Joe, I am planning adding D-Star to my analog 2m repeater. I am planning a dual control so if a user has CTCSS then the analog side would work and if no CTCSS then the d-star path would be used. Not a full D-Star approach for we will not be looking for the D-Star formated data, only if you have CTCSS or not. Simple and hopefully can get some interest in D-Star and demo its advantages and disadvantages.
The problem is in some areas, like where I am, there are no pairs for D-Star to go on in the 2 m band. We are full and this is the problem in many areas. Also the D-Star ICOM controllers are not like most repeater controllers. They talk to the ICOM repeaters with a Cat-5 cable with serial data giving commands such as ptt, digital audio data, etc. Not the simple get COS/key transmitter. So if doing full D-Star and wanting to get into the gate way, ICOM's IRLP or Echolink, then you need ICOMs controller. Much more complex solved with $. A D-Star repeater can go for $5-10k and this is for what is on the ground. There have been couple analog repeaters converted to D-Star here. This has been the most growth. 73, ron, n9ee/r >From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: 2008/05/08 Thu PM 10:45:33 CDT >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC Denies Petition to Utilize 2m Sub-Band for >Digita > >You know a lot of this problem could "go away" of they would only make >dual mode repeaters like P25 systems are. Then, you could replace an >existing repeater and simply ADD the D-STAR mode to the area. That way, >you could have just as many D-STAR repeaters as analog repeaters with >the same coverage. > >Joe M. > >Ron Wright wrote: >> Jim, >> >> I tend to agree more spectrum is not needed on 2 meters just to accommodate >> D-Star or any other mode, digital or analog. Many analog boys are also >> starving for space for their repeaters. >> >> D-Star does look for the proper D-Star format to "unsquelch" as one might >> say. It does not simply turn on with signal like many analog rigs do. The >> repeaters and rigs do this. >> >> This is why, as you very well know, we use CTCSS...to unsquelch the rcvr >> when the proper tone rcv'd. >> >> The petition to the FCC was an attempt to gain more repeater pairs mainly >> for D-Star. I am sure the petitioners would have wanted the expansion to go >> for digital only. I am sure the FCC saw thru this. >> >> Another issue popped up about a year ago. An FCC rep made a comment at a >> forum stating or more like asking if D-Star was really a normal Ham repeater >> since it delays the digital data and is in a Packet type store and forward >> mode. The delay is ms. With this in mind there were repeater councils >> giving out freq pairs which were not in the FCC rules for >> repeater...145.5-145.800. There were some actually using them. This effort >> has for the most part gone away. >> >> 73, ron, n9ee/r >> >> >> >> >>> From: wd8chl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Date: 2008/05/08 Thu PM 02:39:00 CDT >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] FCC Denies Petition to Utilize 2m Sub-Band >>> for Digital Repeater Operation >> >>> >>> Mark Thompson wrote: >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> May 7 2008 Ken D. Chafin 3624 Foothill Road #1 La Crescenta, CA >>>> 91214 >>>> >>>> Leon J. Brown 1627 Fair Park Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90014 >>>> >>>> Re: Petition for Rule Making filed October 10, 2007 >>> <snip for brevity> >>>> The Petition argues that additional spectrum is needed for repeater >>>> stations because some amateur repeater stations have begun using >>>> certain digital communication protocols, and digital voice operation >>>> is incompatible with existing analog operations [because d]igital >>>> voice users are unable to determine if the desired frequency is in >>>> use by analog users and can inadvertently cause harmful interference >>>> to those users. >>> Good. D-Star and other digital voice modes do NOT need more spectrum on 2M. >>> >>> If a digital voice mode does not have some sort of provision for >>> monitoring for non-digital activity, or preventing transmission if there >>> is any, it needs to be redesigned, as it can easily be considered >>> illegal. P25 has it. >>> >>> Jim >>> WD8CHL >>> >>> >> >> >> Ron Wright, N9EE >> 727-376-6575 >> MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS >> Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL >> No tone, all are welcome. >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> >> > > Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
