>> Dealing with automated reception differently than automated
>> transmission is appropriate because only reception can initiate
>> a QSO; whether in response to a solicitation (CQ) or from tuning
>> to a solicitation (S&P). Reception is qualitatively different
>> in this regard than transmission.
>
> The same can be said for automated transmission (using a keyer
> to call CQ): only a solicitation (calling CQ) can result in a
> QSO. Unless someone "advertises" that they are on frequency
> and ready to answer any response, there can be no QSO. In that
> regard, the use of automated transmission is a unique advantage.
You can cast the lure as much as you want, but if no fish bites, you have
not caught a fish. There must be a reception event to trigger the process
by which a QSO is conducted. Both reception and transmission are necessary,
but neither is sufficient. Transmission events soliciting QSOs typically
outnumber reception events many-to-one. (Which key on your keyboard is the
most worn - F1 or Insert?) Thus, reception is the critical element in
allowing the transaction to proceed.
> In any case, the "automated reception" ship has already sailed.
> With up to twelve decoders integrated into Writelog, CW decoding
> in MixW (with contest capability), and the availability of CW Get,
> CW DecoderXP, MRP40, MultiPSK, and many others, there is no way
> to put the "automated reception" genie back in the bottle. The
> capability has existed for nearly 10 years although many are only
> now waking up to its existence.
To quote our Vice President, "So?" Realigning and creating categories (or
not, should that be the decision) based on advances in technology is always
in order. There were no categories for power division until affordable
amplifiers became widespread. QRP was added when large numbers of those
stations entered the competition. Amplifiers and flea-power rigs had always
existed - it was not until they created distinct populations within the
contest community that categories for them became necessary - and useful -
in maintaining peer-based competition.
> While the top tier operators have typically not made use of
> automated reception its use has not been prohibited or restricted
> to certain entry classes. In that regard, the argument over
> automated reception is like the old joke that ends: "young lady
> we have already established what you are, we're simply haggling
> over price."
What we are talking about is a significant qualitative advance in the
capability of the technology, not disputing whether it has or has not been
used in the past. I maintain that a technology capable of extracting the
crucial contact-initiating information from many more channels
simultaneously than even the most skilled human can process is definitely
worth evaluating as to whether it creates a statistically distinct
population warranting a separate category.
There may be no line of reasoning that definitively answers the question.
We may have to undergo a period of evaluation during which this sort of
technology is evaluated for its effect on actual scores. This will be
difficult because the technology won't "hold still" long enough for a true
evaluation, but at some point it will become clear whether multi-channel
information extraction actually creates a new class of stations.
Using history as a guide, there are three contradictory examples: power,
spotting networks, and SO2R. Power differences clearly create distinct
populations of scores. Spotting networks have not been shown to provide a
competitive advantage - the top SO scores regularly exceed the top SOA
scores. (What spotting information does accomplish is to increase scores of
smaller stations, compressing scores upward from the bottom of the
population.) SO2R does increase the competitive advantage of top SO
stations more than spotting networks, but not so much as power. The open
question is whether SO2R, if extended to SO-infinity-R, would cause a
distinct population of stations to appear or is it just a limiting case of
SOA that has already been shown not to convey the distinct advantage it was
originally thought to confer? We can not answer that question at this time.
As the Magic 8-Ball would say, "Ask Again Later".
So it comes down to making a case to the contest sponsors who will then make
a decision based on their accumulated understanding of the game, the history
of the effects of technology on the game, and the requirement for the game
itself to satisfy the Basis and Purposes of the amateur service. They're
going to have to lead this target a bit, but they're usually a pretty good
shot, so let's see what happens.
73, Ward N0AX
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|