> So what? It's still one operator doing everything. Whether he does it
> with 1, 2, or 20 radios, it's he alone without any assistance or outside
> information.
"Come into my trap", said the spider to the fly. :-)
You're absolutely correct, Bob. And by that same logic, a local CW Skimmer
is legal for Single Op. One operator is doing everything, and he's alone
without any assistance or outside information. Those are your criteria for
Single Op.
If you're going object by saying that CW Skimmer provides "assistance",
you're going to have to disallow all computerized "assistance", including
logging, SCP, CW decoding, etc., all of which have been legal and accepted
for decades, as well as band scopes. You might have to disallow SDR-based
radios, too, because the computer in the radio provides "assistance" like
brick-wall DSP filtering. It seems to me that one could make the argument
that virtually any given technological advance in the station is
"assistance". I use a computer logging program to switch between my two
radios and I wrote a very sophisticated computer program, AntennaMaster, to
automatically switch my antennas, turn my rotors, tune my SteppIRs and tune
my Acom amp. Those programs allow me to switch the configuration much more
quickly than if I had to do it the way it has traditionally been done, which
is by using manual switches. Is that "assistance"? Heck, are the little
CPU-based controllers that dynamically adjust the element lengths of my
SteppIRs giving me "assistance"?
It's one thing to associate the term "assistance" with another human being.
It's an entirely different matter, and a losing proposition in my opinion,
to try to associate that term with a type of technology. You will either get
hopelessly bogged down with trying to define what technology constitutes
assistance and what does not, or you will completely stifle innovation. I
don't accept your premise that if Single Ops want to use new technology,
they have to operate Single Op Unlimited. It would be a sad day for Amateur
Radio contesting if that sentiment prevailed.
The failure of your criteria to outlaw CW Skimmer for the Single Op category
is precisely why the CAC had to go beyond definitions of "assistance" and
look at the information provided to the operator. The reason CW Skimmer is
illegal for Single Op is because it provides multi-channel "spotting
information", which is defined as:
"Information specifying the transmit or receive frequency and any portion of
the call sign, identity, exchange information, or location of another
station with which a contest QSO could be made."
The information provided by CW Skimmer lets you instantly QSY to a specified
frequency, where you will find a station that you can work for credit. It
eliminates the need to tune the radio to find that station yourself. It
gives you the same competitive advantage as packet, so it puts you in the
Single Op Unlimited or Multi-Operator category.
Oh, and I should point out that the CAC recommended, and the PSC accepted,
that the term "Single Op Assisted" should be changed to "Single Op
Unlimited". That was because the term "assisted" could not be adequately
defined to differentiate between the two Single Op categories.
73, Dick WC1M
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Naumann [mailto:W5OV@W5OV.COM]
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 6:50 PM
> To: 'Dick Green WC1M'; sawyered@earthlink.net; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Aniother rules/remote RX issue
>
> Dick,
>
> I've got two minutes before the XYL gets here, so I wanted to address
> the SO2R issue.
>
> The important part of this is the "SO". The 2R is completely irrelevant
> to the discussion. Sure, one operator using two radios is an advantage.
>
> So what? It's still one operator doing everything. Whether he does it
> with 1, 2, or 20 radios, it's he alone without any assistance or outside
> information.
>
> She's here - gotta run!...
>
> -Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dick Green WC1M
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 4:19 PM
> To: 'Bob Naumann'; 'Dick Green WC1M'; sawyered@earthlink.net; cq-
> contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Aniother rules/remote RX issue
>
> Well, Bob, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Not surprising:
> this subject is unlikely to every result in unanimous agreement.
>
> I do want to correct one impression you got from my email. I should have
> said "This is exactly *the sort of thing* the CAC intended." No, we
> never considered using RBN or packet network spots for checking
> propagation.
> Obviously, we couldn't consider every possible variation of using
> Skimmer, which is why we needed the wording of the rules to embody the
> CAC's intentions. What I meant is that the CAC intended for the decision
> on whether a particular practice is legal or not to be based on the type
> of information obtained and its impact on the competition, not on vague
> definitions of "assistance", "outside assistance", "A boy and his
> radio", etc. You can disagree with that, but after months of
> deliberation the CAC voted overwhelmingly in favor of the recommended
> wording that embodies this approach. Ultimately, what I meant was that
> Single Op use of RBN to check propagation is consistent with the CAC's
> intention.
