What is your solution?
--- On Mon, 3/8/10, g4ilo <jul...@g4ilo.com> wrote:
From: g4ilo <jul...@g4ilo.com>
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 10:35 AM
I'm with Skip here.
First of all, hardly anyone uses RSID, even though it is already available, so
I suspect you will not get enough people to use it to make a significant impact
on the problem.
Second of all, and very relevant to the particular issue that has given rise to
this discussion, RSID is not supported by single-mode software and would be no
use even if it did because as well as RSID you have got to have a common mode
of communication.
So for this to work everyone would have to use software that had RSID enabled
permanently and supported at least two modes one of which would be the "common
communication" one.
Also, the RSID has to work down to the same depth in the noise as the modes you
are trying to protect. Otherwise you will have a system for asking if the
frequency is in use which would be no more effective than just listening.
Julian, G4ILO
--- In digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com, Warren Moxley <k5...@...> wrote:
>
> Skip,
>
> "since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. "
>
> This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for over 35
> years and have heard there is "no way" a lot of times only to come up with a
> solution a few days later either by myself or others on my team.
>
> It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by using
> an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a defacto standard.
> Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID protocol. Currently we are
> using it to just let others know what mode we are in. Maybe more information
> can be put in the the RSID packet, for example, Call sign and some reserved
> bits for the purpose of QSY. Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency
> is already in use and many other codes that can be expanded for this use.
>
> Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem solvers
> on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with a solution.
> Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of the hobby. I am
> ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain storming. RSID expansion may
> or may not be a good idea. Do not take my RSID packet expansion as what we
> should do but as a point of discussion on how to solve a problem. That's the
> real point here. Let's take my simplistic example as start and let's go from
> here. Let's not get bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the
> better mode and it is just too hard of a problem to solve.
>
