> From: George Henry
> >
> > How absurd! If the average amateur cannot decode an interfering
> > signal, how can he determine if the content is such that it NEEDS
> > to be sent to the Commission for enforcement action (pornographic,
> > commercial, intruder, etc.)?
> >
>
> If it's an INTERFERING signal, the CONTENT is irrelevant!!
>
> > The Commission is not going to be bothered to decode every unique
> > signal sent to them (if the protocol will survive recording) without
> > a reason to believe that there is a basis for enforcement action.
> >
>
> Which interference is....
>
>
> > Self- (or peer-) enforcement is based on the ability of the average
> > amateur to know and react to what is right or wrong.
> >
>
> See above
>
Interference is not the only reason to refer a signal to the Commission
seeking enforcement action. Unless you are advocating that the Amateur
Service be turned into a quasi-commercial mobile service or a vehicle
for secure communications to serve terrorists and drug runners, your
position has no logical foundation. Any argument against freely
available monitoring software is specious and morally bankrupt.
Not every amateur will avail himself of the opportunity to use such
software but I hope that enough will use that monitoring capability
to protect the amateur service.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|