Nate Duehr wrote: > 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?
Again-talking about the user radios, not the repeaters. >>> 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. Well, the fact that no one s sing it (like they SHOULD be doing), doesn't make it right to not include it. If a user in the commercial world keeps trouncing on other users, and it causes a problem, they can be cited, and it has happened. The same can apply to hams too. If a D* user(s) trounce on analog users, the analog users can complain, and the D* users will be at fault. > 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) Absoultely! This definitely did NOT come from someone with experience in commercial-probably little to no experience above 29 MHz!
