Hi Scott. Yes, it is nice to be coordinated on our DD mode access point. I manage the NV4FM Tysons Corner Virginia D-STAR stack which is owned by the Northern Virginia FM Association. (yes, pesky "FM" in the name but they have more FM repeaters than DV repeaters!)
I agree that the DD mode access point is not a repeater thus does not have to be in a repeater subband and does not require formal coordination. But using the local coordination body is playing nice and if the other gal's ATV repeater is coordinated then you are SOL. Here in the T-MARC area we do voluntarily coordinate our DD modules just to be corporate and to have that coordination support in case of any issue. I do not think there is any need to ask the FCC anything on this, rather I would say do not ask the FCC! And we did coordinate our DV repeaters as we believed from the beginning that they were repeaters in every sense. Why is the 23cm triplexer not freq agile? Just retune it like any other set of cans! Or return it to be retuned if you do not have a network analyzer! so ... > 1) As a repeater owner, would you rather be coordinated? Answer 1) Certainly! We (NCR D-STAR) like the volunteer coordination for the DD mode access point. We created a National Capital Area D-STAR Association for the NCR D-STAR repeater owners/operators where we discuss and "coordinate" things to do with D-STAR repeater operation. Including where our DD mode access points sit but we are happy with the T-MARC support and placement. > 2) Is there a reasonable alternative to coordination? Answer 2) No. And of course coordination can be just operating and working with others to resolve interference and "I was here first" things. All we really had to do on the DD mode. Just put them where no one else is, and in the local digital mode section per the 23cm band plan. I suppose our NCR D-STAR Association could do this. There at one time was a D-MARC for coordinating digital mode stuff like packet and Digital ATV but that fell apart, perhaps as no need? And T-MARC is willing so why not? > 3) Should this be something we pursue with the FCC? Answer 3) Nope. We are supposed to self regulate so lets do that. Has been working for a long time on other digital infrastructure stuff like packet and APRS. We do plan local discussions on simplex DV calling frequencies. And have been part of the T-MARC DV committee. 73, Tom Azlin n4zpt NV4FM D-STAR administrator NCR D-STAR Association member Scott wrote: > As a repeater owner I'm thinking I would like to have the minimal > protection offered by the coordination process. The "repeaters" may > be frequency agile but a 1.2G triplexer is not. Additionally, the > local frequency coordinators are responsible for publishing my > frequency to the ARRL and other potential repeater owners/users > locally. > > After reading Part 97.205 and 97.3.a.39 it appears the FCC is only > recognizes simultaneously broadcasted duplex signals as repeaters > needing coordination. The Icom DD mode "repeater" fails both > requirements. > > My questions are - > > 1) As a repeater owner, would you rather be coordinated? > > 2) Is there a reasonable alternative to coordination? > > 3) Should this be something we pursue with the FCC? > > Thanks, > > Scott N7SS > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Please TRIM your replies or set your email program not to include the > original message in reply unless needed for clarity. ThanksYahoo! > Groups Links > > > > > >
