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

[Bill Parry]

How about we go back to the old way we used to use for ARRL contests. If you
get two OO reports for the same contest you are disqualified!  Sometime the
old ways are the best!

Bill W5VX

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Pete Smith N4ZR
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 5:30 AM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Excessive Bandwidth Rule was: Re: Suggestion for
Cabrillo -- and the phone skimmer, new idea

And how about setting up a separate e-mail address for such reports?  
I'm thinking that would encourage people to report bad sigs, and would serve
notice to deliberate violators that a report is just a few keystrokes away.
N1MM Logger makes it very easy to annotate a log with such reports, whether
or not you work the offender.

I'm planning to do some SDR recordings in the next significant phone contest
and see what emerges.

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 4/13/2015 6:57 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
> Randy,
>
> How about adding a something in the LCR reports if you received an 
> excessive bandwidth report or you received 3 reports.  That way the 
> station, if they are looking at the LCR's would have a heads up that 
> hey someone said my signal was lousy at XXXXX time and maybe they 
> would look into it......
>
> Mike W0MU
>
> On 4/13/2015 4:53 PM, 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.
>>
>> The CQ WW DX Contest issued a number of warnings for poor signal 
>> quality for the 2014 contest. We had the first disqualification for 
>> poor signal quality to a station on CW.
>>
>> The CQ WW Committee is not omnipotent.  We don't spend hours tuning 
>> through the SDR recordings looking for bad signals.  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.  But, it is important that the contest community speak up 
>> about signal quality - not only to the sponsors but to the offenders 
>> as well.  High power and wide signals are one of the biggest threats 
>> to our enjoyment and to recruitment of new contesters into our ranks.
>>
>> We would be delighted to receive serious proposals for a technical 
>> standard around signal quality.  It should be something easily 
>> measured using an SDR recording. Until then, we will continue our 
>> function of serving as referees that call them like we see them.
>>
>>
>> Randy Thompson, K5ZD
>> Director - CQ WW DX Contest
>> email: k5zd at cqww.com
>> web: www.cqww.com
>> Facebook: www.facebook.com/cqwwdx
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On 
>>> Behalf Of Paul O'Kane
>>> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 1:53 PM
>>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Excessive Bandwidth Rule was: Re: 
>>> Suggestion for Cabrillo -- and the phone skimmer, new idea
>>>
>>> On 13/04/2015 01:54, brett graham wrote:
>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Will be interesting to see where in the results these filthy 
>>>> signals I recorded end up.
>>> I suggest that all this talk about excessive bandwidth will remain 
>>> just so much hot air until and unless contest sponsors define what 
>>> they mean by "excessive bandwidth" - with parameters such as maximum 
>>> width at, say, 40db down for both CW and SSB.
>>>
>>> CQWW was the first major contest to introduce an "excessive bandwidth"
>>> rule, backed up (as claimed) by a worldwide network of SDRs and 
>>> digital recorders
>>> - three years ago or so.  However, the rules make no attempt to 
>>> define excessive bandwidth, and I'm not aware of any penalties 
>>> having been imposed for this reason alone.  If I'm wrong, I'd be 
>>> happy to be corrected.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>> Paul EI5DI
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>

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