Email Detail

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "url": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/OXAK5OG7EQ5SKIAGEHIJNNWQOV6WLAUR/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "OXAK5OG7EQ5SKIAGEHIJNNWQOV6WLAUR",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/57IZIBJAIGW5MCP4XS4NV3NZUZNNSHMP/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "pe1hzg (a) xs4all.nl",
        "mailman_id": "f2392db9be2748ffa51571b77b82c43c",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/f2392db9be2748ffa51571b77b82c43c/emails/?format=api"
    },
    "sender_name": "Geert Jan de Groot",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: Help sought - amateur satellite service vs D-star",
    "date": "2009-09-09T10:06:16Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/CQ2PGUQZAE5ZVI2OV2BUOC3W5G4SY72T/?format=api",
    "children": [
        "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/VIWM736D2MZBALVJBHNFJAV7L4QJ76BR/?format=api"
    ],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "\n[Apologies as it's slightly off-topic, I do my best]\n\nOn Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:39:20 +1000 Tony Langdon wrote:\n> >The folk experimenting with D-star\n> >on 70cms use a fairly large shift of 9.4 Mhz, resulting in\n> >a typical setup of 430.400-430.600 in and 439.800-440.000 out.\n> >Unattended stations (like D-star repeaters) do require a special\n> >license here.\n> OK, so what do FM repeater owners do?  Asking that, to see if there's \n> any other places the D-STAR systems can be put.  Over here, D-STAR \n> repeater allocations are in the same parts of the bands as FM ones.\n\nGood question, long and complex answer. Briefly, (voice) repeater pairs\nare allocated geographically. So, there is one slot (but only one slot)\nper area. If there are multiple groups who want to build a repeater,\nthen the single license would alternate between these two groups\nevery three years.\n\nOn 70cm, voice uses 1.6 MHz shift down. The repeater I built (PI2EHV)\ndoes 431.700 in, 430.100 out.\n\nD-star is currently considered \"digital/packet\" for which the\n9.4 MHz shift pairs are set up. And the output collides with\nthe newly \"allocated\" DGPS users. Hence, no new licenses are issued,\nand the D-star folk are looking for a new place.\nWhich is all nice and well, but the \"new place\" SHOULD NOT\nbe in the sat band for all the reasons you mention, \nand I believe they should be told.\n\nI've repeatedly asked why they are so hang up on large shifts\n(causing them to need to take this extreme measure), but I get\nno answer. To me, the difference between GMSK and NBFM is small,\nand if 1.6 MHz shift can be made to work for NBFM, it can be made\nto work for GMSK.\nAnd, obviously, a smaller shift gives much more flexability to\n(potentially) find a good spot. [that is, if we would decide to\naccomedate the illegal allocation for DGPS, which I don't think \nwe should, but that's another matter].\n\nAnyway, the current proposal would hurt the amateur sat service,\n*as well* as negating a careful allocation process the amateur\nradio community has built for tens of years.\nWhile the proper allocation of this mode is beyond the scope of\nthe AMSAT community, the current, improper proposal *is* within\nscope, and I hope people will raise their voice on this.\n\nThanks,\n\nGeert Jan PE1HZG\n\n",
    "attachments": []
}