You are pretty persistent, sir.... Dave AA6YQ wrote:
>> >>AA6YQ comments below > > *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Jose A. Amador > >> >>snip<<< > > Rating automatic operations as extremely unpopular with most is > exagerated. It seems to just reflect a extreme point of view of a group > of hams with a certain point of view. Stating that it is probably > illegal still is a biased statement, as it may be still be legal as > well, until PROVEN the contrary. > >> >>You have this backwards, Jose. Unattended station automation software > should only be permitted after demonstrating that it complies will all > relevant regulations. In the US, that includes 97.101(d), which states > that a station cannot willfully interfere with existing signals. You > have acknowledged the existence of the hidden transmitter effect. You > therefore know that a remote initiator cannot reliably prevent an > unattended station from transmitting over an existing signal. As a > result, the unattended station will on occasion willfully interfere with > existing signals – in violation of 97.101(d). > >> >>If you see a flaw in the above logic, please point it out. I cannot read arabic, nor none of those middle eastern backward written languages. I know, I am not perfect. Just as a curiosity, could you please state the date of that 97.101(d)? I am not under FCC jurisdiction, so, I am pretty outdated with all the back and forth changes it has had lately. I just want to know when I all saw and knew changed from forward to backwards. Under your reasoning, automatic operation is IMPOSSIBLE, because noone knows if the called automatic station will QRM someone else, even if there is no band noise, or if it will ever respond, using the activity detector you have been so actively promoting, and yet not in use. So, go ahead with your point and make a proposal to FCC to cancel ALL automatic operations. You will be certainly long remembered. > Lack of listening before transmitting is not a bad feature of automatic > stations only. It also happens with humans stepping on your QSO. > >> >>There is a significant difference. When a human steps on your QSO, > you can say or send “QRL, please QSY”. When an automatic station steps > on your QSO, there is nothing you can do to convince the automatic > station to QSY or QRT. Not always works with humans, either. It happens a lot on 40 meters with CW from the US on my phone portion. There are quite a few characters that simply won't go. On SSB, Morse, english, spanish... I have stated my point. You have stated your point. Both have not changed a bit since yesterday. Write to the FCC, if so suits you, and send your proposal of rulemaking to BAN ALL AUTOMATIC OPERATIONS under its jurisdiction. Have a good night... Jose, CO2JA __________________________________________ Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
