CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Aniother rules/remote RX issue

To: w0mu@w0mu.com, cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Aniother rules/remote RX issue
From: Jimk8mr@aol.com
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 12:48:54 -0400 (EDT)
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Checking solar conditions (SFI, A/K) via WWV or other means is of little  
direct use. I find it mostly to be useful as a confirmation of why conditions 
 seem bad.  If conditions seem good I'm too busy to check.
 
IMHO general information such as local weather via internet is likewise no  
problem, even if it might be of use to know how long until the 
thunderstorms  will arrive.
 
Knowing the instantaneous condition of the path from your QTH to specific  
spots in the world via RBN is beyond appropriate for single op.
 
 
73  -  Jim  K8MR
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 6/1/2012 12:19:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
w0mu@w0mu.com writes:

If we  leave it alone, the precedent was set to allow SO the ability to 
check  propagation numbers via WWV.

Do those number really mean  anything?  Obviously the op can check them 
right up to the  contest.  Obviously there is no way to know who if any 
are checking  propagation numbers during the test.

What about prediction software  being run throughout the contest?

The skimmer receiver workarounds are  simple enough.  Move the receiver 
outside the circle or use another  call.

Where do you draw the line?  Obviously computers and  computer logging 
are accepted, SCP is accepted.

Some day I see one  single op class as it is going to be nearly 
impossible to legislate around  all the loopholes and it is nearly 
impossible to police.

Mike  W0MU

W0MU-1 CC Cluster w0mu.net:23 or  w0mu-1.dnsdynamic.com
Http://www.w0mu.com


On 6/1/2012 6:20 AM,  Bob Naumann wrote:
> 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/July/Do
>  c29.pdf
>
> CW Skimmer
>
>  
http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About%20ARRL/Committee%20Reports/January/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

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>