August 2008 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:17084] Re: Please overturn the recent decision regarding the use of CW Skimmer in the 2008 ARRL Sweepstakes
by Richard J. Norton 15 Aug '08

15 Aug '08

I agree with the "ARRL system is working. Let's let it continue." attitude expressed here previously. I thought I'd add a little background information. As all of you likely know, the "Skimmer" is a computer program which simultaneously decodes CW over an entire amateur band, and produces a map of the CQing stations and their frequencies. The output is essentially the same as a well-organized display of packet spotting information. Use of the Skimmer has been evaluated. If anyone wants a real-world report on use by an experienced single-operator, see http://w4pa.journalspace.com/ and look at the K4TD IARU section. Scott's comments included, "It may even be better than packet, because it gives you ALL the callsigns for the whole band." The contesting community has looked at the Skimmer issue, and has overwhelmingly concluded that its use belongs in the assisted or multi-operator categories. The CQWW Committee voted 25 to zero for that designation. The ARRL CAC appears to favor it as well. There are a few who notice that there are no other humans involved, and would like to see it permitted, claiming it is no different from using other "technology" such as memory keyers. The contesting community does not agree. I've known Bob Wilson, N6TV, since he was a high school kid that I hired to help paint my house. He went off to college at UC Berkeley, where he was apparently radicalized by the likes of new neighbor, W6RGG, and stayed up north after graduation. I understand N6TV's frustration in competing for a spot at the upcoming WRTC. Selection is a function of where you placed in contests, something that is very station dependent. Bob has attempted to compete using his own station, whereas his competitors have gone to the biggest stations in the region. I personally don't think permitting Skimmers in single-op contests is a reasonable cure. In fact, Skimmer use has the potential to make it unlikely for little guys to ever work anything until all the bigger stations have done so. No matter where you tune your radio, Skimmers are listening on that frequency as well. 73, Dick, N6AA On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Bob Vallio <rbvallio(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Folks: > > I have known Bob Wilson for a long time. In fact he has operated my station > in contests when he had no station of own, more than 30 years ago. He is a > fierce competitor, who stays abreast, or ahead, of contest techniques and > hardware. I believe he makes a good point here, and ask that you consider > his position in this matter. > > Thanks, > > Bob -- W6RGG > > > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Bob Wilson, N6TV <n6tv(a)arrl.net> wrote: >> >> Dear Bob, >> >> If I understand this post to SkimmerTalk by K0HB, KX9X has announced that >> CW Skimmer will not be permitted for the single-op category in the upcoming >> ARRL Sweepstakes. I am very disappointed by this ruling. I believe this >> represents a rush to judgment, completely unnecessary at this time, and >> inconsistent with ARRL objectives to accelerate adoption of new technologies >> into our hobby.

1 0

[arrl-odv:17083] Re: RE: VEC Statistics - Confidential
by k5ur＠aol.com 14 Aug '08

14 Aug '08

Well, ya'll know I agree with Tom! Did I ever tell ya what I think of the FCC? (hi) 73, K5UR We've been too nice to the FCC for years and hould be demanding that they provide the public with summary information - or e should be filing the necessary FOIA requests to get the information. The CC would soon find out that it would be easier to generate the data on a egular basis than to handle monthly FOI requests. Damn FCC. -- Tom -----Original Message----- From: Tom Frenaye <frenaye(a)pcnet.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 3:15 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:17075] Re: RE: VEC Statistics - Confidential At 06:35 AM 8/12/2008, Kramer, Harold, WJ1B pass this on from Maria Somma: Harold -this is the answer to Jim’s question. Please distribute to ODV list. hanks. ----------------------------------------------------- The NCVEC Conference news item published on the ARRL web <http://mymail.arrl.org/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.arrl.org/news/s…>http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2008/08/06/10251/?nc=1 hould be the only information shared with the public about the conference. The VEC session activity stats below were provided by FCC as a courtesy and are ot intended for public release. At the bottom of the original email from the FCC, that contained this data, it ead, " *** Non-Public: For Internal Use Only *** ". ctually, the amazing thing to me is that the FCC can get away without providing ccurate statistics on even the most basic functions of the Amateur Radio ervice. At one time they issued monthly information on new licensees, pgrades and callsigns - now that information has to be calculated by third arties based on the monthly FCC activity data files. How can the FCC justify providing the VEC information to VECs on a confidential asis? They're a government agency, funded by all of our taxes, and subject to reedom of Information laws. We've been too nice to the FCC for years and hould be demanding that they provide the public with summary information - or e should be filing the necessary FOIA requests to get the information. The CC would soon find out that it would be easier to generate the data on a egular basis than to handle monthly FOI requests. Damn FCC. -- Tom ==== -mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ om Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

RE: Skimmer 'assistance'
by jfenster＠pacifier.com 14 Aug '08

14 Aug '08

Kay and all, Back from the Alaska Convention having been gone for a week and finding myself three weeks behind at work than where I was when I left, I found the comments reflective and thoughtful. Being a semi-serious contester (semi only due to my part/full-time absence from the home QTH for the last 7 years), I support most new technologies that enhance the contesting art. Even thought I don't have a working knowleged of Skimmer, I believe it is an extension of the packet spotting and SO2R and am anxious to hear the final recommendation of the CAC. My limited knowledge of this technology is, however, positive providing it is part of an "assisted" category. I certainly agree that we have more important activities like strategic planning and insuring Amateur Radio is here long after we are gone. Knowing the make-up of the CAC, I know the topic is in good hands. Jim K9JF > Skimmer is under study by our CAC, who I'm sure will consider input from > all > sides of the issue and make a recommendation for any rules changes that > would best promote the fun and healthy evolution of contesting. Let's let > them do their job and let PSC and Staff do *their* job, realizing that > when > something new like this comes along -- whether it's Skimmer today or the > Cluster in the past or SO2R whenever that was -- some people will welcome > the change, some will think the change didn't go far enough, and some will > proclaim that the change has sent contesting to hell in a bucket. > > I think it's yet another form of SOA, but that's just one more member's > point of view. > > The use of Skimmer in the IARU contest was plainly labeled as > experimental, > so nobody's backtracking on any commitments as far as I can tell. > > I hope the Board doesn't want to get into dinking around with contest > rules. > We have real work to do. We're about to start the strategic planning cycle > in a way that has never been tried before by this organization, and I > think > that's where our attention should focus: learning how to incorporate > member > input into the process without being whiplashed every which way by > divergent > views and ending up nowhere. > > (Some assembly required. Your results may differ.) > > 73 - Kay N3KN > >

1 0

RE: Skimmer 'assistance'
by K8JE 13 Aug '08

13 Aug '08

Tnx, Dave. It sounds to me that the Skimmer issue has been addressed quite well to this point and that there is no reason for the Board to interject itself into the issue until PSC wants input or approval of a report. "No longer confused in Cincinnati," Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: <mailto:k8je@arrl.org> k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! Members - The Reason ARRL Is!

1 0

RE: Skimmer 'assistance'
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 13 Aug '08

13 Aug '08

Jim, I'm jumping slightly out of channels, but in the interest of giving you a prompt response here is a copy of the CAC recommendations to P&SC. As you can see, Skimmer is not "banned." The rules for this year's Sweepstakes have not yet been posted. When they are, we plan to follow the CAC recommendations. Dave K1ZZ From: Bruce Frahm K0BJ [mailto:brucefrahmk0bj@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 4:10 PM To: ps-com Cc: wc1m(a)msn.com Subject: [ps-com:916] CAC on CW Skimmer in 2008 November Sweepstakes The CAC finished their rush study/recommendations for Skimmer use in Sweeps. I'm passing this on since I'm not sure if Tom is on or off the road at this point. Note they'll now continue to study Skimmer in a more relaxed atmosphere. We owe them thanks for hustling through this time-critical issue. Bruce ----- Original Message ----- From: Dick Green WC1M <mailto:wc1m@msn.com> To: w3tom(a)arrl.org ; Dave Patton NN1N <mailto:nn1n@arrl.org> ; kx9x(a)arrl.org Cc: k0bj(a)arrl.org ; CAC-I <mailto:CAC-I@ARRL.ORG> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:28 PM Subject: CW Skimmer in 2008 November Sweepstakes To the ARRL Programs and Services Committee: As part of a tasking on the use of CW Skimmer in ARRL contests, the Contest Advisory Committee was asked to make immediate recommendations concerning use of CW Skimmer in the 2008 November Sweepstakes CW contest. Our recommendations are as follows: 1.) CW Skimmer be should be permitted in the 2008 November Sweepstakes CW contest in the Single Operator Unlimited and Multioperator categories. 2.) CW Skimmer should not be permitted in the Single Operator High Power, Low Power and QRP categories. 3.) Use of CW Skimmer spots generated during off-times should be treated the same as use of packet spots generated during off-time. 15 of 16 CAC representatives responded. There was unanimous support for recommendation #1; 11 representatives supported recommendation #2; no objections were raised to recommendation #3. Please note that the CAC has not had time to study the question of feeding CW Skimmer spots into Packet Clusters, and makes no recommendation on that subject at this time. Also note that this is not the CAC's final recommendation on CW Skimmer -- the above are one-time recommendations for this year's November Sweepstakes only. Respectfully submitted, Dick Green NE CAC Representative, Chair From: K8JE [mailto:K8JE@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:32 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Skimmer 'assistance' I'm probably the worst person to ask this question. I'm not really a contester -- I get in them to hand out points and pick up new DX. I'm too lazy to research the current ARRL 'test rules. Finally, I didn't keep the request Bob forwarded regarding CW Skimmer. Anyway . . . As I recall, Bob's member was requesting that ARRL "undo" a ban that we have placed on the use of CW Skimmer. If this understanding is correct and provided we have banned the use of CW Skimmer even though CAC is still reviewing the situation, why did we ban it before the CAC report is received? If we have not banned Skimmer, but my understanding of the member's request is accurate, the question (as a question vs. as a comment) is premature. "Confused in Cincinnati" Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org <mailto:k8je@arrl.org> ; Tel.: 513-459-0142 ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! Members - The Reason ARRL Is! ________________________________ From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 3:26 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Skimmer 'assistance' Let me add just a word about the IARU contest. Contributing factors in deciding to let Skimmer be used in the single-op category this year were (1) the rules had already been published and did not prohibit Skimmer, and (2) in the IARU contest there is no "assisted" category - if you don't observe the limitations of single-op then you're multi-op. The ARRL contest rules are a bit different. That said, I agree with Kay that the matter is being appropriately addressed by the CAC and via the procedures established by the Board. Dave Sumner, K1ZZ From: Kay Craigie [mailto:n3kn@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 3:11 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Skimmer 'assistance' Skimmer is under study by our CAC, who I'm sure will consider input from all sides of the issue and make a recommendation for any rules changes that would best promote the fun and healthy evolution of contesting. Let's let them do their job and let PSC and Staff do *their* job, realizing that when something new like this comes along -- whether it's Skimmer today or the Cluster in the past or SO2R whenever that was -- some people will welcome the change, some will think the change didn't go far enough, and some will proclaim that the change has sent contesting to hell in a bucket. I think it's yet another form of SOA, but that's just one more member's point of view. The use of Skimmer in the IARU contest was plainly labeled as experimental, so nobody's backtracking on any commitments as far as I can tell. I hope the Board doesn't want to get into dinking around with contest rules. We have real work to do. We're about to start the strategic planning cycle in a way that has never been tried before by this organization, and I think that's where our attention should focus: learning how to incorporate member input into the process without being whiplashed every which way by divergent views and ending up nowhere. (Some assembly required. Your results may differ.) 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

RE: Skimmer 'assistance'
by Tom Frenaye 13 Aug '08

13 Aug '08

At 03:11 PM 8/13/2008, Kay Craigie wrote: >Skimmer is under study by our CAC, who I'm sure will consider input from all sides of the issue and make a recommendation for any rules changes that would best promote the fun and healthy evolution of contesting. Kay's note covered things very well! Two additional comments: 1) If you really want an "education" about CW Skimmer (a software program written by VE3NEA - http://www.dxatlas.com/CwSkimmer/ ) You can review the several hundred, often very passionate, postings on the CQ-Contest reflector at http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/CQ-Contest/ - they started in late January and after the topic started to get out of hand, a new reflector was established in late June for those who wanted to focus on CW Skimmer issues - the archives are at http://dayton.contesting.com/pipermail/skimmertalk/ 2) It is not a good idea to include additional addressees on messages to ODV. Director Vallio's message also copied his CAC representative KH6ND and a staff member. When replying, many people may not realize there are additional addressees and a message intended for internal Board information may get out "in the wild". Since we often speak bluntly about issues, that can be a very bad thing. From what I've seen so far, the PSC, CAC and staff handling of the CW Skimmer issue has been right on target (but as in most things, slower than desired!). It'll still take some time to work out the details. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:17075] Re: RE: VEC Statistics - Confidential
by K8JE 13 Aug '08

13 Aug '08

Concerning Tom's message, below: What he said! Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! Members - The Reason ARRL Is! -----Original Message----- From: Tom Frenaye [mailto:frenaye@pcnet.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:15 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:17075] Re: RE: VEC Statistics - Confidential At 06:35 AM 8/12/2008, Kramer, Harold, WJ1B pass this on from Maria Somma: >Harold -this is the answer to Jims question. Please distribute to ODV list. Thanks. >----------------------------------------------------- > >The NCVEC Conference news item published on the ARRL web <http://mymail.arrl.org/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.arrl.org/news/s tories/2008/08/06/10251/?nc=1>http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2008/08/06/10 251/?nc=1 should be the only information shared with the public about the conference. > >The VEC session activity stats below were provided by FCC as a courtesy and are not intended for public release. >At the bottom of the original email from the FCC, that contained this data, it read, " *** Non-Public: For Internal Use Only *** ". Actually, the amazing thing to me is that the FCC can get away without providing accurate statistics on even the most basic functions of the Amateur Radio Service. At one time they issued monthly information on new licensees, upgrades and callsigns - now that information has to be calculated by third parties based on the monthly FCC activity data files. How can the FCC justify providing the VEC information to VECs on a confidential basis? They're a government agency, funded by all of our taxes, and subject to Freedom of Information laws. We've been too nice to the FCC for years and should be demanding that they provide the public with summary information - or we should be filing the necessary FOIA requests to get the information. The FCC would soon find out that it would be easier to generate the data on a regular basis than to handle monthly FOI requests. Damn FCC. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

[arrl-odv:17077] IARU Administrative Council Summary Record
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 13 Aug '08

13 Aug '08

The attached is NOT required reading, but is offered to those of you who have a greater than average curiosity about the IARU. I'm sure I speak for Joel, Rod and Paul in saying that we would be happy to answer any questions. 73, Dave K1ZZ <<08 IARU AC Summary Record.doc>>

1 0

RE: Skimmer 'assistance'
by K8JE 13 Aug '08

13 Aug '08

I'm probably the worst person to ask this question. I'm not really a contester -- I get in them to hand out points and pick up new DX. I'm too lazy to research the current ARRL 'test rules. Finally, I didn't keep the request Bob forwarded regarding CW Skimmer. Anyway . . . As I recall, Bob's member was requesting that ARRL "undo" a ban that we have placed on the use of CW Skimmer. If this understanding is correct and provided we have banned the use of CW Skimmer even though CAC is still reviewing the situation, why did we ban it before the CAC report is received? If we have not banned Skimmer, but my understanding of the member's request is accurate, the question (as a question vs. as a comment) is premature. "Confused in Cincinnati" Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: <mailto:k8je@arrl.org> k8je(a)arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! Members - The Reason ARRL Is! _____ From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 3:26 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Skimmer 'assistance' Let me add just a word about the IARU contest. Contributing factors in deciding to let Skimmer be used in the single-op category this year were (1) the rules had already been published and did not prohibit Skimmer, and (2) in the IARU contest there is no "assisted" category - if you don't observe the limitations of single-op then you're multi-op. The ARRL contest rules are a bit different. That said, I agree with Kay that the matter is being appropriately addressed by the CAC and via the procedures established by the Board. Dave Sumner, K1ZZ From: Kay Craigie [mailto:n3kn@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 3:11 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: Skimmer 'assistance' Skimmer is under study by our CAC, who I'm sure will consider input from all sides of the issue and make a recommendation for any rules changes that would best promote the fun and healthy evolution of contesting. Let's let them do their job and let PSC and Staff do *their* job, realizing that when something new like this comes along -- whether it's Skimmer today or the Cluster in the past or SO2R whenever that was -- some people will welcome the change, some will think the change didn't go far enough, and some will proclaim that the change has sent contesting to hell in a bucket. I think it's yet another form of SOA, but that's just one more member's point of view. The use of Skimmer in the IARU contest was plainly labeled as experimental, so nobody's backtracking on any commitments as far as I can tell. I hope the Board doesn't want to get into dinking around with contest rules. We have real work to do. We're about to start the strategic planning cycle in a way that has never been tried before by this organization, and I think that's where our attention should focus: learning how to incorporate member input into the process without being whiplashed every which way by divergent views and ending up nowhere. (Some assembly required. Your results may differ.) 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

[arrl-odv:17075] Re: RE: VEC Statistics - Confidential
by Tom Frenaye 13 Aug '08

13 Aug '08

At 06:35 AM 8/12/2008, Kramer, Harold, WJ1B pass this on from Maria Somma: >Harold -this is the answer to Jim�s question. Please distribute to ODV list. Thanks. >----------------------------------------------------- > >The NCVEC Conference news item published on the ARRL web <http://mymail.arrl.org/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.arrl.org/news/s…>http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2008/08/06/10251/?nc=1 should be the only information shared with the public about the conference. > >The VEC session activity stats below were provided by FCC as a courtesy and are not intended for public release. >At the bottom of the original email from the FCC, that contained this data, it read, " *** Non-Public: For Internal Use Only *** ". Actually, the amazing thing to me is that the FCC can get away without providing accurate statistics on even the most basic functions of the Amateur Radio Service. At one time they issued monthly information on new licensees, upgrades and callsigns - now that information has to be calculated by third parties based on the monthly FCC activity data files. How can the FCC justify providing the VEC information to VECs on a confidential basis? They're a government agency, funded by all of our taxes, and subject to Freedom of Information laws. We've been too nice to the FCC for years and should be demanding that they provide the public with summary information - or we should be filing the necessary FOIA requests to get the information. The FCC would soon find out that it would be easier to generate the data on a regular basis than to handle monthly FOI requests. Damn FCC. -- Tom ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0