It is important to make two things clear on the busy frequency detection vis a vis, Winlink 2000:
1) The current main Winlink 2000 developer successfully wrote the busy dectection program several years ago. I seriously doubt if any reasonable ham would have found it to be inadequate in preventing unintentional transmission by an station operating automatically. 2) Long after it was tested, the Winlink 2000 administrator openly announced that they would not be willing to use such detection because the frequencies were so busy that the automatic station would often not be able to have a clear frequency in which to transmit and would be standing by for long periods of time. That is when some of us, who I think fall into the more reasonable camp, started to withdraw support for these kinds of automatic operations. In the past, the claim was made that it was not possible to even make such a detection program that would be able to handle all kinds of emissions. Then after it was made, they no longer supported it. Something else that seems to be ignored is that automatic stations that are responding to a human operator on the other end of the circuit and are no wider than 500 Hz, can operate at any place within the text digital portions of the bands. There is no requirement that they must be in an automatic subband here in the U.S. 73, Rick, KV9U Dave Bernstein wrote: > > There has been not one report of failure by any developer > > attempting to build a busy frequency detector for use in unattended > stations. The one well-reported attempt to build a busy frequency > detector succeeded beyond expections, but inexplicably has not been > deployed. > > > >
