Three things would appear to be true:
1) They will either have utility or they won't.
2) Standing in the face of technology won't improve the
state of amateur radio.
3) They all ought to be on ONE frequency. How about 1900.1?
or 1800.1?
I suspect that modest receiving sites won't prove very interesting,
and the bloom will fall from this rose rather quickly. Serious
receiving sites will be otherwise occupied, and unavailable.
The interesting notion is not the beacon at all. It's the ability
to listen to the other end of your qso via an alternate channel.
i.e. you can hear what w8ji or k3na hears when you're working them.
>From what I can see, circuit latency could make skype useless as a
qso augmenter...but you'll be able to get an idea of the receiving
conditions at a remote site.
As for DXCC or contest results... it's a game, kiddies, just a game.
I race sailboats. You know what? The water level seems just the same
after we've finished rounding the buoys as it was beforehand.
Skype beacons or no skype beacons, the earth will spin at
the same rate.
Not trying it would be the crime, in my view.
n2ea
jimjarvis@ieee.org
jimjarvis@verizon.net
_______________________________________________
Topband mailing list
Topband@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
|