[digitalradio] Re: FCC and the unattended ALE/PACTOR lepers

2007-09-23 Thread jgorman01
In addition, 97.3(a)(22) Harmful interference. Interference which endangers the functioning of a radionavigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunication service operating in accordance with the Radio Regulations. 97.109(

Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC and the unattended ALE/PACTOR lepers

2007-09-23 Thread Chuck Mayfield
Folks, [mounting soapbox] when I was young, say 45 years ago, my brothers and I would be arguing. One would say "Dad, so and so is doing [whatever]." Dad would reply, "Do you guys REALLY want me to come in there?" Look. Government toleration of ham radio is good. Government regulation of ham rad

[digitalradio] Re: FCC and the unattended ALE/PACTOR lepers

2007-09-23 Thread Dave Bernstein
We can resolve matters among ourselves by including busy frequency detectors and some form of QRL detector in unattended stations. Then the remote operator could fulfil his or her responsibilities as control operator for the unattended station, and we could all spend more time operating, design

[digitalradio] Re: FCC and the unattended ALE/PACTOR lepers

2007-09-23 Thread Dave Bernstein
Without question, Hollingsworth would prefer that we find a way to resolve the matter ourselves. On the other hand, there's no way to know whether he fully understands that unattended stations like WinLink PMBOs have no control operator. The proponents of unattended operation claim that the r

Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC and the unattended ALE/PACTOR lepers

2007-09-23 Thread Roger J. Buffington
Andrew O'Brien wrote: > > Yes Dave, but my questions are related to what Hollingworth was > saying at Dayton. Was he implying that they don't really care about > the issue and suggesting that we all lighten up and resolve the > matters among ourselves ? I sure hope that is not what he meant.

Re: [digitalradio] Re: FCC and the unattended ALE/PACTOR lepers

2007-09-23 Thread Andrew O'Brien
Yes Dave, but my questions are related to what Hollingworth was saying at Dayton. Was he implying that they don't really care about the issue and suggesting that we all lighten up and resolve the matters among ourselves ? On 9/23/07, Dave Bernstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Here's

[digitalradio] Re: FCC and the unattended ALE/PACTOR lepers

2007-09-23 Thread Dave Bernstein
Here's what §97.7 says: "§97.7 Control operator required When transmitting, each amateur station must have a control operator. The control operator must be a person: (a) For whom an amateur operator/primary station license grant appears on the ULS consolidated licensee database, or (b) Who

[digitalradio] Re: FCC and the unattended ALE/PACTOR lepers

2007-09-23 Thread jgorman01
Except pactor 3 modems, in essence, choose the operating bandwidth in an "unattended" fashion. Even in a keyboard to keyboard conversation, a pactor 3 modem can vary its bandwidth based upon the signal strength and do so without operator intervention. This means you might spend 15 minutes at 500