In the case of semi-automatic operation, there is generally no
operator present at the station generating the QRM. Even when an
operator is present, the automatic station control software
immediately responds to an incoming request whether the frequency is
locally clear or not.
If you and I live in the same town, and if whenever I'm in QSO on
14250 you make a habit of calling CQ on that same frequency, then
you would have a difficult time defending yourself against a charge
of malicious interference. You might claim that the frequency
sounded clear to you, but this would not be credible.
An automatic station that listens for incoming requests and
responds, whether or not the frequency is locally clear, would be
similarly vulnerable. Its operator might claim that he or she was
present at the time and heard nothing, but a pattern of interfering
with local ongoing QSOs would undermine that claim.
When the ARRL approved semi-automatic operation back in 1995, it
said (in PR Docket No. 94-59) "We do recognize the concerns of those
who oppose the proposal on the basis of potential interference, and
in response to these concerns we are limiting when automatic control
can be employed. First, the control operator of the station that is
connected to the automatically controlled station must prevent the
automatically controlled station from causing interference. Second,
we are designating subbands to which transmissions between two
automatically controlled stations are confined. These subbands are a
small portion of the spectrum otherwise available for digital
emission types. We also are confident in the ability of the amateur
service community to respond, as it has in the past, to the
challenge of minimizing interference with novel technical and
operational approaches to the use of shared frequency bands."
Thus the FCC expects us to solve this problem, not simply cope with
its resulting QRM. There is in fact a practical technical solution:
the inclusion of busy frequency detectors in automatic stations;
these would prevent the automatic station from responding to an
incoming request when doing so would QRM an ongoing QSO.
Unfortunately, those who develop automatic station software have not
seen fit to include busy frequency detectors. "Advancing the state
of the radio art", so often heralded by those supporting the ARRL
proposal, evidently does not include improving one's software to
avoid QRMing one's fellow amateurs.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In [email protected], "Andrew O'Brien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >will be intolerable unless
> > >operators of semi-automatic stations start losing their
licenses if
> > >their stations habitually QRM in-progress QSOs while responding
to
> > >remote requests.
> >
>
> but Dave, how is this kind of QRM routinely dealt with by the FCC?
> I'm talking about any time a station starts a QSO on an already
> occupied frequency, regardless of mode. Does not the offending
station
> simply have to say "I listened and heard no QSO". How would FCC
> license-taking-away offcials be able to prove that the offending
> operator either did not listen, or listened and heard someone but
> ignored them? I guess if not actually in control of the station
that
> might be proved.
>
> I guess I'm at the point of suggesting that we just cope with the
QRM.
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
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/
