In article <fd8lsv$1jf6$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>, Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu> wrote: >I think that this is interesting, but have to say that I'm not sure just >what this means. Are some repeaters treated as something else? There's been some mention, recently, of the fact that some coordinating groups have been treating D*Star digital repeaters differently. Because of the fact that such repeaters use a packet-based transmission technology which receives each packet and validates it before retransmitting it, there are people who feel that such systems are more like AX.25 "store and forward" packet nodes / digipeaters than they are like FM-voice repeaters. The fact that D*Star can also be used to carry some fairly high-bandwidth data seems to contribute to this feeling, as well. >At first blush, it would seem that a repeater should always be treated >as a repeater. The NFCC seems to have agreed with you (with some amount of dissent). Since D*Star systems retransmit the packets (digital-voice, or data) on a different frequency than the one on which they receive, and tend to keep the transmitter "hot" for as long as there's incoming receive data, and are being used to carry a lot of voice traffic, it does seem reasonable to treat them in a way which is analogous to the way in which FM repeaters are treated. -- Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!