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

[Barry N1EU]

I heartily concur with Pete's suggestion.  There should be a spirit of
actively encouraging reports and recordings toward cleaning up the bands
during contests.

My experience is that the majority of offenders ignore you when you
politely inform them in the act.

73, Barry N1EU

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Pete Smith N4ZR <n4zr at contesting.com>
wrote:

> 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
>