Lets take this in two parts, John. 1. In your original post (message 13673) you said "You know it not always the fault of the automatic station but more the user". In the scenario you describe below, what did the "user" being QRM'd do wrong?
2. Why is it unreasonable to expect the automatic station to verify that the frequency is clear before transmitting? In its decision to allow automatic operation, the FCC said "First, the control operator of the station that is connected to the automatically controlled station must prevent the automatically controlled station from causing interference." As your scenario perfectly illustrates, the person who remotely activates the automatic station can't reliably prevent the automatic station from causing interference by simply listening to the frequency at his or her end. Only a "listener" at the automatic station can ensure this. That "listener" could be a human operator who only enables his or her automatic station when present to prevent interference, or it could be a circuit and/or algorithm that detects a busy frequency. Either way, there is no excuse for failure to prevent interference with an ongoing QSO, as is required. The FCC quote can be found in http://home.earthlink.net/~bscottmd/fcc97221.htm ; its in paragraph 6. Note that its dated April 1995. The requirement to prevent interference has been in force for many years. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In [email protected], John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dave I could talk till I was blue in the face about ready > to drop dead. But you and others already have you mind > made up with this anti wide and pactor attitude. > > I nor anyone else could say a thing that would please > you. > > Lets try the guy 150 miles from you well within your > ring of silence (you can't copy each other if you had to) > listens to the frenquncy (unable to ask if the frequency > is in use on every mode known to man) hears nothing. > brings up the auto station and in doing so QRM's a QSO > on the same frequency that he did not hear. > > Now as I see it that is not the fault of the auto station. > But I know you are going to say that the auto station > *should* be able to tell if it was in use. And that is getting > real old with me. > > > > > At 06:47 PM 2/20/06, you wrote: > >Yes, lots of talk, but no description of an actual scenario that > >substantiates that talk. > > > >The explanation, I believe, is that there is no such scenario. If you > >disagree, describe the scenario. > > > > 73, > > > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > > > > >--- In [email protected], John Becker <w0jab@> wrote: > > > > > > This has been talked about by many > > > Me for one. > > > > > > At 05:32 PM 2/20/06, you wrote: > > > >I have never seen you or any one else here describe a scenario in > > > >which someone already in QSO on a frequency is QRM'd by an automatic > > > >station, and the fault doesn't lie with the automatic station. > > > > > > > >If you can describe such a scenario, please do so. > > > > > > > > 73, > > > > > > > > Dave, AA6YQ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > > >Other areas of interest: > > > >The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ > >DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) > > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> 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/
