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
|