[CQ-Contest] RBN and CQWW was: Re: CQ WW Update

[Paul O'Kane]

On 24/11/2010 12:51, K1TTT wrote:

> I think the 'public' requirement is going to open another can of worms.
> What constitutes 'public'?  if a skimmer is available to members of only one
> club is that 'public'?  If it's open to 2 stations? 3 stations? How about
> cluster nodes, do they also have to be 'public'?  remember, in the beginning
> of packet spotting there were many separate club networks, those were
> allowed but were obviously not 'public' in that they were not open to
> everyone and did not share spots with other networks.  I could easily limit
> use of my cluster node to only yccc members, would that still be a 'public'
> cluster?  If I did the same for my skimmer would that still be 'public'?


This whole thread is both laughable and pathetic.  It has
nothing to do with amateur radio contesting, and everything
to do with hybrid communications contesting - and that's
not amateur radio.

The contesters who promote and who use spotting networks are
those who don't know, or don't care, about the difference
between the internet and amateur radio.

I support what KD4D suggested -

"Maybe the answer is unassisted multi-operator categories -
disallowing all uses of skimmers, both local and remote".

And, dare I say it, disallowing all spotting networks not
contained, in their entirety, within the 500m station
circle.

This hybrid communications BS reminds me of the policy of
banks lending money to people who couldn't afford to repay
them - with the "reasoning" that it didn't matter what
happened, they (the banks) were insured against defaults.

I suggest it is time to get back to basics, and use nothing
but amateur-band RF in amateur radio contests (apart from
anything that takes place within the 500m station circle).

73,
Paul EI5DI