Stan,
> I believe a reasonable compromise that would eliminate "some"
> of the abuses that have not been discussed publicly in any
> detail, would be to only allow Skimmer as a local thing (has
> to be within the magic circle).
The only use of skimmer technology I have ever supported is
with the receiver in the "magic circle." If the automatically
derived spots are ported to or delivered by packet, internet,
etc. they would - at the minimum - constitute "assistance" the
same as current packet/internet/etc. information does now.
> A SDR is a receiver and, if it is located remotely, it is a
> remote receiver. If it has a code reader attached, if you
> listen to the audio, if you call it a spotting aid, it makes
> no difference. It is a remote receiver copying callsigns and
> other information, depending on the mode of operation, that
> perhaps could not be copied without it at your local QTH.
It is possible to argue that remotely located skimmers and
"off site" human spotters represent remote receivers that
are illegal is all current contest classes. While that is
beyond the scope of this discussion - at least in terms of the
human spotter component - it perhaps merits some consideration
in any discussion of connecting automatic receivers to the
packet network.
> Not allowing Skimmer as a networked remote thing, we still
> have the automated QSO machine situation which I think will
> eventually ruin the game.
I believe that a format can be developed that specifies a
minimum level of human involvement to prevent the robot
machine situation.
> We still have the elimination of
> some operator skills and we still have some problems with
> immediate pile-ups on rare multipliers on the first CQ and
> the fact that QRP operators will probably never have the
> fortune of tuning around and getting lucky by snagging a rare
> multiplier before a big pile-up ensues.
All current testing with skimmers indicates there is a level
below which Skimmer does not provide decoding. However, the
"waterfall" display still remains useful as a panadapter and
the skilled human operator can derive further information with
manual decoding.
If skimmer technology is restricted to the "local" station,
the chances of "packet pileups" will be reduced - not increased -
as each skimmer sees different conditions/signals/propagation.
A QRL operator with skimmer may even enhance his chances of
finding a rare multiplier by virtue of being able to "listen"
to a larger portion of the available stations.
> Please put yourself in a compromising mood and tell me if
> this makes sense.
Stan, our only disagreement is your argument to prohibit
local skimmers for "traditional" single operator stations.
I continue to believe as long as the receiver is within
the "magic circle" it is as much a tool for the single
operator as any of the multi-operator classes. A local
Skimmer is after all a tool - simply a repackaging of
technology already in use piecemeal in many stations - it
is not another operator.
As far as use of networked skimmers - I think we are in
agreement that they should be considered "remote receivers"
which are already prohibited in all classes.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Stan Stockton
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 1:02 PM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer - Proposal & Compromise
>
>
> About half of the problems with Skimmer (aside from taking
> away certain operator skills - not a trivial issue) has to do
> with allowing Skimmer/SDR to be accessed remotely.
>
> A SDR is a receiver and, if it is located remotely, it is a
> remote receiver. If it has a code reader attached, if you
> listen to the audio, if you call it a spotting aid, it makes
> no difference. It is a remote receiver copying callsigns and
> other information, depending on the mode of operation, that
> perhaps could not be copied without it at your local QTH. It
> is basically the same thing as packet except that packet
> spots are in a VERY limited number as compared to every CQ
> becoming a spot.
>
> As everyone knows, I would highly prefer that Skimmer not be
> allowed at all in any category of entry. I have given it all
> I can give along with the majority of CW Contesters who have
> voiced a public opinion. However, unfortunate as it is, I
> think it may be a losing battle to expect that it will be
> banned altogether.
>
> I believe a reasonable compromise that would eliminate "some"
> of the abuses that have not been discussed publicly in any
> detail, would be to only allow Skimmer as a local thing (has
> to be within the magic circle). I would recommend that it be
> allowed along with packet for Assisted, M/S, M/M as long as
> it is local. A single operator would have to do everything
> himself - call CQ, find stations to work without an automated
> process helping him to find stations to work, etc. Yes, that
> would mean no code readers for that category. This should
> not be a big deal since someone who needs a code reader is
> not going to effectively compete in any category. He can
> still enter and submit his log in the category that allows
> the code reader.
>
> Not allowing Skimmer as a networked remote thing, we still
> have the automated QSO machine situation which I think will
> eventually ruin the game. We still have the elimination of
> some operator skills and we still have some problems with
> immediate pile-ups on rare multipliers on the first CQ and
> the fact that QRP operators will probably never have the
> fortune of tuning around and getting lucky by snagging a rare
> multiplier before a big pile-up ensues.
>
> What we avoid are abuses of Skimmer used in the "un" verified
> mode where it will provide a list of every callsign it hears
> on your run frequency, not just those calling CQ.
>
> We avoid the situation where there are hundreds of weak
> stations who call CQ for a few minutes in an failed attempt
> to hold a frequency and are pounced on by all the big guys
> who strain to copy the almost inaudible signal and log a
> station first copied on a remote receiver filtered by SCP
> with an automatic report of 59914 for example. The same
> thing just described happens with packet. The difference is
> that it would be multiplied by several hundred with a remote
> receiver with a code reader and SCP filtering.
>
> If someone is using a networked connection in any category
> and Skimmer input is provided, it is automatic DQ for those
> who are connected. If it is found that someone has a network
> outside the circle which is being used to provide spots or
> other information - automatic DQ.
>
> Those who run packet clusters would need to have "trusted
> sites" and make provisions so that Skimmer input was not
> accepted to avoid this.
>
> I am more than willing to compromise my thoughts on this in
> order to avoid as many problems as possible and continue to
> do what we love doing for as long as it lasts.
>
> Please put yourself in a compromising mood and tell me if
> this makes sense.
>
> Stan, K5GO
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|