Go back and re-read the original thread: this discussion has never been
about what one AGREES to... Bob made the claim that TASMA has "control" of
the technical standards for the repeaters it coordinates, and tried to cite
Part 97 to back up his claim:
>At 9/1/2007 11:25, you wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> At 8/29/2007 09:46, you wrote:
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
{snip}
> >>
> >> Sorry, I just assumed that a repeater coordinator's technical standards
> >> would be a bit above the "mess" you describe above. I know we (TASMA)
> >>wouldn't coordinate such a system.
(a repeater built from 2 mobile transceivers and a mobile duplexer)
> >>
> >> Bob NO6B
>>
>>You guys have control of the quality level of the equipment used when
>>issuing coordinations?
>We have control of the technical operating parameters; see Part 97.3
>(a)(22).
I pointed out that Part 97 only gives a frequency coordinator the power to
>>recommend<< technical parameters, not to "control" them, and certainly not
to deny coordination based solely on the construction of the repeater, as
noted above. (A popular Motorola commercial repeater is, in fact, a pair of
GM-300 mobiles and a mobile duplexer in a desktop housing. The D-Star 1.2
GHz repeater also consists of a pair of ID-1 mobiles mounted in the same
rack-mount chassis. Would TASMA deny them coordination?)