>
> I have a real problem with relying on the "fundamental non-assisted
> single op 'boy and his radio' definition". I'm afraid there would be a
> great deal of disagreement about the meaning of that phrase. For
> example, does a "boy and his radio" mean one radio or two? Many have
> vehemently argued that SO2R is not Single Op. Although I'm a big fan of
> SO2R, and wouldn't want to see it outlawed for Single Op, I think the
> argument against it is a lot stronger than the argument against using
> RBN to evaluate propagation. That's because SO2R confers a much greater
> tactical advantage and thus impacts the score and skills necessary for
> operating to a much greater degree than checking propagation on the RBN.
>
> There never has been wording in the rules that outlaws getting
> information from outside your station or from a source other than your
> HF radio. That is your interpretation of what Single Op means. The
> prohibition against packet is based in the fact that other operators
> supply the information, which makes you multi-op, not that the
> information comes from outside your radio station. This presented a real
> dilemma in determining whether CW Skimmer should be allowed in the
> Single Op category. Skimmer is not an operator, so it doesn't make you
> multi-op. And the information doesn't come from outside your radio
> station, either. All you're left with is saying that Skimmer provides
> "assistance", which is not allowed. But since Skimmer is simply sampling
> the IF of your radio and decoding the signals, how is that kind of
> assistance different from getting "assistance" from a second radio, a
> computerized logging program, SCP, single-channel CW decoders (which
> have always been allowed), etc. At what point do we draw the line and
> say that a particular technology constitutes assistance? And if we do
> that, are we stifling innovation and the fun of using new technology?
>
> Faced with that problem, the CAC chose to look beyond the
> hardware/software and look at the information and benefit provided to
> the operator. It was clear as day that CW Skimmer spots provide the same
> kind of benefit as packet spots: instead of tuning and listening for new
> stations to work, which is very time consuming and requires excellent
> copy skills, you can just point-and-click to work new stations. There's
> no doubt in my mind that this confers a substantial advantage. In fact,
> I operated using CW Skimmer in the 2008 IARU contest, where it was
> allowed in Single Op on a one-time basis, just to see how much advantage
> there would be. Even with a less-than-optimal Skimmer configuration, I
> broke my personal record for mults by a good margin. Operating with
> Skimmer was exactly like operating with packet, only Skimmer was more
> accurate and comprehensive than packet.
> Looking at it that way, there's no question that CW Skimmer should not
> be allowed in the Single Op category.
>
> While defining Single Op in terms of not getting any information from
> outside your station is esoterically pleasing, it doesn't capture the
> operating factors that truly affect the scoring and competitive
> landscape.
> It's almost laughable to say that getting three-hour old propagation
> reports from WWV is of any real benefit at all, or that propagation
> prediction programs are accurate enough to really impact the
> competition. A second radio with a band scope is much more useful, and
> there's nothing in your definition of a traditional Single Op that
> prohibits that. I'll admit that seeing if your signal is being heard at
> a particular target location is useful, but you can infer the same thing
> from the band scope and/or calling CQ a few times. It's just not that
> great an advantage, but it's fun to do.
> It certainly doesn't change the fundamental nature of what you must do
> in Single Op, which is to tune and listen, and it doesn't provide any
> kind of significant advantage to those who use it.
>
> It's fine to be a purist, but I think it's counter-productive if it
> disallows innovation and fun for no good reason.
>
> 73, Dick WC1M
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bob Naumann [mailto:W5OV@W5OV.COM]
> > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 8:20 AM
> > To: 'Dick Green WC1M'; sawyered@earthlink.net;
> > cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Aniother rules/remote RX issue
> >
> > Dick,
> >
> > Thanks for the explanation of what the CAC recommended contrasted with
> > what we ended up with in the ARRL rules. I truly appreciate the
> > efforts you put in, and know how thankless a job it is.
> >
> > That said, I am somewhat puzzled as to why the CAC "intended" to allow
> > all categories of entry to use remote systems to evaluate propagation?
> >
> > "If the CAC's wording for the rules had been used, the practice would
> > definitely be legal for all categories. This is exactly what the CAC
> > intended".
> >
> > Really? The CAC intended to allow all classes of entry to access the
> > RBN over the Internet to "check propagation" of their own signals?
> >
> > This goes so against what I believe to be the fundamental non-assisted
> > single op "boy and his radio" definition that quite frankly, I cannot
> > imagine what you guys were thinking.
> >
> > Why would you envision allowing this activity for someone who is
> > supposed to be doing everything without *any* outside assistance?
> >
> > Do we really need to alter what we all revere as traditional single
> op?
> > Is it necessary to let outside technology in? To what end? Why?
> >
> > We already have the Assisted or Unlimited categories that encompass
> > the use of all this extraneous stuff - why do we need to taint the
> > traditional single op category with this?
> >
> > Again, I strongly suggest that we not focus on what "assistance" may
> > or may not be, but instead focus on what "single operator" is and
> > always has been.
> > This definition is much easier to come up with, and is extremely
> > narrow in scope.
> >
> > Simply, a single operator should not receive ANY information outside
> > of his own radio "tuning and listening" activity that occurs inside
> > his head via his ears.
> >
> > You ask: "At the end of the day, does it really matter whether they
> > come from your HF radio or the Internet"?
> >
> > My answer is an S9 +60db: YES IT MATTERS!
> >
> > Why do we need to morph single op into being the same as single op
> > assisted / unlimited, when we already have such categories that allow
> > for all of that stuff?
> >
> > The following sounds good on a first read (talking about defining
> > single
> > op):
> >
> > "But with rapid evolution in technology, station architecture and
> > operating techniques, it has become increasingly difficult to define
> > exactly what that term means.
> > Again, it's better to focus on the information received and its impact
> > on the competition".
> >
> > I have to, once again, totally and vehemently disagree with this
> > approach to define single op. This is clearly the wrong approach.
> > Defining single operator is very easy.
> >
> > Why would a single operating be receiving any information at all, from
> > anywhere outside of his own direct actions, abilities and operating
> > skills?
> >
> > The underlying premise is completely flawed. A single operator should
> > not be "receiving" *ANY* information from anywhere outside of his own
> > direct actions, abilities and operating skills regardless of the
> > impact to the competition. How did we lose this perspective?
> >
> > Again, while I truly appreciate the work done by the CAC, I think this
> > initiative was flawed and completely misguided.
> >
> > Bottom line: leave single op alone.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Bob W5OV
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dick Green
> > WC1M
> > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 2:33 AM
> > To: sawyered@earthlink.net; cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Aniother rules/remote RX issue
> >
> > I'm no longer on the ARRL Contest Advisory Committee, and certainly
> > don't speak for ARRL, but since I led the CAC's deliberations on
> > Remote Operating and CW Skimmer, maybe I can shed some light on the
> > questions asked by Pete and Igor. The ARRL rules are fairly clear on
> > the practices Pete and Igor describe, but it's a little more
> > complicated than you might think and there are some issues with the
> wording of the rules.
> >
> > By rule 3.7, use of a remote receiver to check for a clear frequency,
> > as described by Pete, is not allowed in the Single-Operator category
> > under any circumstances. For Single-Op Unlimited and Multi-Operator,
> > the "spotting network" exception in rule 3.7.2.2 applies. You could
> > setup a remote receiver and have it send Skimmer spots to the RBN.
> > Since those spots are available to everyone, this would be legal. But
> > by rule 2.2.1, you could not send audio or spots from the remote
> > receiver over a Private internet connection or phone link.
> >
> > Filtering RBN spots of your own call to evaluate propagation, as
> > described by Igor, is not allowed in the Single Operator category
> > because by rule
> > 2.1.1 the use of "spotting assistance and nets" is prohibited. There's
> > actually a significant issue with the wording of this rule, which I'll
> > address below, but going strictly by what's published, Single-Ops
> > can't do it. For the Single-Operator Unlimited and Multi-Operator
> > categories, the exception in rule 3.7.7.2 would apply, and the
> > practice would be legal as long as you get the information via a
> > publicly available spotting network.
> >
> > However, you can't do it with a remote receiver that you install
> > and/or control. That would be self-spotting, which is prohibited by
> rule 3.14.
> > Going back to Pete's question, remote receivers must filter out your
> > call to avoid running afoul of the rule against self-spotting.
> >
> > [Hmmm... are stations with dedicated *local* Skimmer radios that send
> > spots to the RBN filtering out their own calls?]
> >
> > Now for the problem with the wording of the ARRL rules:
> >
> > In 2009, the CAC studied CW Skimmer and developed clearly-worded
> > changes to the rules to address the technology. Those recommendations
> > were accepted, in their entirety, by the ARRL Programs and Services
> > Committee, a sub-committee of the ARRL Board of Directors. However,
> > the wording that subsequently appeared in the official rules does not
> > match the CAC's recommendations. I didn't discover that until fairly
> > recently, and I don't know why the PSC-approved recommendations
> > weren't used when the rules were revised.
> > Unfortunately, the official wording is unclear and does not correctly
> > express the intent of the recommendations the CAC labored over for
> > many months. Perhaps someone at ARRL can explain how and why this
> happened.
> >
> > The problem is that the official rules do not define the terms
> > "spotting assistance" and "spotting nets". In contrast, the CAC report
> > uses the term "spotting information", defined as follows:
> >
> > "Spotting Information: Information specifying the transmit or receive
> > frequency and any portion of the call sign, identity, exchange
> > information, or location of another station with which a contest QSO
> > could be made."
