If there were no means for such stations to avoid transmitting atop
detectable on-going QSOs, I might consider supporting such a proposal. Busy
frequency detection, however, is demonstrably feasible and practical.
Rewarding the long-term rude behavior of ops running unattended
semi-automatic and automatic stations without busy detection by giving them
dedicated sub-bands would send a very clear message: the way to obtain
dedicated frequencies is to unrelentingly drive everyone else out of them.
Appeasement never works.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
-----Original Message-----
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on
Behalf Of Andy obrien
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 7:50 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission "protection"
Let me "drill down" on this some more to find out the prevailing view...
Would those that object to Bonnie's idea, also object if the "wide" modes
were not part of the issue?. How about these objections if there was a
digital mode under 500 Hz that transmitted "unattended" under automatic
control? It seems to me, that after years of complaints that PACTOR, ALE,
and CW (W1AW) just fire up in the middle of a on-going QSO, that having an
area designated for automatic unattended operations makes sense. Then, if
we operate there, we do so knowing that W1AW or a WINMOR server may activate
at any moment? (actually W1AW has a schedule , but you get my drift). A 500
Hz sliver of spectrum in 80, 60 (yes) 30, 17, and 10M would be all that
is needed. The current ALE, Winmor, Pactor, operators (there really are
only about 200 in the world , TOTAL ) would then use narrow forms of their
mode to achieve their aims . coordinate schedules between them, and have
2500 Hz where their operations are primary, and other hams communications in
these segments would be secondary.
Andy K3UK
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:50 PM, n9dsj <n9...@comcast.net> wrote:
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien <k3uka...@...> wrote:
>
> Andy K3UK
Personalities aside, the proposed "bandplan" is a bad idea. I cannot think
of a present or future mode that could be better served by this. ROS has its
own problems and standard ALE and PactorIII presently have areas they can
reside. Neither are new or "advancing the state of art". Even Winmor, which
is relatively recent, can not co-exist with existing Winlink PactorIII; is
why they were told to stay out of the wide bandwidth automatic sub-bands. I
have not found ALE to be a problem as they stay on pre-determined
frequencies and actually have little traffic (no offense intended). The
prospect of wide bandwidth Winlink bots being able to operate on the
suggested frequencies is problematic and antithetical to the need for
frequency conservation.
Bill N9DSJ
>
