I am not privy to the PMBO code, but I would be extremely surprised if "Active busy detection would stop all PMBO operations." All that is required is for a PMBO in its idle state to not respond to an incoming user request if the busy detector output was positive anytime during the last X minutes; where 1 < X < 5.
A more likely concern is that adding a busy busy detector would make PMBOs vulnerable to intentional QRM. This is one of the tradeoffs we all make by using the amateur bands for communications as opposed to commerical services. However, a WinLink PMBO could easily outlast a human QRMer, and the delay in email delivery would likely have no serious consequences. During emergencies, one would expect PMBO operators to disable busy detection. 73, Dave, AA6YQ --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kv9u <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The discussion of automatic signal detection and not transmitting on a > busy frequency has been a major item of discussion in the past day on > one of the Winlink 2000 groups and the impression that I got from the > main spokesperson/owner was that if they had to follow busy detection > rules, Winlink 2000 would be impossible to operate. > > The comment was made in response to the following question on message 16782: > > "It's the PMBO side that's the issue; Because of the hidden > transmitter problem, the client has no way of knowing when the PMBO is > stepping on another QSO." > > and the response was: > > "Where is this happening, Rich? You been down in the auto forward > section operating in real-time? Active busy detection would stop all > PMBO operations." > > This could explain why they did not go any further with the testing or > adoption of this protocol that they invented two years ago, including > the release of the code coming from a GPL source. > > Some of you might remember my comments, when we were beta testing back > then, that the busy signal detection was almost too good. It was more > sensitive than a human who did not look closely at the waterfall and was > just casually listening if the frequency was clear. > > 73, > > Rick, KV9U > > > > Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote: > > I join the voices of the many who call for the release of source code > > for this busy detection and any patents under royalty-free license. If > > SCAMP's busy detector, for example, were to be released now, it would > > show goodwill, and would also spur innovation. Closed and unreleased, > > it fuels conspiracy theories. > > 73, > > Leigh/WA5ZNU > > >