But, the rule says... X II 2. All sent and received exchanges are to be logged. In addition to the number exchange, the call sign sent by an entrant during a completed exchange, must be logged as sen
Hi Pete: We DEFINITELY want the ability to get an unprocessed stream (raw feed). This looks like a very valuable option for RBN users. Thanks and 73, Mark, KD4D The real question is, *where* in the s
Hi Barry: I do my own filtering. I want to minimize rejection of valid calls. 73, Mark Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone -- Original message -- From: Barry <w2up@comcast.net> Date: 7/1
Good day, all: This is like parsing requirements and policy statements at work! :-) Monitoring for your own call is "callsign identification along with frequency identification", isn't it? 73, Mark,
Hi Randy: No, it's not too bad! :-) SOME active single operator entries in these contests don't want to be required to use "assistance" to be competitive. LEAVE US CATEGORIES WHERE WE GET TO FIND QS
Hi Pete: Not surprisingly, I disagree with you about the difference between the CW Skimmer and the RBN. IMHO, the CW Skimmer technology is the "game changer". The RBN only adds remote receivers to th
Good evening, Scott: I strongly agree with what you have written. This is the best summary I've read of the "recording" issue and proposed rule changes - and this is an excellent proposal. It elimina
I agree with Ken and Henning as well. I prefer just the "QTC?" when I'm running. If i have a caller and I'm busy, I'll ignore the request and call the station. That should be taken as a "No". :-) 73,
I think "heard by the operator" is clear enough. SO2R guys must record from headphones and record what they hear. I had considered recording line out from both radios (4 channels) but that does not s
My favorite comparison is rangefinders/GPS in golf.... 73, Mark, KD4D -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ CQ-Contes
Hi Ward: It is NOT just what crosses the station boundary or local skimmers (multi-channel decoders) would be permitted. That would remove the major distinction between the classes (IMHO). I enjoy th
Hi Ward, Respectfully, we disagree on what the primary distinction is/should be. 73, Mark, KD4D -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________
Hi George: I think this paradigm is too limited: "no outside source of Call/QRG". As stated, it permits local skimmers/multi-channel decoders and totally automated stations. I strongly believe that t
Hi Steve: I disagree - I operate "unassisted (pick a name) because I enjoy operating that way and I also enjoy competing with my peers. I really enjoy the competitive nature of contesting. I don't th
Hi Barry: Personally, I don't need ANOTHER web site or bulletin board I have to check. The "push" interface is much easier for me to deal with for all the Ham Radio reflectors I monitor. 73, Mark, KD
Hi Randy: It is clear that Radiosport will not follow the model of Golf or bicycle racing - prohibiting use of advanced technologies (e.g., rangefinders and GPS in golf, motors in bicycle racing). Ho
Actually, the contest sponsors choose it. 73, Mark, KD4D The funny thing is that people pick and chose what unassisted or traditional means. If you want to be hard core and have no assistance then tr
Hi Rudy: This discussion not about "creating a category" for those who don't want to get better - the category exists in many major contests now. In fact, the ARRL created new categories (Unlimited)
Hi Rudy: Just about every competitive sport I can think of regulates or prohibits some very effective skills, techniques, and (the one item you didn't mention which is key here) technologies. Many do
Hi Duane: I strongly disagree with allowing local skimmers, robots, and other similar technological aids in single operator classes - whether locally or remotely located. I propose an alternate guidi