Doc. 29

Contest Advisory Committee
Semi-Annual Report
For the American Radio Relay League
Board of Directors Meeting
January 2009

Submitted by
Dick Green, WC1M
Chairman, CAC
190 Lyme Rd
Hanover, NH 03755
wc1m@msn.com
603.643.4451

Summary
Since the July 2008 Board meeting, the CAC has received one task, which was to study
CW Skimmer. A tasking document was received on July 21, 2008 and the tasking wascompleted on November 20, 2008. The CAC’s final report on CW Skimmer is attached.
On August 5. 2008, the CAC submitted an unsolicited recommendation to amend therules for the ARRL 10m Contest. A copy of the recommendation is attached.
There was no other formal business before the CAC during the period, and there is nobusiness currently before the CAC.
Administrative Notes
Long-time Northwest Division CAC Representative and former Chair, Ward Silver,NØAX, announced his retirement from the CAC effective with completion of the CW
Skimmer tasking. I would like to take this opportunity to bring Ward’s outstanding
contributions and accomplishments to the attention of the ARRL Board. I would also liketo thank Ward for his many years of service to the CAC, as well as for his excellent
leadership as Chair. Ward provided invaluable assistance and advice to me when I took
the Chair position, and has been the strongest contributor to the group during two of themost complex and important taskings we’ve received in recent years, Remote Operating
and CW Skimmer. We will miss Ward and wish him all the best in his future endeavors.
Please note that NØAX’s position as Northwest Division Representative has not yet been
filled.
There have been no other changes in CAC membership since July, 2008.
Respectfully submitted,
Dick GreenCAC Chair
New England Division Representative

Contest Advisory Committee

CAC Semi-Annual Report

January 2009

page 2 of 14

January 5, 2009

Atlantic – Mike Gilmer, N2MG
4600 State RT 26, Vernon, NY 13476-3706(P) 315-829-5291
Email: n2mg@contesting.com

Central – Greg W. Clark, K9IG
3700 W CR 100 S, Franklin, IN 46131

Email: greg@k9ig.com

Dakota – Al Dewey, KØAD14800 38th Pl N, Plymouth, MN 55446-3341(H) 763-550-0529(W) 952-828-3112
Email: aldewey@aol.com

Delta –Ted L. Bryant, W4NZ
9217 Charbar Circle
Chattanooga, TN 37421-5306(H) 423-894-1773
Email: w4nz@comcast.net
or w4nz@arrl.net

Great Lakes – Dave Pruett, K8CC
2727 Harris Rd., Ypsilanti, MI 48198(H) 734-481-0755(W) 313-493-2168
Email: k8cc@comcast.net

Hudson – Dr. George Wilner, K2ONP
336 Bulson Road, Troy, NY 12180

Email: k2onp@aol.com

Midwest – Jim Cochran, KØRH3600 W 77 N, Valley Center, KS 67147

Email: k0rh@cox.net

Chairman
New England – Dick Green, WC1M
190 Lyme Road, Hanover, NH 03755-6602(P) 603-643-4451
Email: wc1m@msn.com

Northwestern – TBA
Pacific – Michael J. Gibson, KH6ND
Box 31193, Honolulu, HI 96820(H) 808-487-8173(C) 808-722-7973
Email: kh6nd@hawaii.rr.com

Roanoke - Don Daso, K4ZA(H) 704-594-9853

CAC Semi-Annual Report

January 2009

page 3 of 14

515 Withershinn Drive, Charlotte NC 28262

cell/work 704-408-7948
Email: k4za@juno.com

Rocky Mountain – Robert Neece, KØKRP.O. Box 3159, Boulder, CO 80307-3159(P) 303-830-7000
Email: rneece@bwsm.com

Southeastern – Charles T. Wooten, NF4A
P.O. Box 4183, Panama City, FL 32401(H) 850-265-1249(C) 850-896-8076
Email: nf4a@knology.net

