The ARRL's explicit endorsement of WinLink has made it easy for the
WinLink organization to ignore the egregious defect in their
implementation. Convincing the ARRL to take a constructive stand on
QRM from semi-automatic stations would be a more appropriate first
step than calling in the FCC as a blunt instrument.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In [email protected], kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 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
>
