--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien <k3uka...@...> wrote:
A quick fix for this entire mess is to suggest to those running automated traffic stations to use the World Wide Web. The web is faster, less likely to be affected by atmospheric changes, and remove a thorn in the side of many ham radio operators. I have only intercepted messages being relayed by an automated traffic handling station a few times. The traffic was dull and trivial. It was hardly worth the mayhem now being caused by their operation. Some may disagree with me on the point of traffic being trivial. I just cannot find "happy birthday grandma" to be very important. Grandma would get her birthday which is much quicker through the Web. Dick Zseltvay,KC4COP > I'll accept Dave and Skip's comments as valid points. BTW, the busy detect > does work quite well in Winmor. Simon, I did not have a particular digital > mode in mind, I was just exploring the receptivity to the overall concept of > unattended operations, if "wide" was eliminated from the discussion. > > ANdy K3UK > > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Dave AA6YQ <aa...@...> wrote: > > > > > > > >>>AA6YQ comments below > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > *From:* Jaak Hohensee [mailto:jaak.hohen...@...] > > *Sent:* Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:50 PM > > *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > *Cc:* Dave AA6YQ > > *Subject:* Re: [digitalradio] Unattended narrow mode transmission > > "protection" > > > > Busy detection in case of QRP Olivia 500/32 signals about snr -17dB is > > myth. > > > > >>>One could include an Olivia decoder in one's busy frequency detector. A > > busy detector need not detect all possible digital modes simultaneously; it > > could continuously reconfigure. > > > > >>>And as I said, "perfect is the enemy of good" (with apologies to > > Voltaire). A busy detector that is "only" 80% effective would reduce QRM > > rates from unattended stations by a factor of 5. > > > > 73, > > > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > > > 8.04.2010 19:41, Dave AA6YQ kirjutas: > > > > > > > > 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:digitalradi <digitalradi> > > o...@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...@...> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, > >> Andy obrien <k3ukandy@> <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 > >> > > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Kirjutas ja tervitab > > Jaak Hohensee > > > > > > >