Southwestern – Bruce Horn, WA7BNM
4225 Farmdale Avenue, Studio City, CA 91604(P) 818-502-5180
Email: bhorn@hornucopia.com

West Gulf - Joe Staples, W5ASP
10031 Meadow Lake, Houston, TX 77042

Email: w5asp@earthlink.net

RAC – Dave Shipman, VE7CFD
1013 Sinclair Street, West Vancouver
BC V7V 3W1 Canada(P) 604-926-8170
Email: davidshipman@shaw.ca

Board Liaison – Tom Abernethy, W3TOM
1133 Apple Valley Road, PO Box 73
Accokeek, MD 20607

Email: w3tom@arrl.org

Staff Liaison – Sean Kutzko, KX9X
225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111(P) 860-594-0232
Email: kx9x@arrl.org

Administrative Liaison – Sharon Taratula
225 Main St., Newington, CT 06111(P) 860-594-0269
Email: staratula@arrl.org

CAC Semi-Annual Report

January 2009

page 4 of 14

ARRL Contest Advisory Committee
Report on CW Skimmer
November 20, 2008

Submitted by
Dick Green, WC1M
Chairman, CAC
190 Lyme Rd
Hanover, NH 03755
wc1m@msn.com(603) 643-4451

CAC Semi-Annual Report

January 2009

page 5 of 14

ARRL Contest Advisory Committee
Report on CW Skimmer
November 20, 2008
Executive Summary
Multi-channel decoders, such as CW Skimmer, allow the operator to receive information
about the identity and frequency of stations operating in a contest. The effect is similar to
the use of packet spots. Current ARRL contest rules do not address the use of multichannel decoders.
On July 18, 2008, the CAC received a tasking on CW Skimmer from the Programs andServices Committee. The tasking is attached to this report as Appendix A. The CAC has
voted to make the following recommendations regarding CW Skimmer:
1. Multi-channel decoders should be allowed in ARRL contests.
2. Multi-channel decoders should not be allowed in the Single Operator
category.
3. Use of information gathered by multi-channel decoders during off times
should not be permitted.
4. The Single Operator Assisted category in ARRL contests should be renamedSingle Operator Unlimited.
5. Rules for remote receivers apply to remote multi-channel decoders, including
the exception for spotting nets.
6. Multi-channel decoder spots should not be banned from spotting networks.
7. Robot QSOs (contacts made by automated means independently of a humanoperator) should not be permitted.
In addition, the CAC recommends the following wording be incorporated into the rules
defining the Single Operator and Single Operator Assisted/Unlimited categories:
Single Operator: One person performs all control, transmitting, receiving, andlogging functions. Use of spotting information obtained directly or indirectly fromany source other than the station operator, such as from other stations or automatedtools, is prohibited.

CAC Semi-Annual Report

January 2009

page 6 of 14

Single Operator Unlimited/Assisted: One person performs all control, transmitting,receiving, and logging functions. Use of spotting information is permitted.
Exception: spotting information obtained from any source outside the station
boundary via a closed or dedicated communication link may not be used.
Examples of sources of spotting information include: Operating arrangements
involving other individuals, DX-alerting nets, PacketCluster(tm), Internet spotting
network servers, CW Skimmer, etc.
The CAC also recommends that the following definitions be incorporated into the rules
or published in the FAQ:
Spotting Information: Information specifying the transmit or receive frequency andany portion of the call sign, identity, exchange information, or location of anotherstation with which a contest QSO could be made.
Automated: Functioning independently of the operator's direct control andparticipation at the time the function is carried out.
The remainder of this report discusses the tasking and recommendations in detail.
Discussion
On July 18, 2008, the ARRL Contest Advisory Committee received a request from thePrograms & Services Committee to study CW Skimmer in contests sponsored by the
ARRL. The request was received in the form of a tasking document, attached as
Appendix A to this report. Please refer to the tasking for a description of multi-channel
decoders and CW Skimmer. The CAC was invited to comment on several specificquestions about CW Skimmer.
Expedited Recommendations for 2008 November Sweepstakes
The CAC was also asked to expedite one-time recommendations on CW Skimmer for the75th running of the ARRL November Sweepstakes CW in November of 2008. On July30, 2008, the CAC delivered recommendations to the P&SC on three key questions:1) Should CW Skimmer be banned from all categories in the 2008 November
Sweepstakes CW contest? (recommendation: No)
2) If your answer to #1 is No, then should CW Skimmer be allowed in all categories?
(recommendation: No)
3) If your answer to #1 and #2 are No, then should CW Skimmer be disallowed in
the Single Operator category only? (recommendation: Yes)
The Chair thanks the members of the CAC for their prompt and thoughtful response to
the questions. Given the time constraints, debate on the three questions for Sweepstakes