> >
> > In Igor's scenario, when you receive a spot of your own call, you are
> > not getting information about "another station with which a contest
> > QSO could be made." Therefore, it's not spotting information. If the
> > CAC's wording for the rules had been used, the practice would
> > definitely be legal for all categories.
> >
> > This is exactly what the CAC intended. Unlike many of the arguments
> > about CW Skimmer that were taking place on the cq-contest reflector at
> > the time, and that have been resurrected for the current debate, the
> > CAC avoided interpretation or definition of the word "assistance". As
> > the public debate demonstrated so well, that's a very slippery slope,
> > especially when you have to evaluate whether a particular technology
> > is assistance or not. Instead, we thought it was better to look at the
> > issue from the point of view of what information is being received and
> > what impact that information has on operating requirements and
> > competitive factors.
> >
> > The essential point is this: tuning and listening is the heart and
> > soul of Single-Op. It requires a certain set of skills, strategy and
> > patience. If you're using information from any source outside the
> > frequency to which your radio is tuned to find, identify and work
> > stations, then you aren't tuning and listening. That represents a
> > fundamental difference in the operating techniques and requirements
> > associated with the Single-Op category, dramatically changes the time
> > it takes to find and work stations, and thus changes the competitive
> > landscape. What's more, the result looks exactly like what a Single-
> > Operator Unassisted does with packet spots. Looks like packet, smells
> > like packet, should be treated like packet. This approach makes it
> > very easy to decide whether or not CW Skimmer spots should be allowed.
> >
> > By focusing on the information and the benefit it provides, we avoided
> > difficult semantic arguments over the meaning of "assistance", whether
> > there's a difference if the source is man or machine, and whether a
> > particular technology, now or in the future, might violate the spirit
> > of the rules.
> >
> > So, if you look at it from that point of view, using RBN spots of your
> > own call to evaluate propagation doesn't fundamentally alter the key
> > differentiator of the Single-Op category: the requirement that you
> > tune and listen to make QSOs. Yes, the technology provides some
> > benefit, but it's along the same lines as using a band scope to
> > determine if a band is open.
> > It's helpful, but it doesn't drastically alter the playing field. Yes,
> > the information comes from outside your station, but so do WWV
> > reports, which are perfectly legal. Are the scientists involved in
> > those reports providing assistance? At the end of the day, does it
> > really matter whether they come from your HF radio or the Internet?
> >
> > I know the CAC's approach may not be appreciated by those who think
> > the rules for Single-Op should be based on the simple premise of "A
> > boy and his radio". But with rapid evolution in technology, station
> > architecture and operating techniques, it has become increasingly
> > difficult to define exactly what that term means. Again, it's better
> > to focus on the information received and its impact on the
> competition.
> >
> > For those interested in the CAC's deliberations on Remote Operating
> > and CW Skimmer, the reports are published on the ARRL web site:
> >
> > Remote Operating
> >
> > http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About%20ARRL/Committee%20Reports/2008/J
> > ul
> > y/Do
> > c29.pdf
> >
> > CW Skimmer
> >
> > http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About%20ARRL/Committee%20Reports/Januar
> > y/
> > Doc%
> > 2029.doc
> >
> > Each of the above documents is a semi-annual report to the Program and
> > Services Committee on the CAC's activities, but at the end of the main
> > reports you will find individual reports on the CAC's deliberations
> > and recommendations on the two topics of interest here.
> >
> > 73, Dick WC1M
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Edward Sawyer [mailto:SawyerEd@earthlink.net]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 5:33 PM
> > > To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Aniother rules/remote RX issue
> > >
> > > The rules in CQ WW state as "call sign alerting assistance of any
> > kind"
> > > and "remote receivers" are not allowed.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The rules of ARRL DX state as "use of spotting assistance or
> > > automated, multi-channel decoders" are not allowed.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Specifically, in CQ WW, I believe you would have to consider the RBN
> > > a form of a remote receiver and since ANY use of a remote receiver
> > > would look to be not allowed, I would interpret as not allowed.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In ARRL DX, I believe the "multi-channel" decoder use (public or
> > > private)
> > > would be a local skimmer or public RBN. Again, for this reason, I
> > > would
> > > say, not allowed.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > More interesting would be the use of looking up spots of yourself,
> > > especially in Phone contests. No use of remote receiver or decoder
> > > and no call sign alerting assistance (unless you consider your own
> > > call sign a call sign alert). That one seems to be squarely in the
> > > seams of the rules to me.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The contest organizers should really keep updating the rules to
> > > clarify such questions as technology is evolving. It would help all
> > > of us "play fair"
> > > and all play off of the same play book.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ed N1UR
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|