I don't personally do not advocate or favor stations under fully automatic control within the HF spectrum, especially when there are other avenues for transfer. I do certainly avocate "listening before tranmitting" under remote or local control, and I agree that signal detection should be deployed.
The resulting occasional "hidden transmitter effect" talked about by some is minimal when compared to what is experienced during any DX pileup or contest, especially, when one is not directly or indirectly involved in such a contest. But, of course, no one complains about such things, and to date, as far as I know, no one has been cited for either. Be that as it may, we are experimenting with active signal detection rather than the currently passive signal detection. That was the main purpose in experimenting with SCAMP. But, I sonder why there is not active signal detection experimentation for contesting. Steve, k4cjx --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 08:59 PM 1/19/06, you wrote: > >If the hard-coded sub-band only applied to automatic stations > >without the ability to avoid QRMing a busy frequency, then > >appropriately improving your protocol and software would allow you > >to operate anywhere, subject only to bandwidth segmentation. > > > Will * never * happen > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
