[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Web SDR's and 'Cheating'

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Web SDR's and 'Cheating'
From: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2011 11:53:55 -0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
What makes anyone think that cheating in this manner is limited to 
publicly available SDRs?  I could set up a receiver/computer in Europe 
and stream the result over the internet to my QTH in the USA.  For CW I 
don't even need the receiver in Europe to be digitally controlled as 
long as I was able to feed the IF into a simple SDR (even a $20 
Softrock).  I could just install CW Skimmer and LogMeIn on the computer 
and remotely monitor the text (or visually decode the high resolution 
waterfall display) across the entire band.  Even faster than tuning.   
If I had a like minded collaborator in Europe we could set up reciprocal 
receivers and neither of us would even have to travel.

And I'm not sure it would be limited to bands like 160m.  Because of my 
terrain (steep eastward slope) I can put a pretty good signal into 
Europe on the high bands but often cannot hear second and third tier 
callers through the east coast QRM (I live in Arizona).  Even a receiver 
in New England would be a tremendous help.

Anyone seriously believe something like this isn't already happening?

Dave   AB7E

On 10/7/2011 4:44 PM, Geoffrey Way wrote:
> SDR's aren't a bad thing, we should just take care about how
> we make
> them available via the internet...
> How would it work if users were advised that what they are
> hearing
> is intentionally delayed by a random length of time anywhere
> between
> 30 to 90 seconds? Wouldn't that allow us to encourage other
> listeners
> without fueling unethical behavior?
> -- KA1IOR
CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>