Bottom line guys & gals, The D-Star units have two frequencies one for Transmit and one for Receive so it belongs in repeater band. The unit re-transmits what it hears and that is considered a repeater. I understand when ICOM sent the proper paperwork through to the FCC & Compliance commission it was stated it was a REPEATER.
Why waist all this bandwidth because some individuals keep breaking the rules and can't seem to read. Keep giving the FCC the headaches of dealing with the amateurs stuff. Then eventually the commercial boys will come along and want to invade the spectrum. Can't we all play nice in the sand box together? If you can't get a frequency in the particular part of the USA then do as all the others are buy the other guy out. If you can spend the money for a priority box that no other radios will work with other than ICOM then you can buy the other guy out. Just remember that the coordinators that engineer & find freq.'s for all of us are all voluntary and NOT paid. If the FCC were to coordinate you would have a 65 Mile interfering contour and we all know that would not work. Although the commercial guys make it work all day long. Times change and so do the frequencies we use. I am not disagreeing that things need change but I do believe that propriety repeaters in the HAM bands will never take off. Take a poll and figure out how many P25 mix mode repeaters are operational and how many D-Star repeaters are working. I bet you will see that the numbers are staggering in favor of the P25 repeaters. Guys there is one thing we all need to take in to consideration, Interoperability. Mike Mullarkey (K7PFJ) Previous ORRC Chairman _____ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 8:42 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: NFCC votes to recommend FCC treat all repeaters as repeaters At 9/21/2007 22:46, you wrote: >I agree that they are not AUX stations. My point is that currently they >are claiming they are since repeater operation where they are operating >is clearly prohibited. My additional point was that if they believe what >they are saying (and want us to believe), it would not be necessary to >change the rules. > >In essence, it's an admission of guilt by wanting to change rules they >claim they are not in violation of. If you're not in violation, why do >you want the change? Who wants to change the rules? Bob NO6B