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

 

Reply via email to