[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >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 > > > > Interesting. Does TASMA consider other digital format (P25, etc.) systems to also be within the auxiliary class? If so and the FCC does not formally disagree, it would create quite a few additional pairs (although they would not be 600KHz splits) for digital audio retransmission as inputs could be below 144.5 MHz and outputs above 145.5 MHz.
Ed Yoho WA6RQD
