Re: Definition of Subscriber?

["R.H.Campbell" <rh.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't have any particularily strong feelings one way or the other on this
issue of AC failures. I just can't see the need to transmit thousands of
signals that really don't tell anyone very much of anything. There have been
a few very valid reasons to do so outlined in this thread, and at least one
person replied who personally sees a need to know when his panels may crap
out after a long AC failure. No disagreement there; however, for me, it is
enough to respond to low battery signals, which will come in after any AC
failure duration. Why flood the station with thousands of useless AC
signals, thats all. During the great ice storm of 1998, when power was out
for weeks at a time, I can only imagine the number of AC signals received at
all monitoring stations, and wonder what purpose they served, since the
whole country knew we were in a major state of emergency at the time.

Perhaps I don't know enough about how stations respond to all these "spam
signals". I would agree wholeheartedly with you on your statement about a CS
that couldn't handle this type of mass receipt of signals being one to
avoid. However, I have to question the wisdom of sending this flood of AC
signals to begin with if it serves no useful purpose....

RHC

"Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1IGdnRjihsiMsdreRVn-gQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> I do strongly disagree about your stance with AC signals, any central
> station that can't handle those 10,000 signals is one I want to avoid.
>
>
>