[Skimmertalk] Skimmer use places op in Assisted category forCQWW

[Pete Smith]

Stan, I'm done with this.  Remote receivers have not been and are not 
allowed.  Regardless of what it says about Skimmers, that is still the 
case.  Addition of local Skimmer capability in classes above basic 
single-op does no harm.  EOT.

73, Pete N4ZR

At 09:07 AM 8/13/2008, Stan Stockton wrote:
>Pete,
>
>>Stan, I don't get it.  You complain about people using Skimmer like a 
>>remote receiver to copy stations that are not calling CQ, as if Skimmer 
>>could copy an exchange or a serial number.  I pointed out that it doesn't 
>>work that way.  I pointed out that Skimmer would only copy a given 
>>callsign on a given frequency once every 10 minutes, and would never copy 
>>an exchange, while any number of other receivers, coupled with Internet 
>>communications, would do exactly what you are afraid of, and have been 
>>able to for years.
>
>Exactly correct.  What I described has always been illegal.  Please tell 
>me where
>in the new rules you see any limitations on what can be done as long as 
>Skimmer is
>used (in whatever mode you want to set it to operate).
>
>Is there anything in the rules which specifies what receiver has to be used in
>conjunction with Skimmer which is specifically stated as being allowed?
>
>Are you aware that 99.9% of all exchanges in the CQ WW Contest can
>be accurately predicted before they are sent?
>
>How many extra layers of stations do you think will be worked on the low bands
>that never would have been worked if a European Skimmer is feeding just 
>callsigns
>of those calling CQ - even without feeding callsigns of those calling the 
>run station
>which it will also do?
>
>How many times do you need the callsign to appear on your computer screen
>to make a contact - surely not more than the initial sending of the callsign.
>You keep talking about Skimmer only spotting once every 10 minutes which 
>has nothing to do with anything.
>AGAIN, I ask whether if Alex decided to spot the station more often than 
>every ten minutes
>whether that makes a difference in your position?  It doesn't make any 
>difference to me.
>
>>It's simply wrong to say that Skimmer breaks any new ground in terms of 
>>remote receivers.  They were and continue to be against the rules. 
>>Nothing has changed.  Compared to a free-standing, tunable remote 
>>receiver, Skimmer would be a step backward.
>
>The thing that has changed is that previous to now a remote receiver was 
>not allowed at all.
>Now, the name Skimmer is allowed and integral to Skimmer is a remote 
>receiver if the
>operation is on another continent.
>
>>Why not relax and accept the fact that local Skimmers will become a part 
>>of the contest arsenal in every class except basic single-op?  To my 
>>mind, that's as it should be, and it's time to move on.
>
>I HAVE accepted the fact that "LOCAL" Skimmers will become a part of the 
>contest
>arsenal in every class except basic single-op.  I have not relaxed on the 
>subject of
>a remote receiver hooked to a code reader with callsigns appearing on a 
>computer
>copied on a receiver located on another continent.
>
>Compare the 80M scores to previous scores for the multi-multi stations in 
>the next few
>CQ WW Contests if the rules remain as written.  Maybe, only then, you will 
>get it.
>
>At one time you said remote, networked Skimmers would not be good and 
>would cause
>a big problem.  Has your opinion on this changed?
>
>At one point in time you said that the IP address would have to be made 
>*widely* public
>in order to prevent someone from using it in some of the ways I have described
>in order to be legal.  Do you see anything in the rules having to do with 
>having to have
>your remote receiver and code reader on a public network or can they be 
>private and
>be just fine?
>
>73...Stan, K5GO
>
>
>>73, Pete N4ZR