At 9/22/2007 11:50, you wrote: >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?
It might. I don't know, & I don't care to open yet another rules debate. > > > 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. So? It still "repeats". It "quacks like a duck", is it not a duck? No, because it does more than simply repeat. > > 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? Certainly. But when those elements were not in use, & the system was used purely as a repeater, it's classification never changed from auxiliary to repeater. One such auxiliary system I know of consisted of nothing more than a repeater & a 2 meter remote base. If the FCC's really going to get than nit-picky about differentiating repeaters & auxiliary stations (pure fantasy IMO), I suppose we can just tack a remote base radio onto every D-Star system. > > >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. This is starting to sound like a clash of cultures. Out here, we look at the rules in terms of what they allow, whereas people in other areas seem to interpret the rules in terms of what's prohibited. However, if you examine recent statements by FCC officials like Riley Hollingsworth, I think you'll find that our interpretations are more in line with theirs. > 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. Last time I checked, the coordination territory of the WPRC didn't include Southern California. >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. Face it: you are attempting to force your particular interpretation of Part 97 onto California hams. You are not the FCC, nor do you formulate bandplans or coordinate repeaters & auxiliary stations here. >Most coordinators have gone on record as not agreeing with what you are >doing. It's time you accept that and admit your mistake. 19 not agreeing, 11 agreeing. Doesn't sound very conclusive to me. Sometimes (like in this case), the majority can be misled, especially when there's nothing to be gained for the majority. > > >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. Once again, you're not the FCC. You do not get to interpret the rules for others. The ARRL OOs do a better job of that, & in fact the local OO concurs with our interpretation. > > 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..." So THAT'S what you're worried about. No problem! If you can accommodate D-Star systems within your repeater spectrum, then don't allocate any spectrum in the 145.5-145.8 MHz segment. If anything shows up there in your coordination territory & it interferes with other modes, the FCC WILL act on that. BTDT! Do you have anyone trying to put repeaters on 146.49 in/147.495 out saying "why can't I do that - there's doing it in SoCal"? Can anyone say "local option"? >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. Like I said, there's lots of "repeater" equipment in use here as auxiliary stations. There are many FTR-5410 "repeaters" in use as auxiliary stations even though the nameplate clearly says "repeater" & it was no doubt type accepted as such. Bob NO6B
