Because it was occurring right on published winlink channels. Could some of them been kb2kb, sure, some of them could have been. However, even then, there weren't that many kb2kb qso's on pactor taking place in the auto sub-bands.
Why do you think winlink has spread their stations out? Without busy detection do you think this wouldn't occur? Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "John Becker, WØJAB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sorry Jim but you did not say in your post > how you knew it was WinLink stations? > And not some KB2KB QSO.. > > At 08:43 PM 10/14/2007, you wrote: > >Don't believe everything you hear. A couple of years ago when I was > >doing packet work, I listened to winlink a lot. What I heard > >convinced me that clients did not listen and that the hidden > >transmitter was not only a problem with other stations, but winlink > >stations too. You can't believe how many times I heard a winlink > >session be interfered with by another winlink session starting up! > > > >Do you really think they would consolidate their pmbos to just a few > >frequencies with busy detection even if no one interfered with them? > >I don't believe so. Their users expect "instant" access and would not > >be willing to come back periodically to try and initiate a session > >should a "busy detector" not allow a session. As a result, they will > >continue to try and gain access to sufficient frequencies to allow one > >freq, one pmbo. > > > >Pactor 3's proclivity to increasing its bandwidth anytime during a > >session is one of the biggest problems, and will continue to be so > >regardless of busy detection or not. I don't understand how anyone > >can expect hams not to initiate sessions within a 3 kHz channel around > >ANY pactor signal. Heck, entire sessions may take place in pactor 2 > >and last for the duration of a band opening. It seems unreasonable to > >claim all that space when it may not even be used. It's like saying > >my use is more important than anybody else's. > > > >Jim > >WA0LYK >
