Although I admire and support the concept, deployment, and technical achievement of the NCDXA International Beacon System, I view this system as a "secondary user" of the amateur radio spectrum with all the rights and privileges of a secondary user.
Certainly the goal of avoiding interference to this resource is admirable, but a defacto "no interference" policy will be a futile exercise. Publishing a partial list of operators who have strayed onto 14.100 mHz does nothing to reduce interference. However, if no interference is a desired goal, a new STA license should be submitted with a request for clear channels of operation, maybe a kHz or so *outside* the amateur radio bands. According to the NCDXF/IARU website, the beacon system was originally deployed in 1979. During the past 25 years, hardware and beacon monitoring software have been developed, marketed and sold. The international value of this radio propagation system could be leveraged to petition the FCC for a new STA. Or maybe it's time for this technology to migrate from "amateur" status to full blown "commercial" status, just like many other developments in the past. The most recent example that comes to my mind is the development of the PacketCluster system. It was originally conceived and developed by Dick Newell - AK1A to help DXers monitor DX station activities. Dick developed this system with assistance from many amateur radio operators. Several years later the product was taken to the commercial market as Cerulean Technologies. In 2000 this company was purchased by Aether Systems for $150 million. Today, the mobile communication systems used by hundreds of police and emergency services companies are the result of one amateur radio product being taken to the commercial marketplace. Like I said, maybe it's time for the beacon system to move to the next level too. 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Keane K1MK To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 11:00 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: RTTY Hall of Shame At 11:51 PM 9/25/06, Patrick Soileau wrote: >I fail to see where beacons are more important than QSOs. They're not. Which is why the FCC rules do not permit US stations to operate automatically controlled beacons on HF; and why W6WX and KH6YY require STAs for their beacon operations. 73, Mike K1MK Michael Keane K1MK [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 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/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> 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/
