Glenn, No law has been broken.
73, ron, n9ee/r >From: Glenn Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: 2007/10/13 Sat AM 09:31:04 CDT >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >Subject: RE: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater >Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC > >How does he have a repeater on the simplex channels and not get an >enforcement letter. Really bad practice, > >Glenn > >-----Original Message----- >From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Mullarkey >Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 9:43 AM >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, >K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC > >Hi John, > >I could expect a reply like this from you. You are the only one in Oregon >that has an odd split both working in the simplex band. For a person that is >in the broadcast business, that has spent many years on the coordinating >council you would know better. Why don't you do like I told you several >years ago and send in paperwork on the channel I told you that would work, >hell it has not seen ac power for over five years and its free for the >taking. Hum, sounds to easy for me. If you do not remember the conversation, >I could refresh your memory if you would like. On the other hand, just let >the other people in the Portland, Oregon area coordinate it. They will >probably put a good repeater up, work by the rules, and maintain the >repeater the proper way a repeater should be operated. > >Mike Mullarkey (K7PFJ) > >________________________________ > >From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JOHN MACKEY >Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 5:37 PM >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, >Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC > >I thank Tim for what he has done. I'll be installing 100 mS Digital Voice >Delay boards in all my repeaters so that they are no longer repeaters and >can now all go into the expermintal band. > >------ Original Message ------ >Received: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 04:55:08 PM CDT >From: Nate Duehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:nate%40natetech.com> > >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com ><mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> >Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, >Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC > >> Jay Urish wrote: >> > Another guy with an 'expert' buddy saying D-Star IS NOT a repeater.. >> > Never mind the fact that Icom says its a repeater and as you >> > transmit on one frequency, your voice comes out of another..Oh yea, >> > delay is irrelevant.. >> >> That's not fair to the content of the interview. >> >> Tim points out that his "expert buddy" convinced not only Tim, but the >> FCC, specifically Bill Cross, in 2006, that it was NOT a repeater. >> >> Tim did the "right thing" in 2006 and ASKED. And was told, "Not a >> repeater. Go ahead." BY THE FCC. >> >> I'm still in the camp that says if it behaves like a repeater, and it >> needs the same type of protection as a repeater (fixed frequency >> service >> -- even Tim admits he "wanted a coordination" in the interview), it's >> a repeater. So it should be in the repeater sub-band. >> >> But I also know Tim a little bit -- and just stating that he's just a >> guy with a "expert buddy" pushing an agenda is blatantly unfair and >> doesn't cover what the interview really says. >> >> People should listen to the interview, and not go by what the peanut >> gallery is saying, I think. >> >> What the interview REALLY says is that Tim ASKED for permission from >> the FCC, and GOT it. He also DOCUMENTED that fact. He has dates and >e-mails. >> >> And only THEN did he put his repeater up on 145.61 in Northern California. >> >> No one could ask anything more of him than that! >> >> Now his system is in the cross-hairs of a national debate, about >> "letting D-Star out" of the repeater sub-bands... and meanwhile he's >> been on the air for almost two years without problems. >> >> I could see why he'd be a bit concerned. Hell, I'd have a pretty big >> beef with that too, if I'd been the "pioneer" and had: >> >> Asked the FCC... GOT PERMISSION... and then found myself sitting under >> the cross-hairs of the rest of the country. >> >> Ouch. >> >> Tim's not one of the "bad guys" out there. I've talked to him on the >> phone (for IRLP support purposes a couple of years ago) and met him in >> person at the IRLP convention (I think in 2005?). >> >> I don't think he would have put his system on VHF on the air without >> doing EXACTLY the right thing... and in 2006, he's claiming that he did. >> >> Additionally he mentioned in the interview -- that one of the reasons >> the pendulum swung away from allowing D-Star outside the repeater >> sub-bands, was that there's a worry that SOME idiot would claim their >> ANALOG system with a digital-audio-delay board wasn't transmitting >> "simultaneously" and should also be allowed out of the repeater sub-band. >> >> That's a serious concern of some folks, and while Tim says "he's never >> heard of anyone trying to do it", it doesn't mean someone desperate >> for a VHF pair won't try... >> >> Tim's comments about "where do we put it" falls on deaf ears here, >> though -- if they can't find an analog system willing to come off the >> air to accommodate the new digital system... tough. Don't put it up VHF. >> >> But since he ASKED if he could... and the only authority that counts >> said, "Yes"... I can see why he's not happy now that they might >> reverse themselves. >> >> He might even have a pretty good case for a lawsuit, if it came to that. >> >> Nate WY0X >> > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.9/1067 - Release Date: 10/12/2007 >6:02 PM > > Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
