>I am quoting here my reply to DAVE about his Anti-radiation missiles tuned to PACTOR PMBO frequencies for your information! That shows you exactly the attitude of some people against anything they dislike and how they act. If the Pactor PMBOs activated any DCD mechanism, people like Dave would sit there all day to deliberately cause QRM with their Anti-Radiation missiles tuned to the PACTOR PMBO frequencies, as he said, and cause havoc. Is this kind of QRM accepted by you?
What about this Skip? Is this justified? Tell me what works perfectly on HF and if we manage to correct them all then PACTOR will follow and I believe the PMBOs will have no problem finding a way to implement a DCD mechanism. Demetre, Of course it is not justified! The point is that on shared bands, like our amateur bands, no machine can take the place of human intelligence to negotiate a fair sharing or use of a frequency, just like no software can figure out the meaning of sloppy CW sending by including the context of the QSO, as a human can. I am not in favor of busy signal detectors as a solution, both for the reason you cite, and because the clients can just disable them. The solution lies in separation of unattended operations from attended operations, with the space allocated to unattended operations in proportion to their representation in the ham community, if unattended operations are to be permitted at all. That proportion is currently about 1% of the US amateur population or about 0.3% of the worldwide amateur population, but already the FCC allocates 3.5% of the HF band spectrum to unattended activity, which is obviously more than fair. I am in favor of hams being able to use unattended operations as long as they are kept apart from other ham operations and in a space proportional to their representation. It is pointless to argue which use of a ham band is more important, as that depends upon each individual's interests. However, unattended operation is contrary to the recreational use of shared bands, because one half of a communication with an unattended station cannot share. If it is to be allowed, then it must be in a place where it cannot interfere with persons that are capable of negotiating for a frequency on a fair basis. Unattended stations cannot negotiate. To you, Winlink 2000 is a valuable resource, as it is to others. With proper management, such as eliminating wasteful scanning, for example, and using only narrow modes for small size messaging, there is more than enough space in the 3.5% of ham spectrum for unattended operations for those who need them. Peter Martinez is correct in that the system design of Winlink 2000 is not consistent with shared bands, but that should be an incentive to develop a system that can, instead of constantly try to dominate more and more space to avoid interference by spreading out. Replace unattended stations with live operators and the sharing problem is resolved, and messaging can take place anywhere the mode itself is permitted. If that is not done, the unattended stations need to stay in a space in proportion to their representation in the ham community in order to help relieve congestion to those who are capable of sharing spectrum. Have a Happy New Year! 73, Skip KH6TY
