Hi Skip Thanks for your answer . I do not disagree with you , but I do not think you need an extremely hard regime to prevent anarchy.
You wrote "One problem with traditional spread spectrum is that it is designed to be hard to monitor, which therefore means hard to police," What about the lack of capability to monitor the winmor mode ? 73 de LA5VNA Steinar On 21.02.2010 19:30, KH6TY wrote: > I agree, Steinar. The principle we all must follow on amateur > frequencies is that they are SHARED frequencies, which means used on a > first-come-first server basis and anyone accidentally transmitting on > an ongoing QSO must also be capable of moving when asked, as well as > being able to check if the frequency is clear. Some will say that DX > pileups or contesters also do not share, but at the moment of > transmission, the frequency may appear to be clear. The interference > is due to severe overcrowding, and not intentionally trying to > dominate a frequency. This is much different from transmitting without > any attempt to check at all. Winmor, Winlink, and ALE all violate that > time-honored principle, and so did Propnet until they moved off the > normal QSO frequencies. > > Our FCC has set aside a set of frequencies on several bands for > stations that are automatically controlled to accomodate stations that > do not listen first, so those stations have no justifiable excuse to > complain about interference amongst themselves. They are lucky to have > any place at all to operate, and that space is far greater, in > proportion to their representation in the total ham population wishing > to use the bands, than would normally be allocated. Just because one > group thinks THEIR traffic is more important than other traffic does > not give them a right to dominate or claim exclusive or primary use of > any frequency. This is a primarily HOBBY, and not a "service" to > others, and it is only on that basis that we are permitted to keep the > frequencies we have. In a true emergency, ALL frequencies are > available to emergency operators and all others MUST give way, so even > claiming to be essential for emergencies does not convey any right of > ownership of any of our shared frequencies. > > To answer your question specifically, Winmor, if over 500 Hz wide, is > only allowed to operate in those automatic subbands. They are also > required to check that the frequency is clear before transmitting, > even in the automatic subbands, but that is not enforced because it is > basically unenforceable. You can see the result there - stations > regularly trample each other because there no practical means of > enforcing that they do not. Without rules, just imagine what the bands > would be like if powerful or special interest stations that do not > listen first were spread all over the bands. That almost happened a > few years ago until the FCC refused to implement the ARRL regulation > by bandwidth petition. > > Unless we insist on maintaining and supporting the shared nature of > our bands, special interest groups that do not share will take over > the bands and others will have no place in which to operate for QSO's, > experimenting, contesting, DX chasing, etc., One problem with > traditional spread spectrum is that it is designed to be hard to > monitor, which therefore means hard to police, either by ourselves, or > by government agencies. However, since ROS can be monitored by third > parties, we hope that the FCC will amend the regulations to permit ROS > to be used on HF, but until that is done, we in this country have no > choice but to abide by the current regulations, even though they may > seem to be unfair. > > Without any overall supervision, there will be anarchy, and with > arnarchy, chaos will soon follow. Rules help to prevent arnarchy and > chaos, and are not 100% effective, but are better than nothing. > > 73 - Skip KH6TY > > > > > Steinar Aanesland wrote: >> Hi Skip >> >> But why is a mode like WINMOR allowed in US? I know it is not SS , but >> you can't monitor the traffic. >> If I have not totally misunderstood, that is one of the criteria for >> using a digi mode on the band. >> >> Just a thought , but it seems that some part of the FCC rules are more >> important to follow than others. >> >> 73 la5vna Steinar >> >> >> >> >> >> On 21.02.2010 16:17, KH6TY wrote: >> >>> Thank you, Steinar, but there have been serious attempts to dominate >>> >> the HF bands with wideband modes for what is basically a private system >> use, and the FCC acted to protect the bands from that abuse, so while it >> is sad for us right now, what the FCC has done in the past has protected >> all hams worldwide from such abuses, even if you do not realize it. I do >> think ROS should be allowed, but until fully reviewed by the FCC, their >> are correct in not allowing ROS to be used except on an experimental >> basis. Believe me, there are much more dangerous fish in the sea! >> >>> 73 - Skip KH6TY >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------ Try Hamspots, PSKreporter, and K3UK Sked Page http://www.obriensweb.com/skedpskr4.html 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: digitalradio-dig...@yahoogroups.com digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: digitalradio-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
