Tom, Well thought out! I agree.
Bob Spindle W3AGB Trustee D-Star Washington, DC --- In [email protected], "Tom Azlin, N4ZPT" <n4...@...> wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > >
