Your prescription for doing away with spectrum sharing is totally in
conflict with the amateur radio paradigm of shared spectrum/no owns a
frequency.  It will result in the balkanization of the spectrum as
competing modes/protocols/services all ask for their piece of the
spectrum.  You will destroy experimentation because new types of
communication will not have "assigned" spectrum to use.  Once you set
a precedent that amateur spectrum can be "assigned" to a specific use,
you open the doors for everyone to claim their piece of the pie.  Just
exactly how would you propose to deal with this?

You might also elucidate a little on how you would share this "traffic
automation" spectrum between winlink, ntsd, packet, pskmail, ALE, and
other "services" that will come along.  Perhaps you feel "your" little
niche should also be declared a primary user and all other
modes/services should have to give way when you are ready to begin
transmission.  I suspect that if you have time sensitive traffic to
send and since you have already declared that waiting is upsetting,
you will not be satisfied with waiting for a pskmail or packet session
to complete either.

Jim
WA0LYK

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Steve Hajducek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 
> Hello Rud,
> 
> How often does a remote users sending traffic through an automated 
> station have to wait due to an exasberated number of ARQ retries due 
> to stations purposely transmitting CQ's or whatever just because 
> they don't care that its not a two-way QSO that is inhabiting the 
> channel. It's more than a two way street, worst when you consider 
> that the human factor does what it does knowingly and without regard
> to the remote automated station user.
> 
> Again, what is really needed for the ARS to grow and continue to be 
> of value is set aside spectrum for traffic automation where 
> peer-to-peer steer clear, then we shall have the best of situation. 
> Until that happens its just going to be what we have now, which is 
> not the best situation from either perspective.
> 
> /s/ Steve, N2CKH
> 


Reply via email to