CAC Semi-Annual Report

January 2009

page 7 of 14was limited, and a number of issues were deferred until the CAC began work on thetasking.
Evaluation Process
To keep the debate focused, the questions in the tasking were divided into three groups
presented separately to the CAC membership. Members were asked to respond to eachquestion with comments supporting their position. Members were free to consult withindividuals in their respective ARRL Divisions.
Should Skimmer be Allowed?
There was very little debate about two of the key questions, whether CW Skimmer
should be allowed in ARRL contests, and whether it should be allowed in the Single
Operator category. Consistent with our recommendations for 2008 Sweepstakes, themembership voted overwhelmingly to allow use of CW Skimmer in ARRL contests(unanimous), but to prohibit its use in the Single Operator category (14- 2.)
Are Additional Categories Needed?
There was considerable debate on the question of whether additional categories wereneeded to accommodate CW Skimmer in ARRL contests. A proposal was made to add a
new Single Operator category that would effectively allow CW Skimmer but not packet
spots. However, in the end the membership voted 14-2 not to change or add to theexisting categories. The general feeling was that CW Skimmer should be allowed in any
category where packet spots are allowed.
CW Skimmer During Off Times
Members voted 11-4 to recommend that use of information gathered by CW Skimmer
during off times be disallowed. Quite a few members noted that there is no explicit
prohibition on the use of packet spots generated during off times. The rules only state thattime spent listening counts as operating time. The Chair’s interpretation of the discussionis that an explicit prohibition isn’t necessary, but the FAQ should be updated to make it
clear that neither packet spots nor CW Skimmer spots gathered during off times should
be used.
Renaming the Assisted Category
Proponents of allowing CW Skimmer in the Single Operator category have often insisted
that CW Skimmer is not “assistance” because it’s not performed by another person. To
counter this somewhat specious argument, it has been suggested that the Assisted
category be renamed. A majority of CAC members was in favor of doing so, but therecommendation that the Assisted category be renamed to Unlimited barely received amajority of those responding: 8 members favored Unlimited, 6 members favored
retaining Assisted and 1 member favored Single Op Plus.

