>>>AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>snip<
I find all this channel busy detect crap rather funny myself, I know
such a statement is going to bring out the flames, but intentional
interference is one thing, however system automation for digital
communications where one end of the equation is automated and the
goal is for the Remote Attended station to grab the Automated station
for access to send and receive e-mail is not interference, the
stations that are operating on the same spectrum should know better,
its that simple.
>>>Exactly how would they know better, Steve? Have you nailed "no
trespassing" signs up on "your" frequencies?
Really what should be done at the next WARC is set aside 10, 25, 50
to 100Khz (depending on the spectrum size of each given band in
question) off little used Voice spectrum on the bottom of each band
that goes mostly unused except for contests of the occasional rare DX
station that pops up for much more useful daily Traffic Automation
Systems using 3Khz channels ( or better ) with no symbol rate
limitations where no peer-to-peer contacts are NOT allowed in my
opinion, there is just so much Phone spectrum going to waste its just
stupid, especially consider the benefits it provided by Traffic
Automation. Such a move would be a move in the right direction for
the future of the Amateur Radio Service.
>>>I agree that there should be HF band segments where unattended
stations can operate without busy detection, and that these segments
should be broad enough to encourage experimentation with wideband
digital modes. Until that happens, you're sharing spectrum with other
amateurs, and are expected to operate your equipment in a manner
that's respectful of ongoing QSOs.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
