| # | Name | Comments |
|---|
| 201 | Paul Bittner, W0AIH | |
| 202 | John Baumgarten, N0IJ | I support the views of the many before me who state that this is the place to draw the line. |
| 203 | Anthony Scandurra W2WAS | |
| 204 | Ed Gilliland W5TM | |
| 205 | John R. Klim II , N3KHK | This automation technology will take away from operator’s skills and abilities. CW skills will be lost in the future; contester’s will not have to be at their station in the future to do a contest – tell the program the start, break, and end times and when to change bans. No operator intervention will be required. If people do not keep their CW speed, the operator might forget CW in its entirety and will have to relearn. In “CW only” contests, it will be which station has the best antennas and amplifiers to be the winner and not operator skills and abilities. This I believe is a slippery slope for contesting. Automation – YES, No operator required – NO WAY! |
| 206 | Todd Dravland | |
| 207 | Hank Kohl - K8DD | This petition sums up how I feel about skimmer, especially after reading the volumes on the CQ Contest reflector. |
| 208 | Lance Martin | I really can't see anyone hitting a ball out of the park with CW skimmer, however in time it may give some contesters an unfair advantage and hence I agree it should not be allowed for general CW contests. |
| 209 | Anonymous | |
| 210 | 9A5CW, Patrik Hrvatin | CW4EVER! |
| 211 | 9A5CW, Patrik Hrvatin | CW4EVER! |
| 212 | Phil Godbold G4UDU | |
| 213 | Ken Eastty | |
| 214 | Martin Svaco | |
| 215 | John Bednar K3TEJ | |
| 216 | Goose Steingass, W8AV | After consideration, I feel that allowing this type of technology in CW contesting would eventually serve to take the human element out of the equation. I understand that for amateur radio and contesting to evolve there has to be a ceratain amount of technological improvement, but we still need to make sure that we keep the human element in the equation, which after all is the ultimate object of contesting. We must also develop methods of effectively enforcing the prohibition of using skimmer technology which I hope can be done if this technology is eventually prohibited. |
| 217 | Korey Chandler | I don't want to see ANY automated contesting stations to include RTTY or other modes. |
| 218 | Edward Caplan | It could destroy the hobby |
| 219 | J. Gordon Rowe | I agree 100% |
| 220 | Carl J. Lump, K2CJ | |
| 221 | Tod Olson | The petition mentions a CW Skimmer, but I believe the philosophy for restricting use during a contest would apply equally well to a Skimmer that 'decoded' SSB signals rather than CW signals.
Since we can forsee that 'automated QSO machines' can be constructed, it might be that a limitation to their use in contesting, CW or Phone, should be considered at this time as well. It can be useful to have a rule in place that covers the topic prior to the time technology exists widely that would be covered by the rule. Should the initial rule prove 'flawed' it would be easier to change it in response to technology rather than create it in response to that technology. |
| 222 | Walt Kornienko | No way Jose... K2WK |
| 223 | Roy S. Hradilek (AD5Q) | I don't think this would be enforceable. I think much of the unruly mob in packet pileups during contests consists of weekend warriors who are just trying to work countries. They aren't sending their logs in anyway, so the use of a skimmer can't be considered cheating. The contest rules are irrelevant to them. |
| 224 | Thomas J Harke Sr. AA9A | |
| 225 | Jeff Embry | K3OQ |
| 226 | Dave Aldridge, G3VGR | |
| 227 | Suad Z. DK6XZ/E77XZ | Dear Gentlemen, I sign this petition because of its general good means, but...
I re-started to be HAM and contester 1 year back, after 18 years of absolute brake; and
am proud to our hobby. Lately I was feeling deepest pain frustrated by the comment of my friend, dip. eng.
of electronics, who was finding it anachron to communicate in our old fashioned way in time of Internet
existance!?
The CW Skimmer is now a technological fact. We should not ignore the given development, as it is our due
to stay up to date - in name of coming generations ( where is the fascination to the technic? ). Actually
it is HAMs "duty" to explore and experiment in various directions. I find, contesting is that branch of
HAM radio that assumes the most requirements set on station and operator! What here actually should be done is,
just to regulate the existance of this technological possibility trough the improvement of contest rules!
Why this approach to contesting should not be supported, just by finding proper category for that? Station
building ( high-end transceivers, SO2R, tuners, PAs, towers, antennas, locations, geographical points... )
belongs long to the game! Some comments here compare contesting with persona sport. With due respect, but
it simply can not the truth. The operator skills are extremely important and the main thing any way, but it
is wrong to compare our radio sport to atletics, basket aso. It is much more the Michael-Schumacher-like-metier.
The car ( machine, aerodynamic, tyres, technic, strategy... ), the team, the logistics a.s.o. - the sum of all
of that produces the winner; it is not only the driver.
What we have is general problem with CHEATING, as the rules stimulate obviously some guys to cheat ( themselves ).
The category classifications should help us to really compare our results with other competitors around
the country/continent and even world - to enable us to improve something in our operating still, equipment
or whatever - if our goal was really to win the contest.
If skimmer and/or cluster use are generally prohibited, how can I belive that all my competitors were Gentlemen?
Finaly, the CW Skimmer is going to become wonderful tool of the contest organizers, enabling them to record whole
contest and make it transparent ( better control ). Read more in article by Pete, N4ZR: www.pvrc.org/~n4zr/articles/Skimmer.pdf
PS: I only red about it and never used the skimmer...
Warmest yours, Suad, DK6XZ/E77XZ |
| 228 | Mike Delke K8EMS | |
| 229 | John Anderson AF9T | |
| 230 | Hans Brakob, K0HB | I believe this technology so dramatically changes the contesting landscape that it ought to be banned. |
| 231 | Larry Schimelpfenig K7SV | |
| 232 | Frank Fahrlander | Agree wholeheartedly with the above. |
| 233 | Bernie McClenny, W3UR | |
| 234 | Mark WA0MHJ | It is very hard to inhibit or regulate advances in technology. Good luck trying on this one. I support it 100% |
| 235 | Anonymous | |
| 236 | Rich K1CC | |
| 237 | Anonymous | its not best way for contesting |
| 238 | Toni Lindén, OH2UA | |
| 239 | Juha Rantanen OH6XX | |
| 240 | Jouko | I support a new category; "Skimmer" to be established. Total ban and control of this would be as difficult as 1. assisted/non-assisted 2. remote station operation. CUL in contests - any category. |
| 241 | Hannu K. - DM1TT | cw4everrrrr |
| 242 | Marcelo Gomes, PY1KN | I believe this is a disruptive technology, that puts operator skill in second place, which is against the spirit of contesting. Let the best one win. |
| 243 | Stefano Brioschi | IK2QEI - CN3A |
| 244 | Helmut Heinz DK6WL | |
| 245 | Tapio Murto | Yes, we don't need automation in CW because it defeats the whole purpose of comfortable QSO operation without getting berried to high speed trash. If the commercial units use it , for them it is for the purpose of rapid communication.
Ex OH4NP and OH2MF |
| 246 | Roland Mensch, DK3GI | |
| 247 | Alexander Avramov LZ4AX | |
| 248 | Chris, DL4YAO | |
| 249 | Vera, DL2NCW | |
| 250 | Anonymous | |