CAC Semi-Annual Report

January 2009

page 8 of 14

The Chair adds that it would be desirable to have a single, consistent name for the
category in all ARRL contests.
Is a Remote CW Skimmer a Remote Receiver?
With 15 members responding, 10 voted that spots from a remote CW Skimmer violate
the remote receiver prohibition, but that such spots should be allowed over spotting nets.
In essence, CW Skimmer spots should be treated the same as packet spots. Four members
felt that a remote CW Skimmer station should not be considered a remote receiver. One
member felt that no exception to the remote receiver prohibition should be made for aremote CW Skimmer station.
In retrospect, the wording of this question wasn’t clear. The motivation for the question
was the scenario where an operator sets up a remote receiver running CW Skimmer tofeed spots over a dedicated communications link. Is this disallowed by the 500m rule
(i.e., is it a remote receiver)? If so, would CW Skimmer feeding spots to a PacketCluster
be a remote receiver?
During the discussion, it was pointed out that the 500m rule has an explicit exception forpacket spots for Multioperator and Single Operator Assisted. However, the exception
relies on the undefined term “spotting nets”. There was general agreement that theconcept is to allow spots that are generally available to other stations, but to disallow
spots if they are available only to a single station or a group of stations over a closed or
dedicated network. Accordingly, this concept was incorporated in the recommended ruletext for Single Operator Assisted/Unlimited.
Given that spots coming from dedicated or closed communications links shouldn’t beallowed in the Multioperator categories, either, it may be advisable to amend those rules
or clarify the term “spotting nets” in the FAQ to make it clear that the spots must be
generally available to qualify for the exception.
Should CW Skimmer be Banned from PacketClusters?
This question was not part of the original tasking, but one of our members proposed that
we consider it. The argument is that with hundreds or even thousands of stations sending
CW Skimmer spots to the network, huge pileups will develop almost instantaneously,
making it virtually impossible to tune for a new station or multiplier that hasn’t beenfound yet.
A strong majority of the CAC, 13 members, voted not to ban CW Skimmer spots from
PacketClusters. Two members voted in favor of the ban. Several members cited the factthat software has already been developed to send CW Skimmer spots to PacketClusters,
and that it would be difficult or impossible to enforce such a ban because CW Skimmer
and packet spots can’t be distinguished. Others felt that if a problem develops, we canrevisit the question. Still others felt a dramatic increase in the number of spots might slow

CAC Semi-Annual Report

January 2009

page 9 of 14

some packet networks to the point of decreasing or eliminating usage (i.e., the problem
might correct itself.)
Should Robot QSOs be Allowed?
It seems clear that CW Skimmer is only the beginning of a new wave of broadband
decoding technology. It’s not hard to imagine future enhancements that would allow
completely unattended or robot QSOs, both on-frequency (running) and across a band(searching and pouncing.) The CAC voted 14-1 to ban robot QSOs from ARRL contests.
It was pointed out that FCC rules may prohibit unattended operation, but that this may
not be the case in other jurisdictions.
Although the CAC did not address whether an explicit rule against robot QSOs is
required, the overwhelming nature of the vote suggests the prohibition should beincorporated in the rules or the FAQ. However, we did not consider wording for such aprohibition.
New Wording for the Single Operator Categories
Considerable time and energy were devoted to developing revised wording for rules
governing the Single Operator and Single Operator Assisted/Unlimited categories. The
task was arduous and not without some spirited debate. The Chair would like to thanks
the members who directly participated in this work, especially Ward Silver, N0AX, whoargued for wording that could stand up to future changes in technology, isolated anddefined the essential information provided by CW Skimmer-like tools, and did the lion’sshare of the wordsmithing and editing.
Note that the revised wording permits the use of single-channel decoders, such as CW
readers and RTTY programs, as well as band scopes. This is consistent with current rules
and practice.
Although the recommended wording is not intended to be an exact replacement for thecurrent rule text, the CAC worked very hard to create terminology and syntax that
embodies the CAC’s recommendations, does not prohibit long-established practices, andwill be effective for the long run. We therefore recommend that no changes be made to
the substance and intent of the wording beyond what’s necessary to integrate the text withthe existing rules.
Further, the definitions and examples are a critical part of the revised rules. Ideally, bothshould be included in the main rule text, but at a minimum the examples should be
included with the rules (definitions could be put in the FAQ.) We believe that a
participant should be able to read the rules and determine whether or not CW Skimmer ora similar technology is permitted, without referring to external sources.

CAC Semi-Annual Report

January 2009

page 10 of 14

Consistency with CW WW
As mentioned in our report on Remote Operating, the CAC has establishedcommunications with the CQ WW Contest Committee, with Doug Grant, K1DG, acting
as liaison. The Chair was kept informed of the direction the CQWWCC was heading withCW Skimmer, and found it to be consistent with the CAC’s direction. New rules
published for CQ WW are similar in intent to the CAC’s recommendations, though thewording is somewhat more specific.

