I can't disagree with your points Dave. However, until I have more experience with the busy detect from the server end, I think I'll feel more "comfortable" in the auto-sub band...at least for now.. Then , if I do transmit on a busy frequency despite the busy-detect, I'll feel less guilty. Despite Field Day, the band has not been busy enough for me to really test the busy detect at the server end. On the client end, the busy detect rarely fails to warn that the frequency is busy and halts a transmit until over-ridden.
Andy K3UK On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Dave AA6YQ <aa...@ambersoft.com> wrote: > > > I disagree. Being able to operate outside the "automatic sub-bands" is an > incentive for operators to preferentially choose servers that include an > effective automatic busy frequency detector and to keep that busy frequency > detector enabled. > > We're in a deep hole dug by those who ran (and continue to run) servers > (e.g. WinLink PMBOs) without busy frequency detectors. This has generated > enormous frustration over the years, to the point where some operators now > intentionally QRM such servers. This intentional QRM is as disgusting as > running a server without a busy frequency detector, and provides a > convenient excuse for server operators to continue avoiding or disabling > busy frequency detectors. > > The first step in escaping from a deep hole is to stop digging. In our > case, this means that > > 1. servers with effective busy frequency detectors enabled should be > welcome across the full range of frequencies available to them as specified > in the applicable regulations > > 2. the intentional QRM must stop > > 3. servers without busy frequency detectors (e.g. WinLink PMBOs) should > immediately be retrofitted with effective busy frequency detectors -- a > possibility that Rick KN6KB stated here a few months ago that he would > investigate > > 73, > >
