> What I said was that I think it falls within the "INTENT" of
> a spotting net.
No! It does not fall within the "intent" or a spotting net.
A spotting net is ASSISTANCE FROM OUTSIDE THE STATION - not
a LAN within the station.
Get it through your head, Skimmer when run on a receiver within
the "500 meter" circle is not assistance under ANY common use
of the word in contesting circles. In words a first grader can
understand: "Assistance is participation in any part of the
operating function by another operator whether in the station or
remotely by internet, packet, telephone, VHF intercom or any
other form of communication."
Computers are not operators - they do not transmit except under
direction of the human operator. Bandscopes are not operators
(assistance), code readers are not operators (assistance),
second/third/fourth receivers are certainly not operators (assistance).
Multiple receivers are permitted as long as they are located within
the 500 meter circle.
Where does a computer controlled second receiver located within the
500 meter circle feeding a multiple channel code reader become
assistance?
To attempt to define a collection of otherwise "legal" technologies
assistance when used together is absurd. It is the intellectual
equivalent of saying: "K3LR uses Icom transceivers, therefore anyone
who uses an Icom transceivers must be a multi-multi."
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Stan Stockton
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 5:05 PM
> To: doug smith
> Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer for S/O in IARU
>
>
> > Spotting *nets*. Local Skimmer, where the equipment is on
> > your premises, is not a "net". Nor is it "packet". Nets
> > and >packet presume stations established by others, set up
> > by others, whose operating parameters have been set by
> > others. >Local Skimmer is different: it's on your
> > premises, and you're the one who sets up its operating
> > parameters - which band,
> >etc.
>
> What I said was that I think it falls within the "INTENT" of
> a spotting net. When the rules were written, there was no
> such thing as Skimmer. Since we are using those words that
> were put in place before Skimmer was developed and
> making assumptions and presumptions, it is a good thing Alex
> did not name the program PACKET or SPOTTING NET
> or I presume it would be clearly against the rules based on
> its name as opposed to the intent of the rules or
> what it does.
>
> I would rather focus on intent, but just curious (since you
> said it is not a net, nor is it packet)
> as to whether two computers networked together at your
> location with one running Skimmer and the other running
> the logging software constitute a "net" The answer is that
> it is a "net". Does it make any difference? No.
>
> Skimmer provides a spot of every station it hears calling CQ
> without any operator skill involved.
>
> It is much better than packet since:
>
> 1. Unlike packet, where a tiny percentage of stations that
> call CQ are spotted, with Skimmer
> every station heard that calls CQ will be provided on a
> list.
> 2. It only provides a list of stations whose signals are
> readable at your QTH instead of providing a high percentage
> of signals that are not readable at your QTH.
>
> I seriously doubt, if the rule had been written when Skimmer
> was first developed, it would have
> have been allowed for a single operator unassisted entrant
> with the lesser assistance aid (Packet)
> only allowed in classes where the INTENT seemed to be to
> allow more assistance.
>
> Stan, K5GO
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|