CAC Semi-Annual Report

January 2009

page 11 of 14

Appendix A
Proposal for Study: CW Skimmer
Multi-channel signal decoding software and hardware technology is now available. The
software, called CW Skimmer, can decode multiple signals simultaneously, extract callsigns, and send spots to the local contest log program for display in its band map, or to a
spotting network node for broadcast. If desired, spots can be limited to stations calling
CQ or TEST, and can be optionally verified against a Super Check Partial database. CW
Skimmer can also decode call signs responding to the host station’s CQ.
CW Skimmer can perform its job automatically, while the operator uses the same radio or
another radio to call CQ or tune for new stations. It can also take place while the operator
is in an “off time” break.
Stations have already been built with dedicated wide-band CW Skimmer receivers foreach amateur band that are capable of decoding call signs for all open bands
simultaneously and feeding spots to the logging program.
CW Skimmer is capable of providing nearly the same information as is currently
provided by the spotting network, but without the help of another operator.
Current ARRL contest rules permit use of CW Skimmer, co-located with all other stationequipment, in all categories, including Single Operator. The ARRL Contest Branchannounced in June 2008 that CW Skimmer would be allowed in the Singe Operator
category for the 2008 IARU Radio Championship. Several stations using CW Skimmer
finished in the top ten in the Mixed and CW categories.
CW Skimmer has sparked intense controversy within the contest community, with someadvocating for the technology to be allowed in all categories, some advocating for thetechnology to be allowed only in Assisted or Multi-Operator categories, and someadvocating for a complete ban of the technology. Debate has been spirited and at times
overwhelming in quantity.
The Contest Advisory Committee is asked to study the CW Skimmer technology, become
familiar with current and anticipated future configurations and capabilities, and respondto the questions listed below.

CAC Semi-Annual Report

January 2009

page 12 of 14

Questions
1. Should multi-channel signal decoders (referred to as "CW Skimmer" in thistask) be allowed in ARRL contests?
2.

If CW Skimmer is allowed, can it be accommodated within the existing category
structure? If so, how?

3.

If CW Skimmer requires new categories, what category structure is required toaccommodate CW Skimmer?

4. In contests that limit operating time to a portion of the contest period, should CW
Skimmer be allowed to generate operating information during non-operating
periods?
Related issues
5. Should the Assisted category be renamed to avoid semantic confusion over theword "Assistance"? If so, what label should be used instead?
6. Under what circumstances is a CW Skimmer operating at a station outside the
500m station radius considered to be a remote receiver?
7. It is possible that future versions of CW Skimmer, or similar programs, will beable to automatically complete contest QSOs. Although they are not allowed
under FCC rules, should automated or "robot" operation by non-US stations beallowed in ARRL contests?

CAC Semi-Annual Report

January 2009

page 13 of 14

ARRL Contest Advisory Committee
Recommended Rule Change for ARRL 10m Contest
August 5, 2008
(emailed to the PS&C on 08/05/08)

Gentlemen,
From time to time, CAC members discuss issues related to ARRL contests that are notpart of a formal tasking from the P&SC. Occasionally, this may result in an unsolicitedrecommendation from the CAC. Such is the following:With 15 of 16 representatives responding, the ARRL Contest Advisory Committee
unanimously recommends that the following rule be deleted from the ARRL 10m contest:"Eight points for CW QSOs with US Novice or Technician Plus stations signing /N or /T(28.0 to 28.3 MHz only)."
The following comments from our Great Lakes representative, Dave Pruett K8CC,
provided additional information considered by the CAC:
"Current FCC rules for frequency ranges by license class make this rule unnecessary as
everyone has the same allowable spectrum on the 10M band. There have also been cases
where inconsistent application of adding the "/N" and "/T" to entrants call signs has
required hand-editing of results by the log checkers. As the volunteer log checker for the
10M contest, this deletion would make my life easier, and I don't think it will
significantly impact activity. CW contacts already get double points, and the original
intent of the rule was to get higher class licensee to go above 28.100 to work theNovices/Techs, who now have access to the regular part of the band."Respectfully submitted,
Dick GreenNE CAC Representative, Chair

CAC Semi-Annual Report

January 2009

page 14 of 14