>>>AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Thompson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>snip<
The issue is that if a human is involved, at worst everyone shrugs and
figures he's an impolite operator.
>>>If a human is involved one can send "the frequency is in use,
please QSY". Most of the time, the offending operator will sheepishly
apologize and move. In the few cases where that doesn't happen, you
know you're dealing with a lid.
If an automatic station is involved, it is the "evil enemy" and deep
dark motives are imputed to its operator.
>>>I disagree. QRM by an automatic station generates enormous
frustration because there's no way to say "the frequency is in use,
please QSY". The build-up of this frustration over multiple events
does causse operators to question how any considerate amateur could
operate equipment that transmits without first ensuring that the
frequency is clear. The implication is that operators of automatic
stations without busy frequency detectors believe their traffic to be
more important than everyone elses; this arrogance breeds contempt.
An automatic station should properly achieve a higher
standard than a human operator, if only because it is less able to
apologize and abort, but it seems that many human operators are
unwilling to accept anything short of perfection.
>>>I disagree. To my knowldedge, there are no automatic amateur
stations employing busy frequency detectors. Thus there is no
evidence that human operators are unwilling to accept anthing short
of perfection; other than the SCAMP Beta test, there has been no
deployment of imperfect solutions for human operators to reject.
>>>As I've said before, busy frequency detectors that are 80%
effective would make a huge difference, both by dramatically reducing
the incidence of QRM from automatic stations, and by eliminating the
perception that operators of automatic stations are arrogantly
unconcerned with the impact of that QRM to ongoing QSOs.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
