ARRL Contest and DXCC Rules Now Prohibit Automated Contacts
08/19/2019
Following the direction of the ARRL Board of Directors, ARRL has incorporated changes to the rules for all ARRL-sponsored contests and DXCC, prohibiting automated contacts. These changes also apply to the Worked All States (including Triple Play and 5-Band WAS), VHF/UHF Century Club, and Fred Fish, W5FF, Memorial awards. The changes are effective immediately.
A resolution at the July ARRL Board of Directors meeting pointed to “growing concern over fully automated contacts being made and claimed” for contest and DXCC credit. The rules now require that each claimed contact include contemporaneous direct initiation by the operator on both sides of the contact. Initiation of a contact may be either local or remote.
I found this of interest because it shows the impact machine generated modes like FT8 and FT4 are having on amateur radio. As technology advances, it is challenging what peoples perception of what 'radio' actually is.
Some will argue that automation is nothing more than two computers talking to each other without any human input. Others and I'd suggest newer users may see very little difference between an automated system and having someone just click on a mouse to initiate a contact and then having the computer do the rest.
Hence the tongue in cheek graphic! 😉
Despite the ARRL ruling, I'd suspect we haven't heard the last of automation and automated contacts.
Addendum :
1) Some interesting thoughts by AE5X on the subject on this blog post.
2) Some thoughts on the subject by John, MW1CFN in this blog post.
I'm glad you posted on that, John. Whilst I understand what the ARRL are trying to do, they are on a hiding to nothing, because how a QSO is initiated has never been the thing tested in a contest.
ReplyDeleteRather, it's whether any given station and its configuration (antennas, rig, power, etc) is capable of making a confirmed two-way QSO.
So insisting that a QSO must be initiated by a human clicking a mouse is (a) changing the goalposts, (b) changing them in relation to something that is not relevant to the ability (or not) to make a QSO, and (c) is, it seems to me, an entirely unenforceable rule in the real world.
I would argue that automation is not a bad, but a good thing. The use of WSPR - wholly automated at all times except for when one chooses to operate at all, is a good example, where operator opinion and 'wishful thinking' on signal reports and propagation has been completely and very informatively replaced with pure, objective data. Each WSPR station's performance is limited only by the station configuration and environment.
So I think the ARRL are falling behind, and trying to preserve the past without any real logic - or concern for how younger and newer operators actually want to do with radio. That, certainly, is a very bad thing indeed.
Hi John, I've updated the post to put in a link to AE5X's blog which has some interesting points, especially in the comments section.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand, there may be some issue with unattended automated systems and the FCC regulations. I suspect that the ARRL response may have something to do with that.
Perhaps if the ARRL just insisted on 'attended operation' instead of an outright ban, it might have been more appropriate?