At 3/25/2009 15:35, you wrote: >Back in the day, a channel was 30 kHz wide. When they were split to meet >demand, California was not the only coordination jurisdiction which chose >to put the "half channels" upside down. From what I gather from the >old-timers, it was easier to protect your input from a single, consistent >signal, (the other repeater's output,) 15 kHz off your input but far away, >than it was to deal with an ever-changing pool of users who could be right >under your site, trying to work the distant repeater with high power and >frequency tolerance inferior to the distant repeater.
Precisely, Paul. Glad to see others have figured out the reasoning behind our oft-trashed bandplan. The best part is that with a little extra planning & spec'ing, 60 or even 40 mile separation isn't necessarily required to make it work, although you've got to use good equipment - no 30 kHz channel-spec'd radios without modifications. >California had to be first in finding solutions to many band-crowding >issues. Maybe hams there will be the first to narrow-band? Our 4 D-Star pairs are spacing @ 10 kHz; no interference complaints so far. Bob NO6B
