Mike- Try reading FCC Part 97.205 again. You will find that the frequencies discussed ARE INDEED in the repeater band in Oregon and everywhere else in the US. The
ORRC is NOT a spectrum management group, it is a coordination coucil for the frequencies the ORRC choses to recognize, and there is nothing to stop or discourage amateurs to use other legal frequencies the ORRC does not recognize. I agree that this is not the forum to discuss it. Would you like to continue this on the repeater coordination forum? I'll forward that group name to you soon. ------ Original Message ------ Received: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:04:14 AM CDT From: "Mike Mullarkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Yes, we both have served for many years on the council. That being said, the > repeater in question has been operating outside the repeater band for > several years. The freqs are not in the band plan and don't fall between the > guidelines there in Oregon. > > Back several years ago when I told you of the freq you and your group could > send in paperwork on is indeed in use now for several months. My point here > is everyone gripes when the council says not there are no more freqs in the > Portland area and when a director of the board says here is a freq for > grabs. You don't grab it you guys let if go and still operate outside the > designated band. > > Sounds like the board should send a letter to your group. > > I do agree this is not the reflector to conduct this on and should side bar > this. > > > > > > Mike Mullarkey (K7PFJ) > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JOHN MACKEY > Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 10:29 PM > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, > Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC > > > > Hi Mike, > I certainly did NOT expect a reply like this from you! Since you > spent many years serving on a coordination coucil, you should know better. > > First, the repeater (I am sure you are referring to) has the output on > 147.435 MHz and the input on 146.400 MHz. BOTH frequencies are in the > repeater sub-band as directed by FCC part 97. They are NOT simplex > frequencies > and ARE authorized for repeater use. > > Second, the repeater is NOT mine and operates under someone else's callsign. > I only maintain it and link to it with my UHF and 6 meter repeaters. > > Third, while I appreciate your advice regarding the repeater frequencies > you advised me on, it IS active here in this area, and has been for several > months. > > ------ Original Message ------ > Received: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:26:53 AM CDT > From: "Mike Mullarkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:k7pfj%40comcast.net> net> > To: <Repeater-Builder@ <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> > yahoogroups.com> > Subject: 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@ <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> > yahoogroups.com > > [mailto:Repeater-Builder@ <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> > yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of JOHN MACKEY > > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 5:37 PM > > To: Repeater-Builder@ <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> > 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> com> > > To: Repeater-Builder@ <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> > > yahoogroups.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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
