> Thus software technology available for more than a year would if > deployed dramatically reduce the QRM generated by semi-automatic > stations. Rather than waste time debating the edge conditions under > which busy frequency detection might be imperfect, we should > recognize that it is already well above the bar and encourage its > deployment. 73, Dave, AA6YQ
What is required to press this technology out of secrecy and into the public domain -- and why is there resistance to release it a year after it has been proved? Once the technology is generally available ... Is it going to become necessary to bypass the ARRL and to go directly to the FCC to force the implementation of busy frequency detection for *all* digital users? It clearly meets the FCC standard of Ham self-regulation, would relieve them of many complaints and substantially focus their enforcement efforts on the rare scofflaw who refused to utilize busy frequency detection. Perhaps it is time for someone qualified to draft a proposal to the FCC and to begin gathering signatures of licensed Hams and of representatives of other services who may have an interest, perhaps Homeland Security for whom controlling potential QRM during critical times is important. WDYT? -- Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e http://bibleseven.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/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/
