My recollection is that the discussions leading to the creation of the
automatic sub-bands included expressions of the same concerns that continue to
surface here: an operator in California who activates an unattended station in
Denver can't know that the unattended station will QRM an ongoing QSO between
stations in Chicago and Dallas because the operator in California hears neither
of those stations. The FCC's solution to this problem was to
1. remind amateurs that they are expected to solve technical problems like this
one
2. confine automatic operation above a specified baud rate to the "automatic
sub-bands"
As has been pointed out here too many times, viable busy frequency detectors
have indeed been developed, but they have unfortunately not been widely
deployed. Perhaps Winmor will user in a new age of enlightenment.
Your ALE setup is automatic, but its only unattended if its operating while you
aren't in control.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Andy obrien <k3uka...@...> wrote:
>
> > When there's no emergency underway, however, the "automatic bands" are
> > available to all amateur stations, not just unattended stations. Its no
> > more acceptable for unattended stations to QRM ongoing QSOs in the
> > "automatic bands" than it is to QRM them anywhere else within the amateur
> > spectrum.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Dave, AA6YQ
> >
>
>
> Excuse me for being so dumb, Dave... what is the purpose for allowing
> "unattended" stations in a specific part of a band if they have to
> listen to make sure a frequency is clear? I don't "get it". Also, am
> I wrong in thinking that "unattended versus "automatic" means the
> same thing?
>
>
> Hmm, in thinking back to the days that all this may have started,
> packet days, I remember that my TNC would not transmit a packet if
> the TNC detected another station, it would wait a second or two. is
> this the difference , that unattended with busy detect is fine ?
>
> Andy K3UK
>
