[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >At 8/31/2007 11:18, Nate Duehr wrote: > > >>FYI. >> >>Cross-posting to IllinoisDigitalHam list and Repeater-Builder list from >>the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. >> >>Thoughts folks? >> >>Thanks to Mark N5RFX for doing real testing. >> >> > >Thanks Nate. This is most informative. Now if you throw in the added >benefit of DStar's error correction coding, I believe 10 kHz is the ideal >channel spacing. > >Which is good for us here in SoCal because TASMA just voted to create 4 >auxiliary link pairs for very narrow band digital systems at 145.585, >145.595, 145.605 & 145.615 outputs (inputs all -600 kHz). With the 10 kHz >spacing, currently only DStar systems are compatible so they're essentially >DStar pairs. > >I expect all 4 pairs to be assigned to 1 or more DStar systems at our next >coordination meeting. > >Bob NO6B > > > > > > Bob,
Does this mean TASMA has made the determination that DStar "repeaters" are not by definition a repeater (as part 97 would define a typical analog mode repeater) and can be operated outside the defined repeater sub bands as an auxiliary station while still performing the functional equivalent of an analog mode repeater? Ed Yoho WA6RQD
