At 9/1/2007 16:51, you wrote: >[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
We do not address the issue of whether D-Star systems are repeaters. We do claim that they fit the definition of an auxiliary station as defined in Part 97.3 (a)(7) & therefore may be operated in the 145.50-145.80 MHz segment. Bob NO6B
