Topband: [CQ-Contest] Stew Perry Streaming Audio

Sat Dec 28 15:46:42 EST 2013

Take a look at radiomarine.org to see how remote receivers were implemented commercially more than 40 years ago.  It's easier now, but remote receiving isn't a new thing.  

For that matter, neither are "Band Scopes," a.k.a. Spectrum Analyzers.  My ancient HP-141T, ca 1974, even has a tracking generator that shows the marker frequency on a friendly nixie tube display.

-Jeff, W0ODS

>________________________________
> From: Greg - ZL3IX <zl3ix at inet.net.nz>
>To: topband at contesting.com 
>Sent: 
>Subject: Re: Topband: [CQ-Contest]  Stew Perry Streaming Audio
> 
>
>Hi Steve,
>
>I'm afraid that if remote receivers were not allowed, I would not be 
>taking part.  That is the only way that I can do ham radio nowadays, due 
>to planning restrictions.  I can assure you that, although the 
>technologies are different from those used in the old days, getting a 
>remote station to work properly, requires just as much design skill and 
>ingenuity as the old timers used to set up their stations.
>
>73, Greg, ZL3IX
>
>On 2013-12-29 08:39 a.m., Steve London wrote:
>> Rule 6 of the Stew Perry is a joke in so many ways.
>>
>> "enjoy the contest the way we did back when Stew Perry was around"
>>
>> contradicted by:
>>
>> "We do realize band scopes can show that someone is on 1829.3 - but 
>> since they don't tell you who is actually there, that is okay."
>>
>> "Therefore, remote receivers are okay as long as they are not more 
>> than 100 kM from your transmitter site."
>>
>> How many remote receivers and band scopes did W1BB use ?
>>
>> 73,
>> Steve, N2IC
>>
>> On 12/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stan Stockton wrote:
>>> Hans,
>>>
>>> First - I know there was no il-intent.  Others have done it without 
>>> public complaints.
>>>
>>> However, ask yourself how fair it would be for one of the competitors 
>>> in WRTC to be allowed to announce to the world that their callsign 
>>> (not operators calls) would be streaming live audio during the IARU 
>>> next year.  Is there a difference?  Would it be a stretch to see an 
>>> advantage over the others ?  How is that different?
>>>
>>>    Rules say "Boy and his radio" (!) and also "any communication with 
>>> humans other than exchanges that take place over the air can be 
>>> considered assistance".  Example of exception for asking wife for 
>>> sandwich is given.
>>>
>>> Assuming a sidetone of some sort is audible, would it be any 
>>> different if the operator were allowed to call people on the phone 
>>> (one way communication) to tell them he hears them and what report he 
>>> is sending?  I can't see any difference other than a different, 
>>> non-radio means of communicating.
>>>
>>> I think we have all gotten to the point of mixing up in our own heads 
>>> what is radio and what is not. The Internet is a great thing and can 
>>> be used in conjunction with ham radio to add enjoyment.  However, 
>>> listening to audio via Internet or telephone is not radio.
>>>
>>> Recording the entire contest with side tone and posting it for 
>>> everyone to listen to after the contest is over is a fine idea.
>>>
>>> With no malice but a very strong opinion...
>>>
>>> 73...Stan, K5GO
>>>
>>> Sent from Stan's IPhone
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 28, 2013, at 11:11 AM, "Radio K0HB"<kzerohb at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> What a shame that you've abandoned the idea.  I'm not 160-equipped 
>>>> in my RV but it would have been fun to listen in on the action, and 
>>>> it's a stretch to see this as an advantage over other competitors.
>>>>
>>>> 73, de Hans, K0HB/K7
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Eric NO3M<no3m at no3m.net>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Since there seems to be too much concern over this, though no ill 
>>>>> intent
>>>>> was intended, audio will not be broadcast.
>>>>>
>>>>> GL / 73 Eric NO3M
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/28/2013 06:23 AM, Stan Stockton wrote:
>>>>>> Eric,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You made it clear what you were doing, and I am quite sure Clive 
>>>>>> understood. I think the logic behind his question has to do with 
>>>>>> whether it is within the spirit of the contest -  especially this 
>>>>>> one. Let's say, as a result of the announcement or advertisement , 
>>>>>> 15 DX stations and 25 USA stations who are not even going to send 
>>>>>> in their log called you, just for fun and the novelty of it, so 
>>>>>> they could listen to their own signal at your end via Internet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What if some have enough QRM or QRN that they could only copy 
>>>>>> whether you came back to them by listening via internet? Fair to 
>>>>>> your competitors?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is cool, but I've always had a problem with this, regardless of 
>>>>>> what contest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 73...Stan, K5GO
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>>
>>
>
>_________________
>Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
>