Andy,
The issue for me has less to do with bandwidth than operating methodology. The same problems exist independent of bandwidth; although wider bandwidth modes certainly exasperate the situation. I agree that Winlink servers scanning multiple frequencies is a poor use of limited frequency allocations. Regardless of the mode and/or bandwidth, the issue appears to be that of transmitting on a frequency already in use. While manual operators certainly do this, at least the they have control over it; unlike bots with mode specific "busy detection" or that feature disabled. I would certainly support a narrow bandwidth area *within the existing automatic sub-bands* for automatic operations; but not if it were allocated at the expense of non-automatic users. 73, Bill N9DSJ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien <k3uka...@...> wrote: > > 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...@...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, Andy > > obrien <k3ukandy@> 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 > > > > > > > > > >
