Erik, I think you hit the nail on the head...
The FCC doesn't buy the approah of reg by BW! At least not for HF. Just my guess. John ----Original Message Follows---- From: list email filter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Report of the ARRL Ad Hoc HF Digital Committee Dissenting Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:15:01 -0700 I don't believe anyone with the power to change the system is 'working on the problem'. The honest fact is that they believe the HF portion of the Winlink 2000 PMBO would cease to function if they implemented frequency in use signal detection, and a process to avoid the hidden transmitter issue. The sad fact is that they are probably right, there is enough bad will against the system amongst the ham community, that if 'they' did implement automatic signal detection and a qrm avoidance process, they probably would experience a drastic reduction in throughput. Of course if the system had been well behaved and less proprietary all along, the current animosity probably wouldn't have ever existed. Both the frequency in use signal detection issue and the hidden transmitter issues have already been solved, at the tax payers expense. Those who claim the problem is 'difficult' or 'unsolvable', either don't understand the problem, are intentionally misrepresenting the complexity of resolving it, or are just repeating what they've been told. Very elegant solutions are already available either in open source, or via the freedom of information act. This is a problem that was solved decades ago by radio astronomers, who resolved it in real time with computers which were dinosaurs compared with the modern junkers many of us have lining the walls of our garages. The real issue, is that 1) the "average" ham, and the "well above average bureaucrat" don't understand the problem, and 2) those who could 'fix' it believe that doing so would cripple their system to the point of making it totally unusable, in short their only incentive is to "not" fix it. I think the American ham community would actually jump at the 'opportunity' to be regulated by bandwidth, if they could also get rid of the misbehaving (semi)automated systems. The real block to progress, is that the wardens of Bonnie's Technology Jail, haven't or won't resolve the qrm problem to pave the way for bandwidth regulation change. Most of the resistance to the bandplan by bandwidth proposal(s), is in fact opposition to the continuation and proliferation of a 'bad' system, and not opposition to bandwidth based band plans at all. 73, Erik N7HMS Danny Douglas wrote: > If they cant make it work, it should die. There is no sense in putting in a > mode that is known to be one that will intefere with other signals. I > really dont think it will come to that. We have too many smart people > working on the problem (or at least I hope they are), and nothing is > impossible as long as it obeys the laws of physics, and even then they seem > to get around them. > > Danny Douglas N7DC > ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA > SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all > DX 2-6 years each > . > QSL LOTW-buro- direct > As courtesy I upload to eQSL but if you > use that - also pls upload to LOTW > or hard card.
