[CQ-Contest] Excessive Bandwidth Rule was: Re: Suggestion for Cabrillo -- and the phone skimmer, new idea

[Kelly Taylor]

They either do it on purpose or they're so convinced of their technological
greatness they've convinced themselves their audio is perfect.

Either way, mentioning it won't have much effect: it will either confirm to
them they set it the way they intended (more complaints the better), or
they'll dismiss you as a technological pretender with no real knowledge,
and, by the way, 'How DARE you have the temerity to question my audiological
prowess? Don't you know who I am?'

The best fix is for everybody to vote with their feet. Don't work 'em.

73, kelly
ve4xt



On 4/10/15 12:52 PM, "Mike Fatchett W0MU" <w0mu at w0mu.com> wrote:

> I have never understood thought process behind not publicly "outing" the
> 
offenders.  Most of them know they have crappy or very wide audio.  They 
do
> it on purpose.

The best medicine would to pass these lousy signals by but
> people won't 
because they have to have that one contact, at least tell them
> their 
audio is lousy and you hope that nobody reports them, ahem.....

Mike
> W0MU

On 4/10/2015 5:09 AM, Pete Smith N4ZR wrote:
> Not only that, but the
> number of awards thereafter could be halved, 
> saving ARRL and other
> societies lots of money.
>
> But seriously, folks, can you imagine the mess
> that would result if 
> the same phone ops who "amuse" us with their lousy
> audio added either 
> subaudible tones or 100 wpm CW to their awful
> signals.
>
> I'm waiting with interest to see whether CQWW follows through on
> rule 
> XII (A) (5) and disciplines at least a few stations for 
>
> excessivebandwidth.  I'm not interested in outing a list of those 
>
> disciplined, necessarily, but I hope at least the number of actions 
> taken
> is made public, so that people know the committee is serious.  
> With the
> tools now available, in particular whole contest recordings 
> and SDR
> panadaptors, it should be possible to objectively define 
> excessive
> bandwidth (e.g., level in dB relative to peak amplitude, 
> versus frequency
> difference).
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
> Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
>
> http://reversebeacon.net,
> blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
> For spots,
> please go to your favorite
> ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node.
>
> On 4/10/2015
> 12:55 AM, Bokverket wrote:
>> ----- Ursprungligt meddelande -----
>> Från:
> "Bokverket" <info at bokverket.com>
>> Till: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>>
> Skickat: den 9 april 2015 13:15
>> Ämne: Suggestion for Cabrillo -- and the
> phone skimmer, new idea
>>
>>
>> Rarely do one's wishes be fulfilled so soon,
> even retroactively!
>>
>> Goran/SM0DRD, who thinks that hte subaudible tones
> that someone 
>> mentioned
>> would be a great step towards a quick
> realization of the phone 
>> skimmer. But
>> even better would be ***
> combining cw and SSB into one signal ***  
>> The cw
>> could be sent at 100
> or something wpm like a rattle, just as with those
>> obsolete spy
> transmissions. It won't disturb the audio since there is so
>> much overdrive
> noise already, and can then be detected easily by a new
>> version of the cw
> skimmer.
>>
>> But what's more, we could halve the number of contests!!! Save
> countless
>> $$'s and marriages.  And for die-hard cw only people, the number
> of 
>> contacts
>> will increase and the extra transmitted phone messages can
> be 
>> automatically
>> generated.
>>
>> 73,
>> Goran/SM0DRD
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
>
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

_____________________
> __________________________
CQ-Contest mailing
> list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq
> -contest