Dave, A hole in one!
You don't have to monitor 100 percent of the traffic, I suspect that you will only have to monitor a small bit of it to find commercial traffic. If I am wrong, good thing. OO's should not be setting WinLink up to fail, just monitoring them like every one else should be, by peers. If they are not in compliance with the non-commercial aspects of Amateur Radio, it's up to the FCC to do something about it. OO's would only report. So any ARRL officials reading this, when are you going to equip a few OO's with the Pactor III modems? In RM-11306 you claim that "self policing" works, lets see some deeds with those words. 73 N6CRR --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Purchasing an SCS modem provides the ability to monitor Pactor III. > If an automatic station software employs a higher-level protocol > atop Pactor III, that protocol must by rule be publicly documented. > If the automatic station software provides a monitoring function, > then that software could be purchased and deployed to the OOs; > otherwise, we'd have to convince the software supplier to provide a > monitoring function (which almost certainly exists for debugging > purposes) or construct a monitor using the public documentation. The > latter course should rarely be required, but if so it could be > accomplished by the free software development community. > > 73, > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <mrfarm@> wrote: > > > > If we are talking about Pactor III mode, (not sure about P2), it > may be > > very difficult to monitor. Not impossible, but would likely > require some > > special software to decompress the B2F, etc. More than one P3 > promoter > > has pointed this out to ARC I believe as a way to keep others from > being > > able to read the data like we do from most other modes. > > > > 73, > > > > Rick, KV9U > > > > Dave Bernstein wrote: > > > > > I said "a fraction", not "a few". > > > > > > I'm assuming that only a fraction of automatic station operators > > > would flaunt the CW identification rule or fail to enforce the no > > > commercial content rule; thus it would not be necessary to equip > > > every OO with the ability to monitor every automatic protocol. > To do > > > otherwise would cut down on the pool of OOs (not everyone has the > > > room or apetite for the equipment), and unnecessarily increase > the > > > cost. > > > > > > 73, > > > > > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > 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/
