> Each time a WinLink PMBO transmits on a frequency that's already
> in use, its operator is violating §97.101. The interference is not
> malicious, but it is clearly willful.
We need to ask the FCC for more aggressive enforcement.
> An announcement from the ARRL stating that they will not support
> any semi-automatic system that violates §97.101 would provide the
> incentive required for the WinLink organization to immediately
> incorporate busy frequency detection in their PMBOs -- particularly
> if this announcement contained an appropriately supportive quote from
> the FCC's Hollingsworth.
But will the ARRL and FCC agree to ban the use of any digital
mode that does not have always-on busy frequency detection (when
initially connecting and for at least the first two minutes -- to
permit a "hidden transmitter" to be detected on the handover of an
ongoing QSO) and also always-on clear-mode ID's?
Ham history teaches us that the Ham fraternity unfortunately
includes the same percentage of selfish scoff-laws as the rest of
society. We could blindly open the floodgates but carelessly
opening things up without proper boundaries will not create greater
freedom but will instead create freedom-limiting anarchy.
The 11 meter band is clear evidence of the failure to
maintain and enforce necessary boundaries.
If the FCC fails to enforce existing regs then adding more
freedom for the selfish and careless to spread the problem is
hardly a wise choice.
If the FCC shows evidence of a sustainable commitment
to the aggressive enforcement of existing regs *then* relaxing
the boundaries would make sense.
It is unfortunate to experimentation and technological
advancement that this is necessary but blame the selfish
scofflaws and not the ARRL or the FCC.
--
Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
Projects: ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com
Personal: bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
