decided that this would take all the “fun” out
of the sport - a certain level of driver particpation is a good idea! So a
line has been drawn. Yes, there is technology – huge amounts of it
– but it is recognised that there have to be limits.
Amateurradio needs a similar debate, but THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER. I
suspect thatdifferent “governing bodies” (contest sponsors) will find
different positionsand this is good because it means that you can enter the
contests with whichyou feel most comfortable. There are the same two
aspects:
- Trackside assistance (Cluster, etc.) – we have already decided to
allow this, but as a separate category of entry.
- In-car assistance. This is what the Skimmer debate is about and a
real debate is needed as to where the line is to be drawn. I don’t
know the answer but much of the discussion on here has been far too
simplistic.
Why hasthis suddenly come to a head when there have been technical
developments in thepast? Probably because the advent of SDR technology
along with affordable, verypowerful PCs has allowed something of a step
change in just a few years. But itwas inevitable that the time would come
when a serious debate would have totake place. But, please, let’s make it
a serious debate and stop throwing outsome of the fatuous remarks we have
seen on here of late.
Don FieldG3XTT / NK1G
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|