[CQ-Contest] Live audio during WW Phone

[Kenneth E. Harker]

On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 03:28:44PM -0400, Dave Pascoe wrote:

> > Is this warning going to be prominently displayed during the contest?
> > Are we going to have access to the IP addresses of the connections made
> > during the contest so we can correlate (a la K1TTT packet spot analysis)
> > the competitive stations that were using this remote receiver?
> 
> Sure, I can preserve the IP logs if that is of interest to those who
> care about such things.  But put it in perspective...we will use this
> to verify the "competitive stations" who somehow used a delayed audio
> link over the internet to "work" *one* U.S. station.  

That's not how I see this being useful to another station.

I can easily imagine a multiop in Virginia or Illinois or Florida or someplace
having an "Internet" station where an op not on the air could be listening
to Internet audio streams to hear what the W1s or W7s are working.  Want to 
make sure you don't miss an opening that K5ZD is working?  Who cares if the 
stream is 45 or 60 seconds delayed for that kind of strategic intelligence 
purpose?

Would that get you any more useful information than monitoring a packet 
cluster?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Packet cluster use is not forbidden for 
multiops or assisted single ops, but the use of remote receivers is 
forbidden for everyone.  If CQWW changed the rules such that the use of 
a remote receiver places a station in an assisted or multi category, that 
would be one thing, but the rules forbid it for _every_ station in the 
contest - so why invite people to use it?

> Maybe you see it that way, but that is certainly not the intention.
> Why would we, serious CQWW competitors for many years, entice people
> to break CQWW rules?  

So, would _any_ station that submits a log who had listened to your audio
stream have broken the rules?  I think so.

>                       By the same argument, then, the very existence
> of packet should be banned because it entices single operator stations
> to break the rules.

Packet should be banned, but that's a separate argument :-)

-- 
Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
kenharker at kenharker.com
http://www.kenharker.com/