Dan KA3CTQ wrote: > I am sorry Bonnie, but you are arguing from a very weak spot. 1% > asking for 10% and more for a poor efficiency mode is nothing but a > "land grab". Your points are based in personal opinion and lack any > examples or numbers to back up the need to make this change.
Exactly right. I have been a ham for 40 years, and active on digital for almost 20. During this time I have participated in emergency communications in the aftermath of earthquakes, and during fires. Never, not once, did automated systems make a measurable or significant contribution to any emergency communications. The myth that they do is merely cover for them to push forward their agenda. And that agenda has nothing, nada, to do with emergency communications. Every emergency in my lifetime that involved emergency communications by hams was handled by SSB and CW stations, and FM stations, manned by live amateurs, usually operating under rough field conditions. Unattended Pactor transmitters should not be permitted on HF at all. Most or (likely) all that presently operate on HF are illegal because they transmit without checking the frequency to see if it is in use. Why any amateur would want to see our bands cluttered up with a third-rate email forwarding system is a mystery. This is band pollution, about on a par with BPL. de Roger, W6VZV
