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
