[CQ-Contest] Petition to Ban Skimmer

[David Robbins K1TTT]

> Pete's hit the nail on the head on three counts: it is certainly possible
> some are overestimating the
> impact of skimmer. It is also true that new technology should not be
> banned. And it is also true that a
> separate, boy-and-his-radio class (no skimmer, no packet, no trained
> orangutan (to tune the amp, of
> course!) should remain.

So just where DO you draw the line... no computer keying?  No computer
logging(now REQUIRED in some contests)??  No web access for propagation
data, only what you can copy from wwv on the air??  No auto-tune amps or
antenna tuners??  No dsp filters in the radios?  no external dsp boxes?  


David Robbins K1TTT
e-mail: mailto:k1ttt at arrl.net
web: http://www.k1ttt.net
AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:cq-contest-
> bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of ve4xt at mts.net
> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 15:25
> To: Pete Smith; cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Petition to Ban Skimmer
> 
> 
> I would hope that the people arguing for a ban would give their heads a
> shake and realize that the
> ONLY reason amateur radio exists at all is for the furtherance of new
> technology.
> 
> That doesn't mean that new technology should be unleashed into contests
> unfettered, but it should not
> be banned.
> 
> 73, kelly
> ve4xt
> 
> >
> >
> > Banning the technology from contests will have no useful effect.  By all
> > means, retain a single-op unassisted class without it (like packet), and
> > let the marketplace decide.
> >
> >
> > 73, Pete N4ZR
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest