Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by WA6MHZ, Aug 13, 2019.
thank you. That confirms what i thought, but i wanted to be certain.
Well, that's a different matter altogether, because FCC's use of the term "automatic" means that specific case -- no operator at the control point. And since the range of frequencies where that is permitted on HF is pretty limited, it's not really an issue for contesting.
If that is their goal (operator at the control point), they could just say that and be done.
Interestingly, that provision isn't part of the existing rules, so the update they want may be that simple:
I'd agree that many things in this world that could be stated simply often are not. I think that happens a lot in cases where folks want to lend an air of professionalism or sound pseudo legal in the way they word things but it usually doesn't help.
FWIW, I think this is the key part in their statement
I'd say that's trying to get fancy with saying there has to be operators on both ends of the QSO directly initiating the call at roughly the same time. Yeah, it might have been simpler to say you can't walk away from your rig and still score contest points or you can't use computer routines that will let you go to sleep while your computer racks up points but it seems pretty clear to me what they're getting at.
Since the original objection was "robots," you are probably right on -- at least as far as their intent. And that really should make it easy enough to just say, "there has to be a control operator at the control point for all QSOs" or something similar.
If their goal is to make sure the user actually clicks or taps something somewhere for each QSO, they're going to have to get a lot more... wordy. It is trivial to update WSJT-X to run indefinitely in FT-4 mode, doing both S&P and CQ run simultaneously, so if a control operator present at the control point isn't good enough for what they want, they're going to have to find a new way to say exactly that.
In the bigger contests anyone claiming a winning score has to have recorded every contact to audio file. It would not be hard for the ARRL to do the same and ask for video recording of all FT8 contacts. A camera over the shoulder of the operator would show definitively that he was clicking the mouse button and not a clicker.
You only have to require it from anyone claiming a top 5 score. No video, no trophy, log made observation. So if you are like me and not going to win, or dont care if you get a participation trophy, then it does not effect us, just the bigger contest stations.
Which makes contest awards worth every cent of the entry fee!
Well it all makes me less interested.
If the honor system makes sense for power etc. (and it does, most hams are honest) why do QSL's and QSO confirmations have security greater than most bank accounts?
Interesting point. I didn't think of that, since I have zero experience with open source code..... Along the same line, FT-4 also has an automatic logging option when in contest mode. If you automate the S&P function, I believe the auto logging function would follow. That could be a problem...
Like many things political, which I won't name, it gives people a warm gooey sense of accomplishment to have done something even if that something provides no tangible benefit over having done nothing.