I don't believe the issue is secrecy; the author of SCAMP would
likely share his experience with anyone interested in adding a busy
frequency detector to his or her digital mode software. The
impediment is a misalignment between cost and benefit.
Were SCS to add busy frequency detection to their SCS modem, they'd
endure the cost of developing and testing the necessary
modifications to their embedded software. Existing users of SCS
modems would then have to purchase the necessary software upgrade,
probably in the form of new ROM chips; I don't see any capability
for downloading software updates for my SCS PTC-IIe. This would be
beneficial to SCS users in that they would QRM each other less
frequently, but most are using batch message passing software (e.g.
WinLink or SailMail) where the impact of hidden transmitter QRM is
more retries and longer latencies, This isn't that big a deal for
background batch operations.
The primary beneficiaries of SCS users updating their modems to
include a busy frequency detector would be keyboard-to-keyboard
digital mode operators, who would notice a marked reduction in QRM
from semi-automatic operations.
Misallignments between cost and benefit occur frequently, and are
typically resolved via regulation -- and we already have the
regulation in place: 97.101(d), which states
"No amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with
or cause interference to any radio communication or signal."
Whenever an automatic station responds to a remote request and
transmits over an ongoing QSO, it's operator is violating 97.101(d).
Enforcing 97.101(d) would provide the necessary incentive to both
SCS and to the users of SCS modems to implement and deploy a busy
frequency detector upgrade.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In [email protected], kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 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 --------------------~-->
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/
