In your scenario, Doc, station B should not reply unless it has
already verified that the frequency is clear on its end. This is the
listen-before-transmit capability we've been discussing.
>From station A's perspective, a non-response from station B means
there's no propagation from A to B, or B is down/busy, or the
frequency is busy at B's end. A's reaction is the same in every
case: try again later.
The SCAMP prototype demonstrated that an automatic listen-before-
transmit capability is technically feasible. The impediment is an
installed base of relatively expensive hardware that lacks this
capability. Without some regulatory incentive to upgrade, even a
soundcard-based solution with listen-before-transmit capability
would largely be ignored by current users unless it offered a
signficant increase in throughput over the current hardware-based
solution. That's a tall order.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In [email protected], doc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > One is I would like to see a sub-band for the automatic
stations, even
> > if it is just a gentleman agreement like the current agreements.
>
> There are too many Hams who are not "gentlemen" using
> modes where they may easily be ID'd by 100% of Hams. This
> tells us that on a mode where they'd only risk ID by
> fewer than 1% of licensed Hams we may expect much worse
> behavior.
>
> A voluntary subband presumes good will. This is, IMHO,
> a somewhat Pollyannish presumption given the historic
> evidence. This is also a philosophical/sociological
> question I suppose.
>
> Below I have offered a possible technological solution
> for the consideration of folks on the list, the ARRL,
> and the FCC.
>
> > Second is if you operate in the subband you have to take the QRM
that
> > comes with it, and if it means that a automatic station comes on
> > without checking to see if the freq is busy so be it, you know
that in
> > the subband it might happen. Also just because you can hear the
> > automatic station does not mean that it can hear you, so even if
does
> > check, doesn't mean it won't start transmitting because it might
not
> > have heard you anyway.
> > Just my opinion. Kurt WA8VBX
>
> Why not require WinLink and similar apps to poll both
> ends to be sure *neither* hears anything *prior* to
> engaging a continued QSO?
>
> This should neutralize the "could not hear them at my
> end" problem.
>
> Station A checks the frequency for activity and finds
> nothing. Station A then calls Station B (or issues a
> general CQ). When Station B replies Station A acknowledges
> then goes silent until Station B also checks for activity.
> *Only* when *both* have verified that their QSO will not
> QRM an existing QSO may they QSO.
>
> There *has* to be a solution to the automatic station
> QRM challenge (whether one postulates it as rare or as
> common it is a serious problem that will grow if the
> mode grows in popularity).
>
> Does my suggestion have technical merit?
>
> 73, doc kd4e
>
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/
