Spots on the packet network can not be 'all callsigns copied', that would be
useless and defeat the purpose of the network for everyone. Why would you
want to send spots around the world of stations that are calling in someone
else's pileup, that's just a dumb idea. As for those stations that skimmer
finds that are calling cq, how would you intend to tell if they were spotted
by a skimmer or human? The -# the skimmer telnet server adds is an invalid
ssid, just like the -@ for dxsummit spots, so has to be removed before it
can be injected in the network, after that it looks just like any other
spot.
David Robbins K1TTT
e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.net
web: http://www.k1ttt.net
AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Stan Stockton [mailto:k5go@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 15:03
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Cc: W4TV Joe Subich; k1ttt@arrl.net
Subject: SDR/Skimmer on another continent = REMOTE RECEIVER
K1TTT wrote:
>not going to happen... in fact, some nodes are now >offering skimmer spots
to local users. It won't be long before we get the filters a bit better and
they will be loose in the world wide network and indistinguishable from
operator entered spots, there won't be any way for anyone to know if it was
skimmed or human entered.... this another push to kill the whole packet
network in disguise??
Disguise - That is a good idea but I can't take credit for being that
innovative in this case.
I did not know it would be disguised so you could not tell remote
receiver/Skimmer from a human packet spot.
Curious as to whether you have clicked on the option to provide ALL
callsigns copied - not just the ones calling CQ.
That remote receiver hooked to a SDR in Europe will really be helpful when
you have a pileup on 80M and can't quite copy most of them from the USA!
Perhaps that is too much technological help? If so, how do you propose
preventing it from happening?
W4TV Wrote:
>It is possible to argue that remotely located skimmers >and "off site"
human spotters represent remote >receivers that are illegal is all current
contest classes. >While that is beyond the scope of this discussion - at
>least in terms of the human spotter component - it >perhaps merits some
consideration in any discussion of >connecting automatic receivers to the
packet network.
As much as many would like for packet to go away I expect it will not,
unless K1TTT facilitates its demise by integrating Skimmer in such a way
that users find themselves in a remote receiving situation.
I think there is a big difference in a voluntary packet spot, usually not
automatically filtered by SCP, low percentage of stations getting spotted,
etc. and a RECEIVER (SDR) located on another continent (REMOTE RECEIVER)
with a CODE READER (SKIMMER) filtered by SCP that either gives you everyone
it hears calling CQ or everything it hears, even those calling on your run
frequency depending on Skimmer software mode..
Regardless of whether you are listening to the audio over Skype, or using a
code reader to print the information copied on your computer screen, you are
using a remote receiver to help you copy stations that you may not quite be
able to copy at your local QTH. In that regard it is the same as packet
except for the volume which is 100% instead of a very small fraction of
that.
W4TV Wrote:
>I believe that a format can be developed that specifies >a minimum level of
human involvement to prevent the >robot machine situation.
It sounds like you want to prevent technology from advancing to the point of
ruining the sport. That is good. How would you propose preventing it from
occurring?.
Stan, K5GO
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|