Yes, that can happen to transmitters in general, on any mode. But, as long as an operator is sitting there doing the control of the transmission, he is capable of immediately knowing what is happening. For instance: I come up on a freq, in SSB, and listen. Hearing nothing, I ask twice if the frequnecy is busy. Either someone responds, or they dont. If they do, I go elsewhere, find another freq and ask again. If no one responds, then I can reasonably be insured I am not going to interfere by calling CQ or call my scheduled partner. The Pactor, or any other automated station, without a control operator is not able to do that. It cant come up and ask if the freq is clear or not. I am also reasonably sure that most Pactor (read - automatic stations - because there are certainly other such modes) operators who want keyboard to keyboard QSOs, DO listen. I am not sure that they ever first go to SSB and ask if the frequency is clear or not. Asking in the Pactor mode, would probably not get much response from SSB or other mode operators who would immediately think that you had just come up automatically to operator. They wouldnt know the difference, not being able to copy it. Here, we might take a look at SSTV operators, who generally do just that. We come up on SSB, ask if the freq is clear, wait a few moments, ask again, and hearing nothing, will either call a CQ on SSB stating we are looking for an SSTV contact, or we might just, at that time, immeidately transmit a CQ via SSTV. Either way, we should first insure (via SSB) that no one is using the freq. (The old hidden transmitter syndrome).
Your second paragraph would be covered if the software is correctly written and used. It would have manual bypass which would allow you, as a control operator sitting in place, to bypass the busy guard in order to transmit and check for an ongoing QSO. I think this is how the original "busy guard" was written, and as explained to me. Third paragraph: same as second, with the bypass capability. I understand your thinking, or at least think I do. HI But, I believe what it comes down to, is without adopting the "busy guard", the powers that be in the auto digitial world are going to find more and more resistance from the rest of us, and eventually the FCC is going to have to step in and make a decision. I dont think that the digital world wants that. They certainly dont need that, and can prevent it by quickly adopting the "busy guard" capability. I also think they are pushing to avoid the "busy guard", by ignoring it at this point, hoping it will go away. After all, who wants to be told "Yes- the frequency is busy". I personally think there is a place for automatic transmission "on guard" sites. I would envision such to exist on every ham band, where I or any other operator could go, immediately connect up, and report an emergency situation. That way, whether sailing or driving an RV, or sitting at home with the phones out, I could get someones immediate attention for sickness, accidents, etc. But those should not spread over large sections of any band, or be in the middle of an ongoing conversation. Easily avoided, by strict adherence of, not a band-plan, but a specific assigned frequency, and to be used ONLY for emergencies. Other than that, such transmission modes should be used, as are any others, with a control operator and for keyboard to keyboard operaton. I really dont see where we have either the spectrum or the necessity to turn ham radio into a common carrier operation. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB All 2 years or more (except Novice) Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for those who do.
