The Texas VHF-FM Society has been polling Texas amateur radio operators for the past few years regarding to coordination of D-STAR repeaters due to overcrowding on the 2-meter band, and in turn, a shortage of traditional 6 KHz-split repeater pairs.

Their solution? Use 10 frequencies that are on the generally accepted band plan for analog simplex frequencies to coordinate new D-STAR repeaters. These new proposed repeater pairs would use a 1 MHz split with 10 KHz channel spacing, with a result of the following repeater pairs: 146.450/147.450, 146.460/147.460, 146.470/147.470, 146.480/147.480, and 146.490/147.490 MHz.

As much as I enjoy working with D-STAR and P-25, I would have to oppose this plan. It does nothing to fix the actual problem. The real problem is that there really are too many under-utilized repeaters on the air, or even “paper repeaters” — repeaters that are coordinated and listed in directories, but not actually on the air. Many repeaters have been on the air since the start of the 2m FM repeater craze, but have seen only a handful of keydowns in recent history.

It’s hard to define what repeaters are “active” and “inactive” repeaters, even though some repeater coordinating bodies (Texas being one of them) that have provisions for pulling the “coordinated” status of “inactive repeaters.” While coordination and band plans are strictly by gentlemen’s agreement, there is no real enforcement or motivation to rotate the repeater pairs of inactive repeaters.

I don’t necessarily think this is a bad system though. Repeater owners know when it’s time to let the pairs go (maybe even when politely asked?), and amateur radio really is a self-policing bunch. If I am told correctly, there wasn’t a problem getting a VHF repeater pair for the D-STAR system. We have inactive repeaters in our area, but we probably don’t have repeater coordination congestion like other areas.

Additionally, I don’t think it’s fair to take away analog simplex frequencies in favor of D-STAR. I am guessing they are making this exception for digital voice because it’s the new and awesome thing on 2m. It’s not fair to favor one operating mode over another by making exceptions such as this.

To be honest, I really don’t even use the VHF module for the local D-STAR system. Our UHF module performs just as well, if not better, than the VHF module, and VHF is more susceptible to intermod. Depending on the region, there is space in the UHF amateur band. One of the coordinators for the D-STAR system commented that if we had to do it all over again, we’d probably go without the VHF module and invest in the 1.2 GHz digital voice module (we currently have the VHF/UHF/1.2 digital data modules and a 1.2 GHz analog voice repeater). After all, D-STAR has unique digital abilities due to bandwidth allowances on 1.2 GHz.

Another reason to use the 1.2 GHz band is the motto “use it or lose it.” 1.2 GHz is definitely one of the under-utilized bands amateurs have at their disposal, and I’m sure that the FCC’s mouths water when looking at the 1.2 GHz band when a wireless company comes shopping for spectrum. The spectrum allocated to amateurs are worth millions, if not billions of dollars to the FCC through an auction process.

You think it won’t happen? It happened in 1988 when amateurs lost 2 MHz of spectrum in the 1.25-meter band to UPS, who was planning to use the spectrum to develop a narrowband voice and data network. However, by the time the FCC completed the reallocation, the UPS had moved on to the cellular bands and scrapped their ideas for 220 MHz, but still leaving amateurs without that spectrum.

D-STAR basically works the same on VHF as it would on UHF or 1.2 GHz. In my experience, there’s not many reasons to have all four modules installed other than for redundancy or experimentation. We all need to be working with each other to solve the problem, not making exceptions for one bunch and, in turn, stepping on toes and creating more problems.