Rich Mulvey wrote:
> Kurt wrote:
> > I'm afraid that there is no simple solution to the problem of who
> > is working what mode where. But each operator must be diligent to
> > try as best possible not to QRM another signal on the portion of
> > the band that they are "working."
If others are not "hidden" to him by distance or propagation.
> > Walt and others this is the problem. We are required to check to
> > make sure the freq is not busy and to not interfer with other
> > communications, if we hear them.
Big IF....
> > Yet WinLink is automatic and never checks before it starts
> > transmitting.
This has been said here more than enough times. Winlink response is
triggered by a user
who calls the station and most likely does not hear the others.
> > So who is at fault the operator in qso on a certain
> > freq, or the automatic station that comes on over the qso in
> > progress.
The automatic station is triggered to answer. Or should it remain
silent, as if it were deaf
to the calls because others are hidden to the station calling the
Winlink station ?
I wonder why someone would choose the frequency of such an automatic
station to park on...
ignorance (of published lists, I mean) would be the most likely excuse.
Both attitudes should be questionable. Because ignorance does not excuse
you of obeying laws,
even those you don't know. Tell that to the policeman....if he is a
nice guy, he will let you go...he, he...
didn't you know? C'mon...
It has not the same weight, but it bears resemblance, at least to me.
> > Simple logic would say that the automatic station is wrong,
I would say simplistic logic, the "victims" logic.
> > but it seems that FCC/ARRL/IARU if not others, do not care
> > if the automatic station comes on over the stations already in qso.
Triggered by someone hidden to those in QSO....how would he know?
> > Being this is the digital radio, maybe somewhere down the road a
> > programmer will get a program going that will listen before it
> > transmits, but I guess I will continue to use the computer between
> > my ears to make sure the freq is not busy.
Even when you do that, there will be always some possible hidden
station around you.
How an arbitrary, even mistuned signal, could be positively identified
from "noise"?
What is a signal? What is noise? How would YOU program that? Or it
should be some
"anti vox" triggering the brakes even by the hint of a cat's meow ?
> > Hey it's an old computer but still works great.
Imagine if we were to be trashed as PC's are when we get two years
old....ughh !!!
> It's quite clear that automatic stations in the automatic sub-bands
> are not going away.
>
> But hey - let's try something truly radical: How about - wait for
> it, this is truly a novel idea - how about manually operated stations
> operate somewhere away from the automatic subbands?
Guess this is a really novel idea, a big discovery for quite a few.
> I know, I know, just because there are *wide* swaths of practically
> unused frequencies that are legally available for use for digital
> modes doesn't mean that they're any fun to use. It's *much* more
> entertaining to work *within* the well-known automatic segments and
> then wail and complain about getting stepped on, even when there's a
> vast wasteland of unused space a kHz or two down the band. But hey,
> if we wanted to use logic and reason, we wouldn't all be hams, right?
Looks to me as logical as sitting to read a newspaper in the middle of
the empty
expressway in Australia because there are no ants to bite me....if by
any chance
a car should come my way, no problem, cars have brakes and should
use'em....I should not
be run over....
Sort of reduction to the absurd....but how could we be sure absurd is
always positively identified?
Jose, CO2JA
---
El respeto al derecho ajeno es la paz.
Benito Juarez
__________________________________________
V Conferencia Internacional de Energía Renovable, Ahorro de Energía y Educación
Energética.
22 al 25 de mayo de 2007
Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba
http://www.cujae.edu.cu/eventos/cier
