Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Coordinating DD mode "repeaters"
Tom, I concur with your thoughts and answers Your statements are just good common sense that work to the benefit of all, I believe... 73 de Scott/KT4ER N4USI Bull Run D-Star & National Capitol Region (NCR) D-Star Association Member [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Coordinating DD mode "repeaters"
Hi Scott. Yes, it is nice to be coordinated on our DD mode access point. I manage the NV4FM Tysons Corner Virginia D-STAR stack which is owned by the Northern Virginia FM Association. (yes, pesky "FM" in the name but they have more FM repeaters than DV repeaters!) I agree that the DD mode access point is not a repeater thus does not have to be in a repeater subband and does not require formal coordination. But using the local coordination body is playing nice and if the other gal's ATV repeater is coordinated then you are SOL. Here in the T-MARC area we do voluntarily coordinate our DD modules just to be corporate and to have that coordination support in case of any issue. I do not think there is any need to ask the FCC anything on this, rather I would say do not ask the FCC! And we did coordinate our DV repeaters as we believed from the beginning that they were repeaters in every sense. Why is the 23cm triplexer not freq agile? Just retune it like any other set of cans! Or return it to be retuned if you do not have a network analyzer! so ... > 1) As a repeater owner, would you rather be coordinated? Answer 1) Certainly! We (NCR D-STAR) like the volunteer coordination for the DD mode access point. We created a National Capital Area D-STAR Association for the NCR D-STAR repeater owners/operators where we discuss and "coordinate" things to do with D-STAR repeater operation. Including where our DD mode access points sit but we are happy with the T-MARC support and placement. > 2) Is there a reasonable alternative to coordination? Answer 2) No. And of course coordination can be just operating and working with others to resolve interference and "I was here first" things. All we really had to do on the DD mode. Just put them where no one else is, and in the local digital mode section per the 23cm band plan. I suppose our NCR D-STAR Association could do this. There at one time was a D-MARC for coordinating digital mode stuff like packet and Digital ATV but that fell apart, perhaps as no need? And T-MARC is willing so why not? > 3) Should this be something we pursue with the FCC? Answer 3) Nope. We are supposed to self regulate so lets do that. Has been working for a long time on other digital infrastructure stuff like packet and APRS. We do plan local discussions on simplex DV calling frequencies. And have been part of the T-MARC DV committee. 73, Tom Azlin n4zpt NV4FM D-STAR administrator NCR D-STAR Association member Scott wrote: > As a repeater owner I'm thinking I would like to have the minimal > protection offered by the coordination process. The "repeaters" may > be frequency agile but a 1.2G triplexer is not. Additionally, the > local frequency coordinators are responsible for publishing my > frequency to the ARRL and other potential repeater owners/users > locally. > > After reading Part 97.205 and 97.3.a.39 it appears the FCC is only > recognizes simultaneously broadcasted duplex signals as repeaters > needing coordination. The Icom DD mode "repeater" fails both > requirements. > > My questions are - > > 1) As a repeater owner, would you rather be coordinated? > > 2) Is there a reasonable alternative to coordination? > > 3) Should this be something we pursue with the FCC? > > Thanks, > > Scott N7SS > > > > > > Please TRIM your replies or set your email program not to include the > original message in reply unless needed for clarity. ThanksYahoo! > Groups Links > > > > > >
RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Coordinating DD mode "repeaters"
When it comes to coordination, fine. It's good for the community to understand how the spectrum is being used. When it comes to regulation, do not go asking the FCC for rules, as they will either give you less than what you want, or constrain you by law in the future. Keep things simple and flexible folks and the innovation will follow! Thanks & 73, Gordon Beattie, W2TTT 201.314.6964 Past President Tri-State Amateur Repeater Council _ From: Scott [mailto:n...@arrl.net] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:13 PM To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com Subject: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Coordinating DD mode "repeaters" As a repeater owner I'm thinking I would like to have the minimal protection offered by the coordination process. The "repeaters" may be frequency agile but a 1.2G triplexer is not. Additionally, the local frequency coordinators are responsible for publishing my frequency to the ARRL and other potential repeater owners/users locally. After reading Part 97.205 and 97.3.a.39 it appears the FCC is only recognizes simultaneously broadcasted duplex signals as repeaters needing coordination. The Icom DD mode "repeater" fails both requirements. My questions are - 1) As a repeater owner, would you rather be coordinated? 2) Is there a reasonable alternative to coordination? 3) Should this be something we pursue with the FCC? Thanks, Scott N7SS [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Coordinating DD mode "repeaters"
(We're going to have to keep this short, since this is an International list, and many people here simply aren't interested in FCC rules. Been there, done that, on the IRLP list in the past, and it's now a banned topic, because of the misinformation and flame-fests that started up. Folks hopefully will be more CIVIL here. I'm not good at "short", 'cause I hate misunderstandings, and I type fast. GRIN. As a part-time list moderator here, I can see this getting WAY out of control real fast. so people . PLEASE be rational about this and not emotional. Drop any emotional baggage you have about "coordination" at the door, or at least discuss without insulting others as much as possible. Thank you!.) Hi Scott, I'll start with direct answers to your direct questions and then explain my thought process, below. 1) As a repeater owner, would you rather be coordinated? It's not a repeater. But yes, for non-agile infrastructure systems I always prefer working with the other Amateurs in the area IN WRITING to determine good frequency allocations. See below. 2) Is there a reasonable alternative to coordination? Yes, documentation of a refusal to coordinate should still hold some legal clout if ever needed. The whole idea of the coordination process is as a LAST DITCH EFFORT to resolve conflicts, so other means should be attempted to mitigate unintentional interference prior to whipping out the coordination documentation. Intentional interference is already well covered in Part 97, and is 100% illegal, period. 