[UK-CONTEST] SSB Field Day '05

[Andy Summers]

Hi,

It's a pity there seems to be a hole in the uk-contest archives. Otherwise I
could have pointed those interested to a post I made to this reflector on
31/10/2000. Fortunately, I kept a copy....

>Fellow contesters,
>
>It is with great chagrin that I read the rule changes made to Restricted
>section of SSB Field Day, highlighted by Dave in the NFD results article.
>What I say has as much relevance to NFD as it does SSB Field Day, but I
>have a special interest in the latter (2nd place last year).
>
>I imagine that the changes are an attempt to tighten-up the rules
>associated with the increased prevalence of transceivers with a built-in
>2nd receiver. To my mind the changes have just muddied the waters.
>
>We used to be able to have one transmitter and two receivers, now we are
>only allowed two receivers if it's all built into the same box! Surely
>that's unfair on those of us who can't afford top-flight rigs? Our group
>uses two transceivers, one of them in fact being an FT1000MP. We do not use
>the FT1000MP's 2nd Rx, nor the 2nd Tx. We sign a declaration that we have
>abided by the rules. The rule changes effectively mean we can't have the
>2nd Rx in a different box, but why? If the intention is to inhibit
>cross-band or half-duplex spotting (which would be the case for the
>FT1000MP), then surely this is hardware specific? What about the homebrew
>rig with two entirely separate Rx's in the same box?
>
>I'm all for tailoring the rules to increase participation and to generate
>as level a playing field as possible. Personally, I think if you want
>'reinforce' the difference between Open and Restricted sections, then you
>want to allow only one Tx and one Rx in the Restricted section. I don't see
>this as excluding FT1000MP owners. We just have to rely on peoples
>conscience when they sign the declaration. After all, there's plenty of
>other ways to cheat if you were so disposed.
>
>The implication from Dave's article is that the new rules are expected to
>stop spotting activities in the Restricted section. However, packet access
>has now explicitly been endorsed for either section. Again, I see this as
>being contrary to the principles of a Restricted section, but moreover it
>does not dissallow the possibility for a private DXCluster network feeding
>cross- or same-band spots. This certainly isn't in the spirit of a
>Restricted section.
>
>Food for thought?

These comments were largely pooh-poohed at the time.

The rules applicable during 2003 didn't specifically exclude private
DXClusters. So in that respect we were within the rules. Note that even the
present rules contain ambiguity. The general rules talk only about allowing
DXCluster access, whereas SSBFD specific rules allow "equipment and antennas
for packet radio access above 30MHz". Prior to the changes made to the
general rules for 2004 they too allowed generalised packet radio access.

It was nearly 10 years ago that I first saw CT networked via transparant
mode packet at M6T for log sharing. Spots were made using 'gab' because
there was no built-in means of dealing with campus derived spots. We built
on this concept by writing our own telnet server to reflect DX announcements
back into CT. This meant the spots came in like normal DXCluster spots and
enabled simple point-n-shoot. Ironically, we introduced this idea to GB5HQ
in 2003 where it was used to good effect in 2003 and 2004, so I'm not sure
why Dave considers it "questionable". However it did result in the changes
you now see to the RSGB's general rules.

Going back to the legitimacy of our 2003 effort, the spotting station didn't
really need to be co-located. It could have been at one of our houses. It
was purely for the convenience of changing operators! Nonetheless,
sufficient antenna separation was obtained to allow in-band spotting. If we
had located the spotting station off-site the setup would have appeared
exactly as you'd expect for a Restricted setup.

Even though the present rules (might) exclude log sharing via packet, there
would still be nothing stopping the passing of needed mults to a spotting
station via paper/texting/etc and he/she then announcing any mults found to
the public DXCluster. Of course, others may or may not benefit from them
also.

It's a mine-field. My preference would be for the Restricted rules to be
changed back to disallow the use of packet, or in fact ANY form of
assistance. After all, I consider the Restricted section to be there to
allow as level a playing field as possible with the simplest, lowest cost of
all set up. Thereby encouraging all Clubs to join in.

Finally, I don't believe we cheated, but we were guilty of being innovative
within the rules. That's what you have to do to get a competitive edge.

73,
Andy
G4KNO