I'm not sure soundings can be classified as beacons. The rule states "or other related experimental activities" which indicates that beacons have an experimental purpose, not one used for negotiating a two way conversation. In other words, you can't have a two-way conversation with a beacon.
The pertinent rule is probably 97.111(b)(2) Brief transmissions necessary to establishing two-way communications with other stations; This allows one-way transmissions in the attempt to "call" another station, i.e. be the instigator of a two-way transmission. CQ is simply a way to call "anyone listening" for an immediate two-way transmission. A sounding is NOT calling another station. So one could question whether it is legitimate. However, the way the rule is written, I'm not sure announcing your presence at a given frequency would be disallowed either! Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > When ALE is is used for selcal purposes, Part 97 allows this incidental > use of tones, at least in the voice/image portions of the bands. I have > not heard anyone comment negatively about that. > > As I had brought up earlier, it is when ALE is begin used for > "soundings" or what is really beaconing. At this time beaconing is > ilegal when a station is operated automatically. The ALE proponents have > been rather clear about claiming that the soundings are needed > specifically for propagation purposes. There is no need to know that > they station is there to talk to. Compare this to the Aplink and Winlink > systems of the past and the current Winlink 2000 system of today. Those > stations were standing by on a series of frequencies in case they were > interrogated by a human operator (or in some cases in the past were over > the air machine to machine transmissions which is no longer done). They > were following Part 97 rules. > > Clearly, before sounding operations can legally be done in automatic > operation, the Part 97 rules need to be changed. > > A control operator who continues to send CQ when they are not at the > control point, nor are operating under auxiliary modes, who also be in > violation of the rules as you so noted. > > If you only wait 5 seconds before transmitting on a frequency (there are > no channels in amateur radio except on 60 meters where ALE and digital > modes are prohibited), you would not be waiting long enough to know if > the frequency is available for your use. It may be occupied. If there > were two stations in ARQ operation, and the ARQ was frequent enough, you > would be able to hear at least one side of the circuit. However, > asynchronous ARQ modes such as FAE and longer ARQ times may not be > detected within 5 seconds. > > Waiting only 5 seconds on any new frequency that you are just monitoring > before transmitting would be considered by most reasonable hams to be > exceptionally poor operating procedure at what most would consider a > true lid level. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > > Robert Thompson wrote: > > A couple of minor comments: > > > > 97.3(a)(9)/ Beacon/. An amateur station transmitting communications for > > the purposes of observation of propagation and reception or other > > related experimental activities. > > > > ALE as is normally used, is actually operated as a selective calling > > and linking interface. Rather than "beaconing" (transmitting without > > being interested in responses) specifically for propagation purposes, > > it is primarily doing a "de CALLSIGN, here I am if you want to talk to > > me". The much vaunted propagation aspect is actually a secondary > > characteristic: While it's designed to speed up links, it does so by > > effectively sorting the bands in order of probability of success. This > > is good both because it reduces congestion on frequencies that > > wouldn't have succeeded for a link between this particular pair of > > stations. > > > > If that's beaconing, so is the user who leaves his keyer sending CQ. > > > > > > As far as the "decode and understand" of a QRL response, an ALE or > > other automatic (as opposed to unattended ;-) station does not need > > to understand the response, since the presence of *any* response is > > sufficient to tell the automatic station that the channel is in use. > > Basically, the existing occupant merely has to transmit *anything* > > within x seconds of the QRL? and the busy detector should notice it. > > > > It shouldn't be too difficult to add a user-configured option to the > > common ALE software implementations that does QRL? in 5 wpm CW, then > > waits 10 seconds before otherwise transmitting. That way we could see > > if it's useful in practice rather than continuously discussing it in > > theory. (on the pro side, it fits the expectation of other hams; on > > the con side, it jams the frequency about as effectively as a short > > sounding does, but without actually getting the job done) > > > > There's a good chance that the ALE software could gain 99% of the > > advantage available by simply listening an additional 5 seconds to the > > channel before transmitting. Basically, just add a longer listen > > window to the state machine in front of all "initial transmit on this > > frequency" cases, except cases where the frequency is known by the > > software to have been in use for valid ALE traffic within the past > > minute or so (in which case any interrupted QSOs chose to set up on a > > busy frequency, so they are the interlopers, not the ALE traffic) > > > > > > > > > > > > >
