BREAKING NEWS FROM THE AMATEUR RADIO NEWSLINE

NATIONAL FREQUENCY COORDINATORS COUNCIL (NFCC) VOTES TO RECOMMEND FCC
TREAT ALL REPEATERS AS REPEATERS


This arrived after our production deadline. We are issuing it as a
special bulletin because it will affect the introduction of digital
voice repeaters and restrict them to current repeater sub-bands as a
method of protecting all other spectrum users from encroachment
outside these subbands by digital voice repeating systems:



NFCC votes to recommend FCC treat all repeaters as repeaters

The membership of the National Frequency Coordinators' Council has voted to
ask the FCC to treat all repeaters as repeaters, regardless of mode or
transmission protocol. The following motion was adopted:

That the NFCC send a letter to the FCC that states that the NFCC believes
that any amateur station, other than a message forwarding system, that
automatically retransmits a signal sent by another amateur station on a
different frequency while it is being received, regardless of any delays in
processing that signal or its format or content, is a repeater station
within the meaning of paragraph 97.3(a)(39) of the rules of the Federal
Communications Commission, and should be treated as such.

Under the NFCC's proportional voting system, 93 votes were cast in favor of
the motion by 19 members, and 54 against by 11 members.

The letter will be sent to the FCC's Bill Cross today.

William M. Pasternak wrote:
BREAKING NEWS FROM THE AMATEUR RADIO NEWSLINE

NATIONAL FREQUENCY COORDINATORS COUNCIL (NFCC) VOTES TO RECOMMEND FCC
TREAT ALL REPEATERS AS REPEATERS


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?

At first blush, it would seem that a repeater should always be treated
as a repeater.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

In article ,
Michael Coslo 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 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!

(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 ,
Klystron 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 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!

Dave Platt wrote:
In article ,
Michael Coslo 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,

I have to do a little studying on the D*star protocol here. I didn't
know that the packets were validated. I had assumed that it would be
similar to say the sort of digital used in audio applications. Bad
assumption on my part.


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.


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.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Michael Coslo 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

(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

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:34:22 EDT, Klystron 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.


"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.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

In article ,
Klystron 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 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!