Threaded... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > At 9/22/2007 09:14, you wrote: > > >Bottom line guys & gals, The D-Star units have two frequencies one for > >Transmit and one for Receive > > Incorrect. Most D-Star systems have multiple inputs & outputs & are > networked via radio & internet to other D-Star systems around the world.
So do linked repeaters. Does that make them no longer repeaters? > > so it belongs in repeater band. The unit re-transmits what it hears and > > that is considered a repeater. > > So does SkyCommand. Clearly an auxiliary station per the FCC. Because the VHF/UHF operation IS AUX - it's point-to-point control of the HF station. To compare D-STAR to SkyCommand is like comparing apples to a DeSoto. > So do 100s > of remote base systems formerly licensed by the FCC SPECIFICALLY & > EXCLUSIVELY as AUXILIARY STATIONS. If you like, I will attempt to retrieve > the paperwork that was sent to the FCC as part of the auxiliary station > license application for one of these "repeaters". It will clearly show in > the block diagram a repeater as the primary element of the system. As the *primary element*. So there were other elements? Like perhaps elements that qualified as AUX operation? > >Why waist all this bandwidth because some individuals keep breaking the > >rules and can t seem to read. > > Because misinformation which is defamatory to frequency coordinators in > California is being propagated here. Those coordinators are calling repeaters AUX stations ONLY on the basis that they cannot legally put repeaters on the frequencies they have chosen to use. The reason these repeaters are not in the repeater sub-band, as admitted by the coordinators, is because there is supposedly no room there. Sorry, I don't buy that argument. Just because there is no room for legal operation does not open the door to authorize illegal operation. Face it: You are operating (or sanctioning operation) of repeaters in band segments where repeaters are prohibited. Calling them something other than repeaters to do this in no way changes the fact that it is a violation of Part 97. Most coordinators have gone on record as not agreeing with what you are doing. It's time you accept that and admit your mistake. > >Keep giving the FCC the headaches of dealing with the amateurs stuff. Then > >eventually the commercial boys will come along and want to invade the > >spectrum. Can t we all play nice in the sand box together? > > I'd like that more than anyone else here. Just leave us Californians to > handle frequency coordination the way we see fit. Damn the rules and full speed ahead, huh? I said before that I believe CA doesn't feel the rules apply to them. You're reinforcing that belief very well. > Nothing we're doing here is affecting you. You have your own > frequency coordination body which > handles coordination matters the way it sees fit for your area. Oh, but it DOES affect everyone else. The trustees in other areas will see that you are 'getting away' with putting repeaters in those band segments and will want to follow suit. Some will not understand when their request for coordination is denied and will whine that "they are doing it in CA..." One has to wonder if these are all AUX stations why the manufacturer is calling them repeaters and why they were FCC T/A'ed as repeaters. But, this should all be taken care of soon in the form of an FCC order. It's a shame that some of the coordinators cannot admit their mistakes. After all, it's the trustees of those systems that will pay the price. Joe M.
