If you can convince the FCC to adopt separate sub-bands, fine. Until then, US operators of unattended stations are required to prevent those stations from transmitting over existing QSOs. Whether you do that with a busy frequency detector, a squad of high-school students hired to monitor your station 24x7, or some new technique of your invention is fine; allowing your unattended station to QRM others is violation of 97.101(d); worse, in my opinion, it violates the basic respect that each amateur is expected to grant his or her peers.
In your statement below, you make clear that your problem with busy frequency detectors is not that they can't be implemented, or that they won't achieve their purpose, but rather that they would "hinder timely access to automated communications". By this you are saying that traffic handled by unattended stations is more important than other amateur QSOs. You are saying that it's OK to keep QRMing ongoing QSOs because the alternative -- a busy frequency detector - might occasionally delay an unattended station's ability to transfer messages. This is incredibly arrogant, and again violates a basic principle of amateur radio - that no one has more rights to a frequency than anyone else (emergency conditions excepted). At least you have the courage to clearly state your position. Perhaps the discussion can now focus on the root cause of the conflict, rather than all this chaff about busy frequency detectors not being possible to implement. 73, Dave, AA6YQ From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Hajducek Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 7:09 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Need new emergency communications mode Dave, As simple as I can put it for you, it is my opinion that the better solution is separation into sub bands is the only logical solution to your perceived issues with automated stations triggered by remote users as technology as we know it now (and likely for a very long time to come) does not offer a workable frequency busy detection solution that would not hinder timely access to automated communications in my opinion. /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 06:22 PM 10/18/2007, you wrote: I have suggested that automatic busy detection be disabled on unattended stations handling during emergencies. This has nothing to do with preferring the human factor, whatever that might be. It has to do with optimizing for the transport of messages during an emergency situation. Your overall argument seems to be that QRM between amateur stations can't be entirely eliminated, so it's okay if unattended stations QRM existing signals. Keep in mind that 97.101(d) prohibits *willful* interference. If stations A calls CQ and in the process QRMs station B, but station A cannot hear station B, then the interference is by definition not willful. However if station A can hear station B but calls anyway, then the interference is willful and station A is in violation of 97.101(d). This does happen, but it's very infrequent; any ham would refer to A as a lid in these circumstances. Unattended stations behave exactly like station A above. When initiated by a remote station, they transmit whether they will QRM a station or not. This behavior is unacceptable whether or not there's a technical solution that can prevent it much of the time. It's double unacceptable when the solution is not incorporated. I am disappointed that someone as comfortable with digital technology as you are would offer up a continuous stream of lame excuses for not deploying this solution (or a better one, if you have one in mind). 73, Dave, AA6YQ