Exactly. They wrap themselves in the flag of innovation, but refuse to
employ existing technology already in their possession to prevent PMBOs from
QRMing other stations. The cost per PMBO to do this? Around $25.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
-----Original Message-----
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Les Zavadil
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 4:03 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] RE: RM11392
But the "client", unless co-located with the PMBO, cannot hear what the PMBO
hears and the PMBO does not "listen" for non-Pactor transmissions before it
transmits. That is the problem. Seems to me that this would be a
relatively easy fix for the "technologically superior" Pactor advocates, but
haven't seen any evidence of any effort to do so, just over the top alarmism
about stifling innovation. -- 73 -- Les, W4FRA
----- Original Message -----
From: radionut8888
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 16:26
Subject: [digitalradio] RE: RM11392
After reading all of the comments posted regarding this topic, it
appears that it is a mini version of "regulation by bandwidth". It
appears to me that it effectively would ban digital modes wider than
1.5kHz from the lower 100kHz of HF bands.
I agree that automatic operation is a problem, and this can only start
from a PMBO or PMBO like system, however, a PMBO system does not
transmit until it had been queried by a "client". This takes a PMBO
out of the realm of unattended operation, even though it is automatic
operation.
I don't favor any petition whose effect would be to stifle innovation,
and frankly, the digital modes are where amateur innovation is
occurring. Not to say I don't support CW or Voice, but never to the
exclusion of newer modes because of their signal characteristics.
I have submitted a comment in opposition to this petition.
Thanks for the time,
Phil ..
