dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) wrote: > > 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. [...] What are the pros and cons of such a policy? Does it seem like an attempt to hinder the spread of D-Star or is it more likely to benefit D-Star? -- Klystron

In article <xxx-E477C9.21115424092007@news.verizon.net>, Klystron <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote: > What are the pros and cons of such a policy? Does it seem like an >attempt to hinder the spread of D-Star or is it more likely to benefit >D-Star? Well, as I read it, the new policy (if adopted by the FCC) simply puts D*Star repeaters on an equal footing with FM-voice repeaters, in terms of the portions of the band that they can use, and their basic operating rules. It might (depending on interpretation) rule out the operation of such repeaters on those frequencies which are normally assigned in the bandplan for packet systems (nodes and BBSes). In areas of the country where the 2-meter and 440 repeater frequencies are fully allocated (major metro areas) this might tend to delay the availability of D*Star repeater coverage, as those wishing to set up such a digital-voice repeater would have to contend with other repeater owners for an allocation on any repeater frequency which might become available. Or, I suppose, they could persuade an existing voice repeater to switch over to D*Star operation. In areas of the country with open repeater slots I doubt it will matter much, and I doubt that it will hinder operation in the 1.2-gig band at all (there isn't much ham activity in those allocations). Whether this is an "attempt to hinder the spread of D*Star" is a question of motive, and I have no information about the motives of those who voted for the new proposal. It's possible, I suppose... but it's equally possible that some of the voters felt that D*Star proponents were trying to ignore a long-established precedent, and to do an "end run" around the groups which have been chartered to do repeater coordination and prevent (or at least reduce or manage) problems of repeater-induced interference. So, there's probably politics on all sides, as is usually the case where humans are involved :-) -- 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!

Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu> wrote: > [...] > The repeaters would have to be treated very carefully. As I read it, a > digital repeater would take up 300 KHZ of space! Yoiks! I would have to > think that these repeaters would be coordinated in the same way a > regulre one would be. It will take some extra care, given the Bandwidth > requirements. Is that 300 kHz figure for digital voice (DV) or digital data (DD)? It looks like DD is only offered on 1200 MHz, where that sort of bandwidth requirement may not be a problem. The brochure for the Icom ID-800 shows a "Digital transmission speed" of 4.8 kbps and a "Voice coding speed" of 2.4 kbps (on 2 meters and 440), suggesting that voice-only data rates will be consistent with data rates typically seen on the Internet for voice-only streaming audio, such as the radio stream on Bloomberg.com. -- Klystron

dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) wrote: > > Well, as I read it, the new policy (if adopted by the FCC) simply puts > D*Star repeaters on an equal footing with FM-voice repeaters, in terms > of the portions of the band that they can use, and their basic > operating rules. It might (depending on interpretation) rule out the > operation of such repeaters on those frequencies which are normally > assigned in the bandplan for packet systems (nodes and BBSes). > [...] Icom has a band chart (made up by Gordon West) on its web site that shows specific band segments designated for Digital, without further explaining what the word "Digital" means (FM packet, DV or DD). This makes sense, as you wouldn't want to hear squeaking, squalking digital noises as you try to tune along an FM segment with an FM-only rig. My hope is that some underutilized segments of the 440 band (such as the ATV channel that covers 438 to 442) will be reassigned for digital use, repeaters as well as simplex. > Whether this is an "attempt to hinder the spread of D*Star" is a > question of motive, and I have no information about the motives of > those who voted for the new proposal. It's possible, I suppose... but > it's equally possible that some of the voters felt that D*Star > proponents were trying to ignore a long-established precedent, and to > do an "end run" around the groups which have been chartered to do > repeater coordination and prevent (or at least reduce or manage) > problems of repeater-induced interference. > > So, there's probably politics on all sides, as is usually the case > where humans are involved :-) That's understandable, but as MOST people understand, time marches on and thing change. The existing band plans are not carved in stone and all parties concerned will need to be realistic about the constant and never ending need for change and flexibility. -- Klystron

In article <xxx-A19C31.14063825092007@news.verizon.net>, Klystron <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote: > Icom has a band chart (made up by Gordon West) on its web site that >shows specific band segments designated for Digital, without further >explaining what the word "Digital" means (FM packet, DV or DD). This >makes sense, as you wouldn't want to hear squeaking, squalking digital >noises as you try to tune along an FM segment with an FM-only rig. My >hope is that some underutilized segments of the 440 band (such as the >ATV channel that covers 438 to 442) will be reassigned for digital use, >repeaters as well as simplex. Here in the SF Bay area, that latter suggestion would probably renew a nasty, bloody band-war :-( As I understand the history - for quite a few years, there was no ATV activity hereabouts. A lot of repeater owners made informal use of the 438 ATV band for auxiliary and control links (reacting to the fact that the primary 2-meter and 440 allocations around here are very full). A few years back, an ATV interest group set set up an ATV repeater on a local mountaintop and lit it up. The repeater owners howled, asserting that the ATV system was transmitting on top of ongoing communications without listening first (a violation of the FCC rules). The ATV group asserted that the repeater auxiliary links shouldn't have been there in the first place, as that usage was contrary to the northern California 440 band-plan which had been in place for years. I understand that the issue was escalated all the way up to the FCC, and the FCC declined to make a definitive ruling, stating that it was really an issue for the local-area frequency coordinators to deal with... and the coordinators came down on the side of the agreed-upon bandplan. There's still frequent use of the ATV repeater up on the hill. The situation may be easier to deal with in areas that don't have an active ATV community. The ARRL's bandplan for the 70 cm band states that local bandplans and agreements override the national plan recommendations, so it seems entirely possible for local coordinators to agree to open up the segment you're speaking of to non-ATV uses. -- 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!

Phil Kane <Phil.Kane@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote: > > "Digital Voice" (a la D-Star) has already been deemed to be "phone" as > the FCC defines it. The designations - right or wrong - are about the > "baseband", not the means used to carry it. I'm not sure that I follow how that affects band segment allocation. SSB and AM are "phone" too, but that doesn't get them a space in the FM repeater segment. -- Klystron