Yes, the purpose of the plan was to provide a place for digital repeaters without having existing systems making any changes, so the 400 kHz spacing only applies to the digital channels. This is not a long term solution that will accommodate hundreds of digital repeaters. The only way to do that is to re-farm the existing repeater pairs, setting aside an area for narrow spacing for those who close their analog systems and go digital.
Proposing any plan that requires existing systems to move, is not going to meet with a good reception. Not now, but perhaps when some analog repeater operators decide to switch, the reaction will be different. Time will tell. Most repeater owners know that digital is the future and are open to the new technology, they just see it as far off and they will need a lot more force behind the wave before they are washed into the digital world. Ernie W6KAP --- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com, Ron Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ernie, > > I see your reasoning for 144.9-145. However, would not a repeater put at 145.300 say have an input on 144.900, possible the output of another repeater. > > I think I am not following the plan for which this change is being done. I thought all repeaters were going to the new split of 400, but maybe only for 144.9-145.1 and 400 kHz makes sense. > > If all repeaters did then in all 3 MHz of 2 meters all of the freq combinations could be used. Guess the few on 146.52 would not be happy although this one could be singled out as not allowed. I think better to put national simplex on 145.52. With all the rigs sold in last 20 years this would not be a problem. > > I remember in Indianapolis, IN, in the late 70s 146.94 had been used for simplex for years and few wanted it given up for a repeater. Think this has changed. The same could be done today. Going to 400 or 500 kHz the existing repeaters could change only with their input moving. 500 kHz would allow full use and keep some outputs off some inputs. > > It does look like a good change for getting more pairs for DStar, much better than calling it digital and using 145.5-145.8 which some started to do. The FCC stopped this. > > 73, ron, n9ee/r > > > > > >From: Ernest Kapphahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Date: 2008/06/30 Mon AM 10:01:32 EDT > >To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com > >Subject: [dstar_digital] Re: Inside Chassis coax - lossy > > > > >Ron; > >The digital band plan being tested currently puts the D-Star outputs > >between 144.9 and 145.1 and the inputs 400 kHz down. This keeps > >everything in the spectrum designated by the FCC for repeater use. > >Since alternate input channels are inputs for analog repeaters, only 9 > >new channels resulted. At 500 kHz spacing, we would have lost the > >144.9 to 145 channels as their inputs would have been outside the > >repeater allocation. The 9 channels should accommodate 15 or 16 > >systems in Northern Calif. by judicious channel co-ordination. We > >have 6 systems on this plan currently. It is necessary to use a 6 can > >duplexer to make the 400 kHz split play. The results of some testing > >using a reference antenna are in the tech log at www.w6dhs.org . > >Ernie > >W6KAP > > > >--- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com, Ron Wright <mccrpt@> wrote: > >> > >> Ernie, > >> > >> I've noticed talk of 400 kHz splits on 2 meters. Wonder why not 500 > >kHz. > > > > > > > Ron Wright, N9EE > 727-376-6575 > MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS > Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL > No tone, all are welcome. >
