>>>AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>snip< The issue is that if a human is involved, at worst everyone shrugs and figures he's an impolite operator. >>>If a human is involved one can send "the frequency is in use, please QSY". Most of the time, the offending operator will sheepishly apologize and move. In the few cases where that doesn't happen, you know you're dealing with a lid. If an automatic station is involved, it is the "evil enemy" and deep dark motives are imputed to its operator. >>>I disagree. QRM by an automatic station generates enormous frustration because there's no way to say "the frequency is in use, please QSY". The build-up of this frustration over multiple events does causse operators to question how any considerate amateur could operate equipment that transmits without first ensuring that the frequency is clear. The implication is that operators of automatic stations without busy frequency detectors believe their traffic to be more important than everyone elses; this arrogance breeds contempt. An automatic station should properly achieve a higher standard than a human operator, if only because it is less able to apologize and abort, but it seems that many human operators are unwilling to accept anything short of perfection. >>>I disagree. To my knowldedge, there are no automatic amateur stations employing busy frequency detectors. Thus there is no evidence that human operators are unwilling to accept anthing short of perfection; other than the SCAMP Beta test, there has been no deployment of imperfect solutions for human operators to reject. >>>As I've said before, busy frequency detectors that are 80% effective would make a huge difference, both by dramatically reducing the incidence of QRM from automatic stations, and by eliminating the perception that operators of automatic stations are arrogantly unconcerned with the impact of that QRM to ongoing QSOs. 73, Dave, AA6YQ