3) Should this be something we pursue with the FCC? Probably not necessary at this time, especially if local coordination bodies are willing to issue coordinations anyway. Okay, thoughts. I'll point out some things that you might be missing in your request about coordinations in the U.S., perhaps they'll help you with your concerns about your system. A local coordination body can coordinate ANYTHING they want to here in the U.S. -- You appear to be making a easy but erroneous assumption that the FCC regulates what they can and can't coordinate, and also that you think they CAN'T coordinate your DD system. They can. ANY coordinated system still gets the recognition of the FCC, no matter if duplex or simplex, if you read it carefully -- they're just giving examples specific to duplex repeaters because those have always been the "problem" systems for the FCC in the past. Basically it comes down to this: If you want your DD system coordinated, ask your local coordinators to issue a coordination. Simple as that. You should get a response one way or the other. And if they don't want to coordinate the system, make them reply in WRITING with a date, if they refuse to do so for ANY reason. Make reasonable arguments in your initial request in writing about why you feel that it deserves to be coordinated. Good points include that it's an infrastructure system, and not easy to move in frequency to the point of almost being non-frequency-agile, and that like a repeater, once users know where it "lives" in the band they tend to expect to find it there. If you get a rejection, just file away a copy so your back-side is covered later when someone pops up and interferes with your system. You have a signed request from you, and a signed REFUSAL from them. or you might have a coordination. either way, you have written proof of the DATE your system was first on-air. Either way, coordinated or not, you've now got documented 3rd party proof that your relatively non-frequency-agile, infrastructure system was there FIRST, via the date on the letter(s). If they later try to issue a coordination for something else on top of you, you have a reasonable grievance. If someone else plops down on top of you, you're documented as being there first. That level of documentation is likely enough to be PLENTY for the FCC to rule in your favor in a worst-case scenario. They are reasonable people, and they'd see that you'd been there a long time before the next system arrived. Simple enough. No need for the FCC to be involved at all. LOCAL INFO: Here in Colorado, we set aside spectrum in the BAND PLAN for 1.2 GHz for things like DD, and it's quite a large chunk of spectrum, if you look at how many "channels" of DD could be supported (or anything else). Band-plans are also an important part of this overall picture. If there aren't local band-plans, work to get some made and published. (This can sometimes take YEARS. Sometimes it can be done quickly. I didn't look up where you live, but most of 7 land isn't that densely populated that a good band plan can't be made without huge amounts of bickering and grumbling. Break it up into chunks that are easily digestible if you can't do it all in one swoop and have consensus. how do you eat the Elephant? One bite at a time.) For a real-world example. One of the reasons a coordinating b
Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Coordinating DD mode "repeaters"
In a message dated 3/23/09 4:28:30 PM, n...@arrl.net writes: > My questions are - > > 1) As a repeater owner, would you rather be coordinated? > Yes! > > 2) Is there a reasonable alternative to coordination? > Right now, with the 23 cm band pretty well empty, somebody needs to keep a spreadsheet with everybody's frequencies, in it. Five years from now, it could be an entirely different scenario. > > 3) Should this be something we pursue with the FCC? > In my opinion, no. Buddy Morgan WB4OMG WCF D Star Club President/KJ4ACN Trustee ** A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219858252x1201366219/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID %3D62%26bcd%3DMarchfooterNO62) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Coordinating DD mode "repeaters"
Scott brings up an excellent point. The main goal of the coordination body is to avoid interference (overlap) from fixed frequency, fixed location assets. If you have a 'relay station' that is at a fixed location and on a fixed frequency, I believe it should be coordinated to offer protection and provide coordination with other fixed assets. From that perspective, we have chosen to coordinate the DV and DD 'repeater' and point to point links in the 1.2gHz band. We have a similar dilemma with network access points (for lack of a better term) such as the RMS gateways. While much of the legacy packet network is coordinated, many chose not to bother after the popularity declined. Now with a boost of activity via Winlink, and for us in Oregon the distribution of State provided RMS gateways all over, the question comes up again regarding coordination of 'access points' into the network. IMHO, they are a fixed location, fixed frequency asset and as such, some 'body' should be coordinating and documenting the locations and frequencies. Fortunately in the Dstar realm, the systems don't connect to each other with RF links (generally), where with packet/RMS systems there is a distinct need to have systems on the same frequency within range of each other to allow connectivity. I'm not excited about taking on more work load for coordination, however, I'm not aware of another 'group' that represents the repeater owners in the state and has the mechanism (database, applications, process) to provide coordination and protection. If there hasn't been already, there no doubt will be a dispute between the legacy packet BBS guy who doesn't like the RMS gateway dropping in on 'his' frequency. 73 Daron N7HQR Oregon Region Relay Council, Inc. As a repeater owner I'm thinking I would like to have the minimal protection offered by the coordination process. The "repeaters" may be frequency agile but a 1.2G triplexer is not. Additionally, the local frequency coordinators are responsible for publishing my frequency to the ARRL and other potential repeater owners/users locally. After reading Part 97.205 and 97.3.a.39 it appears the FCC is only recognizes simultaneously broadcasted duplex signals as repeaters needing coordination. The Icom DD mode "repeater" fails both requirements. My questions are - 1) As a repeater owner, would you rather be coordinated? 2) Is there a reasonable alternative to coordination? 3) Should this be something we pursue with the FCC? Thanks, Scott N7SS ___ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
