[UK-CONTEST] Prediction on Skimmer

[Bob Henderson]

Hi Lee

Wouldn't life be easier in black and white.  It's always shades of gray 
which complicate it.  Where oh where should we draw that line in the sand?

My take is that a skimmer is an automated receive technology 
incorporating the ability to decode and display information on a band 
map without operator intervention.  Your example, albeit at the benign 
end of the spectrum, still fits this definition.  Consequently, I would 
prefer its use were not allowed in any Unassisted category.  The skimmer 
technology everyone is talking about is rather less benign and still has 
huge development potential.

A narrow bandwidth skimmer could be deployed within a 1kHz receive 
bandwidth used by a pile-up operator.  Its output might be used to 
pre-load a stack within his logger.  This might ultimately remove the 
need for the operator to read the code at all.  Aside from that, placing 
five calls in the stack in the time it takes an operator to log one 
would provide him enormous advantage.

A wide bandwidth skimmer could be used to populate band maps across the 
full width of all six contest bands, ultimately removing all need for 
mult hunting skills.  SDR are already available at modest cost, which 
are fully capable of capturing >2MHz b/w in several segments anywhere 
from VLF and VHF.

Freedom to use tools like this in all categories and events would 
seriously debase CW and contest operating skill.  Our beloved code would 
be reduced to being nothing more than an inefficient communications 
protocol.  IMO that really would be tragic.

Would we still have fly fishing tornaments with traditional fly 
fishermen, had drag nets and trawlers been allowed?

Would we still have cyclists in race tornaments if motorcycles were 
considered equal?

The application of technology must sometimes be constrained to protect 
the good in what we already have.

Bob, 5B4AGN

Lee Volante wrote:
> Hi Bob, all,
>
> Could you define what you mean by 'Skimmer' please ?   It's not meant to be
> a facetious question.  I understand the debate is over "Skimmer and
> Skimmer-like programs and technologies", but sometimes it's a little
> difficult to understand exactly where the concern lies.
>
> I'm using Writelog this morning in the ARI DX contest.  I've just turned on
> the CW decoding feature, which is decoding the callsigns I tune over, but
> it's not providing me much (any?) benefit.  Maybe it's doing similar to the
> (allowed) SuperCheckPartial if I struggle over a high speed H or S?   I've
> been able to do this for years, if I so chose.  (What contest class am I
> entering in now, as I claim 'no benefit' and 'no outside assistance', and
> also in this very same contest I use the PC to decode RTTY ?  For some
> people, both modes are 'data modes' that cannot be decoded by ear. For
> others, one is copied by ear, the other needs a PC.  For others yet, some
> information from the RTTY transmission can be detected aurally.)
>
> If I didn't know CW at all, I'd be getting a bigger benefit from this.  If I
> tuned a receiver over 7 MHz at the same time I'm receiving on 14 MHz, I'm
> getting an extra benefit as I can't usually receive two CW callsigns in my
> head at the same time. Perhaps I could receive a call on a second band
> whilst I'm TX'ing on the first, as per common SO2R behaviour, but two
> callsigns at once is a bit much for me. If I wired up all my computers and
> radios and expanded the scenario, I could start to populate a bandmap, and
> turn "Search and Pounce" into "Point and Click" which many see as spoiling
> the traditional SOAB Unassisted game.
>
> What I'm trying to say is that there's a sliding scale of "Skimmer-ness" and
> the threshold at which it becomes unpleasant for people seems to have a wide
> variance.  I propose that this seems to be the problem.  Here and on
> CQ-Contest there's not a concensus of what everyone's getting upset about,
> nor what limits could be imposed. In some cases, Skimmer is perhaps unfairly
> getting a bad rep for having scope to destroy the hobby as some people know
> it.  It'll be a swine for contest sponsors to come up with wording for rules
> that are relatively future proof, encompass the present and near-future
> technology, provide harmonisation to CW, SSB and Data contests, and not be
> excluding those that use technology to supplement or assist with their own
> CW skills whilst learning.  To add the words "No Skimmer allowed" to the
> rules for SO Unassisted can't be enough by itself.
>
> I don't know the answer - apart from suggesting that where whatever
> technology gives an advantage over what a human *could* do by themselves,
> this activity rules them out of the SOAB Unassisted category.  Memory keyer?
> Computer logging?  As a human I could do as well myself without these aids,
> so I'm unassisted.  One (maybe two) RX feeds from a Skimmer-like
> application?  It's just like SO2R - so I'm still (maybe) unassisted ?  I
> could do this myself with practice. Increase to 10 or 200 simultaneous
> decodes - I can't hope to match this, so now this activity could become
> Assisted.  A line would still need to be drawn in the ground by sponsors to
> decide the cutoff, as there's still no natural break.
>
> 73,
>
> Lee G0MTN
>
>   
>> IMO the SOAB category represents the greatest test of operator skill.  I
>> believe steps should be taken to ensure this continues to be the case.
>> To that end, I believe you would be better off with a petition which
>> focuses on the exclusion of Skimmer from deployment in any single
>> operator Unassisted category.  In the absence of such a petition, I
>> encourage all interested parties to lobby contest organisers directly.
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Bob, 5B4AGN
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>
>
>