On May 11, 2008, at 10:13 PM, wd8chl wrote: > That's what I was headed towards. The original post of the FCC answer > (the part I quoted) seemed to lead that the petitioners were > requesting > additional repeater spectrum partially based on D-Star users not being > able to determine if a frequency was in use by another mode. That is > decidedly NOT a legitimate concern! There needs to be means to > determine > that there is other traffic on the frequency, somehow.
No there doesn't... unless analog systems are going to start doing it also. Coordination is key. (And if that means there are no suitable pairs, then there are no suitable pairs. I have no problem with that.) And the analog systems are also monitoring their outputs in carrier squelch too? >> Your assertion that ALL P25 rigs do busy channel lockout, is flat out >> wrong. > > I never said that. I said that they all have some means of monitoring > the channel for activity. Most have the 'dual-mode' feature I > mentioned, > most DO have BCL (but MOST don't have it programmed), and all at least > have either a hangup clip function for mobiles, or a monitor button > next > to the PTT for handhelds. Ahh, okay. I guess that's where we're disagreeing, or missing each other. Even if the repeaters, rigs, and what-have you... HAVE a busy-channel- lockout feature, no one is using them. So there's really no need to add it to D-STAR rigs, if no one else using the spectrum needs the feature. So the whole thing is a moot point, and it was a misguided way for the petitioners to argue their case. (One of the many reasons it went down in flames, I'm sure.) I think we both definitely agree on THAT! (GRIN) -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
