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

[Paul O'Kane]

On 13/04/2015 23:53, Randy Thompson K5ZD wrote:
> I think we all know "excessive bandwidth" when we hear it.  I.e., you can
> hear the splatter or clicks for many Khz before you tune on to the signal.

We do, but what we don't know is whether CQ agrees with
our subjective observations.

> The CQ WW Committee is not omnipotent.  We don't spend hours tuning through
> the SDR recordings looking for bad signals.

That's accepted, but there's time (now) between the
publication of results and the next contest for the
Committee to state what they mean by "excessive
bandwidth" - they have the qualifications and the
experience to do this all by themselves.

> We rely on the participants to
> report signals that were causing problems on the band (with call sign, time,
> frequency, and details).  We do follow up on all of these reports.
>
> Not everything reported is objectionable enough to warrant any action.

Isn't that because no parameters for "excessive
bandwidth" have been provided?


> We would be delighted to receive serious proposals for a technical standard
> around signal quality.

Why can't the CQ WW Committee apply themselves to
this now?  After all, they put the cart before the
horse in introducing a rule regarding excessive
bandwidth without explaining what this means.


73,
Paul EI5DI