Re: [CQ-Contest] Packet absurdity

[VR2BrettGraham <vr2bg@harts.org.hk>]

WA2GO added:

> Forgive me if this question is ignorant - I have never set up a station to
> use packet so I don't know anything about how it works, but... would it be
> possible to somehow authenticate every single sender and receiver of spots,
> in order to (a) require people to sign on with their real callsign, and (b)
> be able to tell where they are?  It seems to me that anybody who signs on
> using a different callsign (i.e. impersonating someone) is doing so because
> they don't want to get caught, which kind of implies that they might be
> planning to do something "wrong", or something they are embarrassed about.

Packet already has this authentication, as packet is radio-based & to operate
with other than one's call sign has to be unlawful in all territories that 
allow
amateur radio operation, as this is counter to the ITU-RR for the Amateur
Service, which is what makes it possible for amateur radio to even exist in
places that are signatories to the ITU Convention (including the US, believe it
or not).

When the packet spotting systems crossed the line from RF to the Internet,
as K1TTT pointed out, is when things started to go pear-shaped.

Packet itself isn't evil - spotting networks have existed for yonks & going 
back
20-odd years, the only beef I can recall is when folks suspected somebody
had an ear on the local DX club repeater, as that somebody kept showing up
in the piles shortly after the DX was announced, despite submitting an entry
as a single-op.

It is the linking of the packet-based spotting networks that have replaced the
voice-based networks & the ability for those with only Internet access to get
into these networks that has allowed for the abuses that should concern us
now.

This is not aimed at John & a number of others who have contributed to the
discussion here as of late, but every time I see someone go off about packet,
the first thing that comes to mind is that they haven't a clue, as RF-linked
packet-based spotting networks are limited in coverage, don't allow for
anonymous user connections & simply can't produce the results the dodgy
spotters are after.

If spotting assistance is evil, then something would have been done back in
the days of voice-based spotting networks to put an end to it in the first 
place.

"Packet" implies packet radio, not spotting assistance in general.  Let's get
the terminology right, people.

The whole thing reminds me of a problem we have back home with folks killing
themselves by burning charcoal.  Instead of dealing with the "disease", folks
want to treat the "symptom" by banning sales of small bags of charcoal or
other silly solutions.  In our case, the "disease" is not abiding by the 
rules of
the game, plus new mutations of the "disease" not yet covered by the rules,
such as cheerleading.

The disease could very well be summed up as today's increasingly ethic-less
& moral-less world we appear to live in - this win-by-hook-or-crook mentality
is everywhere, from corporate behavior to Olympic sports.

Radiosport should be above this.

73, HL1/VR2BrettGraham

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest