RE: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
Daron- Sorry, but you are not aware of the facts or laws regarding what you are speaking of below. First - the repeater is not mine. I sold it 12 years ago when it changed frequencies. I do maintain it for the owner because he is not technical. It does NOT use my callsign, I am NOT the licensee. Second - The repeater you are referring to is NOT eligable for an enforcement letter in regards to the frequencies it uses. (147.435/146.400) Please review FCC Part 97-205b which reads as follows: A repeater may receive and retransmit only on the 10 m and shorter wavelength frequency bands except the 28.0-29.5 MHz, 50.0-51.0 MHz, 144.0-144.5 MHz, 145.5-146.0 MHz, 222.00-222.15 MHz, 431.0-433.0 MHz and 435.0-438.0 MHz segments. I do agree with you that it is a curious fact that so many people feel the need to operate their stuff outside the box, outside of coordination. Perhaps if coordination groups like the Oregon Region Relay Council (ORRC) acted fairly and within their own policies, this would lessen. In Oregon, half the state is breaking away from the old council and starting their own group called BMUG. Another unfortunate example of improper action here in Oregon was roughly a year ago when KJ7IY (the database manager of the ORRC) contacted Day Wireless (the site manager for the StoneHenge tower) and had a repeater located in that site shut down for a few days because he claimed it was illegal because it was un-coordinated. There was NO interference complaint, just someone throwing their weight around. That repeater came back on the air a few days later after several people who were hams and had professional relationships with Day Wireless set them straight and informed them that they had been lied to. And we wonder why so many people dislike the ORRC or simply decide not to bother with certain coordination groups! If you still think the repeater in question is eligable for an enforcement letter because of the frequencies it uses, I suggest you immediately report it to the FCC. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 03:57:37 PM CDT From: Daron J. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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, Mr. Mackey's alleged (I'm being polite) non coordinated, non band plan compliant analog repeater is certainly 'eligible' for such a letter. What amazes me more is the IRLP node in Portland that is UHF linked to a 146.520 remote base on a commercial tower that pretty much hoses the national simplex frequency for the entire metro area. The more curious fact is why folks feel the need to operate their stuff outside the box, outside of 'coordination' that the rest of us live with. There will always be one or two that pull this kind of crap and force the entire amateur population to struggle with it.
Re: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6B
Ron- Thank you for dispensing common sense!! The repeater pair of 146.400/147.435 has worked very well here in Oregon for over 12 years with no interference complaints. It has also worked well for San Francisco and Los Angelos for many more years. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:24:16 AM CDT From: Ron Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6B Band plans have 2 requirements...FCC part 97 and gentlemens agreements. The latter has no legal basis. on 2 m repeaters can by FCC 97 use 144.5-145.5 and 146-148. The gentlemens agreement may make some freqs simplex or for repeater operation, but still one can use for repeaters. Simplex is use so little in many areas and 146.52 and maybe a few others in most areas might be used, but are perfectly legal for repeater use. It looks as if the 146.400/147.435 would be acceptable by most and certainly by FCC 97. If it works for the community it is in it is for the better. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/10/13 Sat PM 11:17:19 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 On Oct 13, 2007, at 8:27 PM, kk2ed wrote: I'm not condoning such operations, but a Band Plan is just that - a band plan. If the emitter is otherwise within regulations, a repeater on simplex channels may be legal, provided it is under proper control. It is similar to an uncoordinated repeater. Unless it is causing willful interference, it is not illegal. Such practices may not be very popular among the local hams. Bad practice, yes. Illegal, no. Wrong. Review FCC Part 97.205(b). http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/c.html#205 Repeaters have specific frequencies they are allowed to operate on, and are one of the only types of Amateur Stations with an exclusionary rule in Part 97 saying that they can only operate in specific frequency allocations. If those simplex channels fall outside the frequencies in 97.205 (b), the owner is treading on unstable legal ground. I didn't look at the frequencies the two gentlemen were talking about in their messages back and forth (since it looked like they were just dragging their local mud into a public forum -- usually not worth reading) but in most areas of the country, local bandplans place simplex operation in an area of (whatever) band that is restricted to not allowing repeater operation. I have no other comment on the thread, other than that... simplex frequencies in a local bandplan are usually outside of the bounds of where repeaters are allowed to operate by law. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
IF - big IF. We don't know the frequencies involved. And repeaters are legal everywhere between 146-148 MHz, yet I believe all areas have simplex frequencies in that range - at least 146.520 if nothing else. Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: If those simplex channels fall outside the frequencies in 97.205 (b), the owner is treading on unstable legal ground. I have no other comment on the thread, other than that... simplex frequencies in a local bandplan are usually outside of the bounds of where repeaters are allowed to operate by law. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
WAIT A MINUTE! YOUR input was 146.400, and the co-channel input was 147.600, and they didn't like a user of your repeater? The co-channel repeater could have never HEARD your user in their repeater! Since when does anyone have the right to complain about users on someone else's repeater let alone use that as a basis for decoordination? Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: Some may think it is bad practice, but there is much more to the story. The repeater was coordinated at 147.00 output and 146.400 input and ran as such for about 4 years. Then the Oregon coordination coucil rescinded the coordination because the co-channel user did not like one of the users of my repeater. They said that because they rescinded, they did not have to follow the de-coordination proceedure. Since the co-channel user also on 147.000 but used a different input (147.600) I moved kept the input the same moved the output to 147.435 like they do in LA and San Francisco. I also gave the repeater to a friend. It has operated this way for over 12 years with no interference complaints. I have supposedly been on the waiting list for a 2 meter repeater pair for nearly 13 years, but every time I ask for confirmation of the waiting status, have never been given anything. As soon as the Oregon Region Relay Council starts following their own preceedures, maybe others will start following their proceedures. There are a handful of repeaters operating in the Oregon Region Relay Council area and NOT bothering to coordinate with them. Also, about half the state has broken away from them and started a different group called BMUG because of their frustration with the Oregon Region Relay Council. Since I am an OO, I think if I was involved in an illegal repeater I would be a pretty easy target. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:28:06 PM CDT From: kk2ed [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not condoning such operations, but a Band Plan is just that - a band plan. If the emitter is otherwise within regulations, a repeater on simplex channels may be legal, provided it is under proper control. It is similar to an uncoordinated repeater. Unless it is causing willful interference, it is not illegal. Such practices may not be very popular among the local hams. Bad practice, yes. Illegal, no. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6B
Actually, the FCC has upheld local bandplans, so it does have a legal basis. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: Band plans have 2 requirements...FCC part 97 and gentlemens agreements. The latter has no legal basis. on 2 m repeaters can by FCC 97 use 144.5-145.5 and 146-148. The gentlemens agreement may make some freqs simplex or for repeater operation, but still one can use for repeaters. Simplex is use so little in many areas and 146.52 and maybe a few others in most areas might be used, but are perfectly legal for repeater use. It looks as if the 146.400/147.435 would be acceptable by most and certainly by FCC 97. If it works for the community it is in it is for the better. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/10/13 Sat PM 11:17:19 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 On Oct 13, 2007, at 8:27 PM, kk2ed wrote: I'm not condoning such operations, but a Band Plan is just that - a band plan. If the emitter is otherwise within regulations, a repeater on simplex channels may be legal, provided it is under proper control. It is similar to an uncoordinated repeater. Unless it is causing willful interference, it is not illegal. Such practices may not be very popular among the local hams. Bad practice, yes. Illegal, no. Wrong. Review FCC Part 97.205(b). http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/c.html#205 Repeaters have specific frequencies they are allowed to operate on, and are one of the only types of Amateur Stations with an exclusionary rule in Part 97 saying that they can only operate in specific frequency allocations. If those simplex channels fall outside the frequencies in 97.205 (b), the owner is treading on unstable legal ground. I didn't look at the frequencies the two gentlemen were talking about in their messages back and forth (since it looked like they were just dragging their local mud into a public forum -- usually not worth reading) but in most areas of the country, local bandplans place simplex operation in an area of (whatever) band that is restricted to not allowing repeater operation. I have no other comment on the thread, other than that... simplex frequencies in a local bandplan are usually outside of the bounds of where repeaters are allowed to operate by law. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6B
MCH, I think in that the FCC has held up bandplans as giving a coordinator the right to deny coordination if a plan is not followed by a user. However, the FCC has not said to my knowledge someone cannot put on a repeater if it does not fit a coordinators plan. In fact the FCC has repeatedly stated a repeater does not need to be coordinated, but uses coordination only in the event of interference issues. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/10/14 Sun AM 06:20:08 CDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6B Actually, the FCC has upheld local bandplans, so it does have a legal basis. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: Band plans have 2 requirements...FCC part 97 and gentlemens agreements. The latter has no legal basis. on 2 m repeaters can by FCC 97 use 144.5-145.5 and 146-148. The gentlemens agreement may make some freqs simplex or for repeater operation, but still one can use for repeaters. Simplex is use so little in many areas and 146.52 and maybe a few others in most areas might be used, but are perfectly legal for repeater use. It looks as if the 146.400/147.435 would be acceptable by most and certainly by FCC 97. If it works for the community it is in it is for the better. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/10/13 Sat PM 11:17:19 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 On Oct 13, 2007, at 8:27 PM, kk2ed wrote: I'm not condoning such operations, but a Band Plan is just that - a band plan. If the emitter is otherwise within regulations, a repeater on simplex channels may be legal, provided it is under proper control. It is similar to an uncoordinated repeater. Unless it is causing willful interference, it is not illegal. Such practices may not be very popular among the local hams. Bad practice, yes. Illegal, no. Wrong. Review FCC Part 97.205(b). http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/c.html#205 Repeaters have specific frequencies they are allowed to operate on, and are one of the only types of Amateur Stations with an exclusionary rule in Part 97 saying that they can only operate in specific frequency allocations. If those simplex channels fall outside the frequencies in 97.205 (b), the owner is treading on unstable legal ground. I didn't look at the frequencies the two gentlemen were talking about in their messages back and forth (since it looked like they were just dragging their local mud into a public forum -- usually not worth reading) but in most areas of the country, local bandplans place simplex operation in an area of (whatever) band that is restricted to not allowing repeater operation. I have no other comment on the thread, other than that... simplex frequencies in a local bandplan are usually outside of the bounds of where repeaters are allowed to operate by law. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. Yahoo! Groups Links Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
Re: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K
MCH, Both repeater outputs were 147.000 with one high input and one low. Yes both repeater users would have heard both repeaters for they tx on same freq. No of course one repeater user would not have been heard on the other repeater. Guess this is what you are saying. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/10/14 Sun AM 06:18:35 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 WAIT A MINUTE! YOUR input was 146.400, and the co-channel input was 147.600, and they didn't like a user of your repeater? The co-channel repeater could have never HEARD your user in their repeater! Since when does anyone have the right to complain about users on someone else's repeater let alone use that as a basis for decoordination? Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: Some may think it is bad practice, but there is much more to the story. The repeater was coordinated at 147.00 output and 146.400 input and ran as such for about 4 years. Then the Oregon coordination coucil rescinded the coordination because the co-channel user did not like one of the users of my repeater. They said that because they rescinded, they did not have to follow the de-coordination proceedure. Since the co-channel user also on 147.000 but used a different input (147.600) I moved kept the input the same moved the output to 147.435 like they do in LA and San Francisco. I also gave the repeater to a friend. It has operated this way for over 12 years with no interference complaints. I have supposedly been on the waiting list for a 2 meter repeater pair for nearly 13 years, but every time I ask for confirmation of the waiting status, have never been given anything. As soon as the Oregon Region Relay Council starts following their own preceedures, maybe others will start following their proceedures. There are a handful of repeaters operating in the Oregon Region Relay Council area and NOT bothering to coordinate with them. Also, about half the state has broken away from them and started a different group called BMUG because of their frustration with the Oregon Region Relay Council. Since I am an OO, I think if I was involved in an illegal repeater I would be a pretty easy target. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:28:06 PM CDT From: kk2ed [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not condoning such operations, but a Band Plan is just that - a band plan. If the emitter is otherwise within regulations, a repeater on simplex channels may be legal, provided it is under proper control. It is similar to an uncoordinated repeater. Unless it is causing willful interference, it is not illegal. Such practices may not be very popular among the local hams. Bad practice, yes. Illegal, no. Yahoo! Groups Links Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
--- Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have no other comment on the thread, other than that... simplex frequencies in a local bandplan are usually outside of the bounds of where repeaters are allowed to operate by law. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] Most simplex frequencies are in the middle of the repeater band plan. For example 146.52 .55 .58 and several around 147.58 are some of the most common simplex frequencies as per most repeater co-ordinator band plans and are more or less near the middle of the 146 to 148 FCC repeater bandplan. Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=listsid=396545433
Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
In case anyone here has forgotten the policies of this list, I quote from the Yahoo Groups homepage for repeater-builder... This list is not for discussing FCC rules, proper operating practices, or brand loyalty (Motorola vs. GE). It is here for providing quality technical information. I may not be a moderator here, but I'm sick of my inbox being clogged with I'm right, you're wrong rhetoric about the rules when such subject matter is not generally acceptable on this list. Have a nice day. Flames, bile and other dreck will be ignored. Brian, N4BWP --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Ralph Mowery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have no other comment on the thread, other than that... simplex frequencies in a local bandplan are usually outside of the bounds of where repeaters are allowed to operate by law. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] Most simplex frequencies are in the middle of the repeater band plan. For example 146.52 .55 .58 and several around 147.58 are some of the most common simplex frequencies as per most repeater co-ordinator band plans and are more or less near the middle of the 146 to 148 FCC repeater bandplan. __ __ Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=listsid=396545433
[Repeater-Builder] tower work
Does any one know any one in the Knoxville area of Tennessee that does tower work? I have a 48 foot tower that need an antenna change. thanks John
Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV,
I may not be a moderator here, but I'm sick of my inbox being clogged with I'm right, you're wrong rhetoric about the rules when such subject matter is not generally acceptable on this list. ZZzzz...! Oh sorry, I was sleeping. So change your group preference from emails to reading the group direct off the web with a normal browser. Much more practical when you read multiple groups. Takes less than .5 seconds to browse past the FCC rules cannon fodder, politics and the D-Star thread if you don't like it. s.
[Repeater-Builder] VHF, UHF Duplexers, Filters
Dear All, If anyone wants VHF, UHF Duplexers, Filters, Preselectors, at low price and best performance (e.g. Isolation of 90 dB, Insertion Loss of 1 dB and Return Loss of 20 dB), mail me personaly. You can also get these products custom built also. Thank You
RE: [Repeater-Builder] 147.435 Repeater in Simplex Channels Contrary to Part 97
147.435 most definately is a simplex freq and is not authorized for a repeater freq. See:re:Section 97.101(a) and: http://www.bloomington.in.us/~wh2t/ and Riley Hollingsworth opinion FCC and: ARRL Band Plan and Simplex National Channels http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html#2m After reading these sites each can come to his own interpretation of them. It looks quite clear. There are many more sites, documents and opinions if one wishes to search for them that pretty much say the same thing. 147.435 is NOT a repeater freq. The simplex frequenciesa are there for a reason and need to be protected, probably even more so than the Satellite frequencies. Glenn N1GBY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JOHN MACKEY Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 12:29 AM 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 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 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)
RE: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6B
Sorry but band plans are very much supported by the FCC as being in conformance with Part 97. Section 97.101(a) of the Amateur Radio Service rules refers to good engineering and good amateur practice--considered to refer to maintaining the highest standards of engineering and on-the-air comportment. According to FCC Special Counsel Riley Hollingsworth, good amateur practice means: Among other things respecting band plans... This is not a mere gentlemans agreement as it were. -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Wright Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 1:24 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6B Band plans have 2 requirements...FCC part 97 and gentlemens agreements. The latter has no legal basis. on 2 m repeaters can by FCC 97 use 144.5-145.5 and 146-148. The gentlemens agreement may make some freqs simplex or for repeater operation, but still one can use for repeaters. Simplex is use so little in many areas and 146.52 and maybe a few others in most areas might be used, but are perfectly legal for repeater use. It looks as if the 146.400/147.435 would be acceptable by most and certainly by FCC 97. If it works for the community it is in it is for the better. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:nate%40natetech.com Date: 2007/10/13 Sat PM 11:17:19 CDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC On Oct 13, 2007, at 8:27 PM, kk2ed wrote: I'm not condoning such operations, but a Band Plan is just that - a band plan. If the emitter is otherwise within regulations, a repeater on simplex channels may be legal, provided it is under proper control. It is similar to an uncoordinated repeater. Unless it is causing willful interference, it is not illegal. Such practices may not be very popular among the local hams. Bad practice, yes. Illegal, no. Wrong. Review FCC Part 97.205(b). http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/c.html#205 http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/c.html#205 Repeaters have specific frequencies they are allowed to operate on, and are one of the only types of Amateur Stations with an exclusionary rule in Part 97 saying that they can only operate in specific frequency allocations. If those simplex channels fall outside the frequencies in 97.205 (b), the owner is treading on unstable legal ground. I didn't look at the frequencies the two gentlemen were talking about in their messages back and forth (since it looked like they were just dragging their local mud into a public forum -- usually not worth reading) but in most areas of the country, local bandplans place simplex operation in an area of (whatever) band that is restricted to not allowing repeater operation. I have no other comment on the thread, other than that... simplex frequencies in a local bandplan are usually outside of the bounds of where repeaters are allowed to operate by law. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:nate%40natetech.com Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.9/1069 - Release Date: 10/13/2007 7:26 PM
RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
If you want the exact freq why dont you just ask Mike who posted it (K7PFJ) Pretty much all the simplex band plans for two that I have seen are the same anyway and ALL of them in the US recongnize 52 as the National Simplex freq. I may have missed one or two out there that may be different, nevertheless I have no reason to think that Mike was lying when he posted this item since he has local knowledge of the issue. SO I dont call it an assumption. I am sure MIke will probably respond to this anyway. G. -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MCH Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 6:27 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC It depends where the simplex channels are. What some people call simplex channels in the 146-147 MHz part of the band are repeater channels in the ARRL bandplan (and have been for decades). Just look in any ARRL Repeater Directory. So before you go assuming things, let's hear the exact frequencies. Joe M. Glenn Shaw wrote: 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:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Mike Mullarkey Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 9:43 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.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:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of JOHN MACKEY Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 5:37 PM 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 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 mailto:nate%40natetech.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.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
RE: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
I hear ya. 52 direct. You have to be kidding. He definately needs some adjustments. Not a member of Mensa. 73 Glenn -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Daron J. Wilson Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 4:57 PM 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, Mr. Mackey's alleged (I'm being polite) non coordinated, non band plan compliant analog repeater is certainly 'eligible' for such a letter. What amazes me more is the IRLP node in Portland that is UHF linked to a 146.520 remote base on a commercial tower that pretty much hoses the national simplex frequency for the entire metro area. The more curious fact is why folks feel the need to operate their stuff outside the box, outside of 'coordination' that the rest of us live with. There will always be one or two that pull this kind of crap and force the entire amateur population to struggle with it. 73 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
Re: RE: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee,
The bandplans are made by Hams, not the FCC and there are many of them. California has both low in/hi out and hi in/low out repeater pairs on UHF. Some states use 20 kHz on 146-148 with most using 15. Same on 144.5-145.5. Someone can have good engineering practice using what some band plans call simplex frequencies for a repeater. Not using avialable frequencies that have little or no usage would not. The respect for bandplans comes primarily for interfernce causing problems. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Glenn Shaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/10/14 Sun AM 09:07:31 CDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6B Sorry but band plans are very much supported by the FCC as being in conformance with Part 97. Section 97.101(a) of the Amateur Radio Service rules refers to good engineering and good amateur practice--considered to refer to maintaining the highest standards of engineering and on-the-air comportment. According to FCC Special Counsel Riley Hollingsworth, good amateur practice means: Among other things respecting band plans... This is not a mere gentlemans agreement as it were. -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Wright Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 1:24 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6B Band plans have 2 requirements...FCC part 97 and gentlemens agreements. The latter has no legal basis. on 2 m repeaters can by FCC 97 use 144.5-145.5 and 146-148. The gentlemens agreement may make some freqs simplex or for repeater operation, but still one can use for repeaters. Simplex is use so little in many areas and 146.52 and maybe a few others in most areas might be used, but are perfectly legal for repeater use. It looks as if the 146.400/147.435 would be acceptable by most and certainly by FCC 97. If it works for the community it is in it is for the better. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:nate%40natetech.com Date: 2007/10/13 Sat PM 11:17:19 CDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC On Oct 13, 2007, at 8:27 PM, kk2ed wrote: I'm not condoning such operations, but a Band Plan is just that - a band plan. If the emitter is otherwise within regulations, a repeater on simplex channels may be legal, provided it is under proper control. It is similar to an uncoordinated repeater. Unless it is causing willful interference, it is not illegal. Such practices may not be very popular among the local hams. Bad practice, yes. Illegal, no. Wrong. Review FCC Part 97.205(b). http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/c.html#205 http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/c.html#205 Repeaters have specific frequencies they are allowed to operate on, and are one of the only types of Amateur Stations with an exclusionary rule in Part 97 saying that they can only operate in specific frequency allocations. If those simplex channels fall outside the frequencies in 97.205 (b), the owner is treading on unstable legal ground. I didn't look at the frequencies the two gentlemen were talking about in their messages back and forth (since it looked like they were just dragging their local mud into a public forum -- usually not worth reading) but in most areas of the country, local bandplans place simplex operation in an area of (whatever) band that is restricted to not allowing repeater operation. I have no other comment on the thread, other than that... simplex frequencies in a local bandplan are usually outside of the bounds of where repeaters are allowed to operate by law. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:nate%40natetech.com Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.9/1069 - Release Date: 10/13/2007 7:26 PM Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K
mccrpt, The point is that the other group simply didn't want to hear a user on another repeater and complained. That is a completely ridiculous reason to decoordinate a repeater. I could see if the user was coming through their repeater (and then they have the right to demand that the user stop), but when it comes to another person's repeater, what right do they have to demand terms? (they being the coordinator or the trustee of another repeater) If I don't like someone using your repeater, do I have the right to complain and have your coordination revolked? I think not. I only have any say if they are accessing my repeater. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: MCH, Both repeater outputs were 147.000 with one high input and one low. Yes both repeater users would have heard both repeaters for they tx on same freq. No of course one repeater user would not have been heard on the other repeater. Guess this is what you are saying. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/10/14 Sun AM 06:18:35 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 WAIT A MINUTE! YOUR input was 146.400, and the co-channel input was 147.600, and they didn't like a user of your repeater? The co-channel repeater could have never HEARD your user in their repeater! Since when does anyone have the right to complain about users on someone else's repeater let alone use that as a basis for decoordination? Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: Some may think it is bad practice, but there is much more to the story. The repeater was coordinated at 147.00 output and 146.400 input and ran as such for about 4 years. Then the Oregon coordination coucil rescinded the coordination because the co-channel user did not like one of the users of my repeater. They said that because they rescinded, they did not have to follow the de-coordination proceedure. Since the co-channel user also on 147.000 but used a different input (147.600) I moved kept the input the same moved the output to 147.435 like they do in LA and San Francisco. I also gave the repeater to a friend. It has operated this way for over 12 years with no interference complaints. I have supposedly been on the waiting list for a 2 meter repeater pair for nearly 13 years, but every time I ask for confirmation of the waiting status, have never been given anything. As soon as the Oregon Region Relay Council starts following their own preceedures, maybe others will start following their proceedures. There are a handful of repeaters operating in the Oregon Region Relay Council area and NOT bothering to coordinate with them. Also, about half the state has broken away from them and started a different group called BMUG because of their frustration with the Oregon Region Relay Council. Since I am an OO, I think if I was involved in an illegal repeater I would be a pretty easy target. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:28:06 PM CDT From: kk2ed [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not condoning such operations, but a Band Plan is just that - a band plan. If the emitter is otherwise within regulations, a repeater on simplex channels may be legal, provided it is under proper control. It is similar to an uncoordinated repeater. Unless it is causing willful interference, it is not illegal. Such practices may not be very popular among the local hams. Bad practice, yes. Illegal, no. Yahoo! Groups Links Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: RE: [Repeater-Builder] 147.435 Repeater in Simplex Channels Contrary to Part
Glen, I think you should read Part 97 on this, hi. There is not one word of language making 147.435 a simplex freq and not a repeater freq. A repeater that has been on this pair for what over 15 years would speak to it being legal and allowed. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Glenn Shaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/10/14 Sun AM 09:00:48 CDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] 147.435 Repeater in Simplex Channels Contrary to Part 97 147.435 most definately is a simplex freq and is not authorized for a repeater freq. See:re:Section 97.101(a) and: http://www.bloomington.in.us/~wh2t/ and Riley Hollingsworth opinion FCC and: ARRL Band Plan and Simplex National Channels http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html#2m After reading these sites each can come to his own interpretation of them. It looks quite clear. There are many more sites, documents and opinions if one wishes to search for them that pretty much say the same thing. 147.435 is NOT a repeater freq. The simplex frequenciesa are there for a reason and need to be protected, probably even more so than the Satellite frequencies. Glenn N1GBY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JOHN MACKEY Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 12:29 AM 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 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 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) Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
Re: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K
Joe, I totally agree. Very well put. Makes one wonder about some coordinators, but then again there might have been issues that violated the coordinators policies such as distance. Not going to blame the coordinator until had all the story. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/10/14 Sun PM 01:07:27 CDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K mccrpt, The point is that the other group simply didn't want to hear a user on another repeater and complained. That is a completely ridiculous reason to decoordinate a repeater. I could see if the user was coming through their repeater (and then they have the right to demand that the user stop), but when it comes to another person's repeater, what right do they have to demand terms? (they being the coordinator or the trustee of another repeater) If I don't like someone using your repeater, do I have the right to complain and have your coordination revolked? I think not. I only have any say if they are accessing my repeater. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: MCH, Both repeater outputs were 147.000 with one high input and one low. Yes both repeater users would have heard both repeaters for they tx on same freq. No of course one repeater user would not have been heard on the other repeater. Guess this is what you are saying. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/10/14 Sun AM 06:18:35 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 WAIT A MINUTE! YOUR input was 146.400, and the co-channel input was 147.600, and they didn't like a user of your repeater? The co-channel repeater could have never HEARD your user in their repeater! Since when does anyone have the right to complain about users on someone else's repeater let alone use that as a basis for decoordination? Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: Some may think it is bad practice, but there is much more to the story. The repeater was coordinated at 147.00 output and 146.400 input and ran as such for about 4 years. Then the Oregon coordination coucil rescinded the coordination because the co-channel user did not like one of the users of my repeater. They said that because they rescinded, they did not have to follow the de-coordination proceedure. Since the co-channel user also on 147.000 but used a different input (147.600) I moved kept the input the same moved the output to 147.435 like they do in LA and San Francisco. I also gave the repeater to a friend. It has operated this way for over 12 years with no interference complaints. I have supposedly been on the waiting list for a 2 meter repeater pair for nearly 13 years, but every time I ask for confirmation of the waiting status, have never been given anything. As soon as the Oregon Region Relay Council starts following their own preceedures, maybe others will start following their proceedures. There are a handful of repeaters operating in the Oregon Region Relay Council area and NOT bothering to coordinate with them. Also, about half the state has broken away from them and started a different group called BMUG because of their frustration with the Oregon Region Relay Council. Since I am an OO, I think if I was involved in an illegal repeater I would be a pretty easy target. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:28:06 PM CDT From: kk2ed [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not condoning such operations, but a Band Plan is just that - a band plan. If the emitter is otherwise within regulations, a repeater on simplex channels may be legal, provided it is under proper control. It is similar to an uncoordinated repeater. Unless it is causing willful interference, it is not illegal. Such practices may not be very popular among the local hams. Bad practice, yes. Illegal, no. Yahoo! Groups Links Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. Yahoo! Groups Links Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee,
Some bandplans are specified right in Part 97. As such, the FCC made those. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: The bandplans are made by Hams, not the FCC and there are many of them. California has both low in/hi out and hi in/low out repeater pairs on UHF. Some states use 20 kHz on 146-148 with most using 15. Same on 144.5-145.5. Someone can have good engineering practice using what some band plans call simplex frequencies for a repeater. Not using avialable frequencies that have little or no usage would not. The respect for bandplans comes primarily for interfernce causing problems. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Glenn Shaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/10/14 Sun AM 09:07:31 CDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6B Sorry but band plans are very much supported by the FCC as being in conformance with Part 97. Section 97.101(a) of the Amateur Radio Service rules refers to good engineering and good amateur practice--considered to refer to maintaining the highest standards of engineering and on-the-air comportment. According to FCC Special Counsel Riley Hollingsworth, good amateur practice means: Among other things respecting band plans... This is not a mere gentlemans agreement as it were. -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Wright Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 1:24 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6B Band plans have 2 requirements...FCC part 97 and gentlemens agreements. The latter has no legal basis. on 2 m repeaters can by FCC 97 use 144.5-145.5 and 146-148. The gentlemens agreement may make some freqs simplex or for repeater operation, but still one can use for repeaters. Simplex is use so little in many areas and 146.52 and maybe a few others in most areas might be used, but are perfectly legal for repeater use. It looks as if the 146.400/147.435 would be acceptable by most and certainly by FCC 97. If it works for the community it is in it is for the better. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:nate%40natetech.com Date: 2007/10/13 Sat PM 11:17:19 CDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC On Oct 13, 2007, at 8:27 PM, kk2ed wrote: I'm not condoning such operations, but a Band Plan is just that - a band plan. If the emitter is otherwise within regulations, a repeater on simplex channels may be legal, provided it is under proper control. It is similar to an uncoordinated repeater. Unless it is causing willful interference, it is not illegal. Such practices may not be very popular among the local hams. Bad practice, yes. Illegal, no. Wrong. Review FCC Part 97.205(b). http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/c.html#205 http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/c.html#205 Repeaters have specific frequencies they are allowed to operate on, and are one of the only types of Amateur Stations with an exclusionary rule in Part 97 saying that they can only operate in specific frequency allocations. If those simplex channels fall outside the frequencies in 97.205 (b), the owner is treading on unstable legal ground. I didn't look at the frequencies the two gentlemen were talking about in their messages back and forth (since it looked like they were just dragging their local mud into a public forum -- usually not worth reading) but in most areas of the country, local bandplans place simplex operation in an area of (whatever) band that is restricted to not allowing repeater operation. I have no other comment on the thread, other than that... simplex frequencies in a local bandplan are usually outside of the bounds of where repeaters are allowed to operate by law. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:nate%40natetech.com Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.9/1069 - Release Date: 10/13/2007 7:26 PM Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K
This is true. We've only heard one side of the story. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: Joe, I totally agree. Very well put. Makes one wonder about some coordinators, but then again there might have been issues that violated the coordinators policies such as distance. Not going to blame the coordinator until had all the story. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/10/14 Sun PM 01:07:27 CDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K mccrpt, The point is that the other group simply didn't want to hear a user on another repeater and complained. That is a completely ridiculous reason to decoordinate a repeater. I could see if the user was coming through their repeater (and then they have the right to demand that the user stop), but when it comes to another person's repeater, what right do they have to demand terms? (they being the coordinator or the trustee of another repeater) If I don't like someone using your repeater, do I have the right to complain and have your coordination revolked? I think not. I only have any say if they are accessing my repeater. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: MCH, Both repeater outputs were 147.000 with one high input and one low. Yes both repeater users would have heard both repeaters for they tx on same freq. No of course one repeater user would not have been heard on the other repeater. Guess this is what you are saying. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/10/14 Sun AM 06:18:35 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 WAIT A MINUTE! YOUR input was 146.400, and the co-channel input was 147.600, and they didn't like a user of your repeater? The co-channel repeater could have never HEARD your user in their repeater! Since when does anyone have the right to complain about users on someone else's repeater let alone use that as a basis for decoordination? Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: Some may think it is bad practice, but there is much more to the story. The repeater was coordinated at 147.00 output and 146.400 input and ran as such for about 4 years. Then the Oregon coordination coucil rescinded the coordination because the co-channel user did not like one of the users of my repeater. They said that because they rescinded, they did not have to follow the de-coordination proceedure. Since the co-channel user also on 147.000 but used a different input (147.600) I moved kept the input the same moved the output to 147.435 like they do in LA and San Francisco. I also gave the repeater to a friend. It has operated this way for over 12 years with no interference complaints. I have supposedly been on the waiting list for a 2 meter repeater pair for nearly 13 years, but every time I ask for confirmation of the waiting status, have never been given anything. As soon as the Oregon Region Relay Council starts following their own preceedures, maybe others will start following their proceedures. There are a handful of repeaters operating in the Oregon Region Relay Council area and NOT bothering to coordinate with them. Also, about half the state has broken away from them and started a different group called BMUG because of their frustration with the Oregon Region Relay Council. Since I am an OO, I think if I was involved in an illegal repeater I would be a pretty easy target. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:28:06 PM CDT From: kk2ed [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not condoning such operations, but a Band Plan is just that - a band plan. If the emitter is otherwise within regulations, a repeater on simplex channels may be legal, provided it is under proper control. It is similar to an uncoordinated repeater. Unless it is causing willful interference, it is not illegal. Such practices may not be very popular among the local hams. Bad practice, yes. Illegal, no. Yahoo! Groups Links Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. Yahoo! Groups Links Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 147.435 Repeater in Simplex Channels Contrary to Part 97
Glenn, Do you have a Repeater Directory? (any one published in the last 30 years or so will do) Look at the published bandplans. In the 2005/2006 editon, this is on page 37 for 2M. Quote: --- 146.40 - 146.58 Simplex (*) 147.42 - 147.57 Simplex (*) --- First, the 147.42 - 147.57 should be 147.405 - 147.585. BUT, notice the (*) beside the mode? Look at the caveat: * MAY BE REPEATER INPUTS/OUTPUTS AS WELL. (paraphrased) Some of these frequencies have been used by repeaters for 30 years. So, to say that these are all simplex frequencies is contrary to the ARRL bandplan and perhaps your local coordination bandplan, as it is in my area (WPA). It seems quite clear to me, being in black and white, that these are most definitely not strictly simplex frequencies. Joe M. Glenn Shaw wrote: 147.435 most definately is a simplex freq and is not authorized for a repeater freq. See:re:Section 97.101(a) and: http://www.bloomington.in.us/~wh2t/ and Riley Hollingsworth opinion FCC and: ARRL Band Plan and Simplex National Channels http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html#2m After reading these sites each can come to his own interpretation of them. It looks quite clear. There are many more sites, documents and opinions if one wishes to search for them that pretty much say the same thing. 147.435 is NOT a repeater freq. The simplex frequenciesa are there for a reason and need to be protected, probably even more so than the Satellite frequencies. Glenn N1GBY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JOHN MACKEY Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 12:29 AM 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 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 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) Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [Repeater-Builder] 147.435 Repeater in Simplex Channels Contrary to Part 97
At 10/14/2007 07:00, you wrote: 147.435 most definately is a simplex freq and is not authorized for a repeater freq. It depends on the local bandplan. Here in SoCal, 146.40 in/147.435 is a repeater pair per our bandplan. In many other areas, those two frequencies are simplex. In those areas, repeaters can operate there so long as they do not cause interference to simplex operation on those frequencies. Bob NO6B
RE: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
At 10/13/2007 15:23, you wrote: compliant analog repeater is certainly 'eligible' for such a letter. What amazes me more is the IRLP node in Portland that is UHF linked to a 146.520 remote base on a commercial tower that pretty much hoses the national simplex frequency for the entire metro area. We had something similar show up here in SoCal on 223.50 during FD. It was the impetus for a major 220 MHz bandplan revision here, as there was no dedicated spectrum in the old bandplan for simplex internet links, hence 223.50 was just as good as any other simplex frequency for that use. Now it isn't, as Echolink IRLP have a legitimate home here. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Intergrating comspec ts-64 to MSR2000
I was back down at the site today and yup... Flakey... My PL board is definitely going haywire. I have a ts64 ready to go.. Can you shoot over your notes? skipp025 wrote: Flaky on the TX or RX side? Tone reeds do fail and get flaky. In many cases you can actually swap the reeds to the other location (regardless of what the labels might say). If the problem moves to the other side function... you know the reed needs to be replaced. I've replaced lots of tone reeds rc networks, never an entire card. I've also replaced the card with a Comm Spec TP-3200 and I have the information you're asking about. But I've also revised that modification quite a bit since the initial write-up. Maybe get you a copy of it on Tuesday if you really want it... still. cheers, skipp Jay Urish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anybody have and notes or down n' dirty drawings on best practice for integrating a ts-64 to the msr2000? I think my PL card is flaky, and I have a space ts64... -- Jay Urish W5GM ARRL Life Member Denton County ARRL VEC N5ERS VP/Trustee Monitoring 444.850 PL-88.5 -- Jay Urish W5GM ARRL Life MemberDenton County ARRL VEC N5ERS VP/Trustee Monitoring 444.850 PL-88.5
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 147.435 Repeater in Simplex Channels Contrary to Part
The 4 coordinated NARCC repeaters on the 147.945/345 pair in Northern California will be very upset to learn that after decades of operation on this pair, that their operation is illegal and should be shut down. I think I'll pass on telling them that. Bruce K7IJ In a message dated 10/14/2007 11:30:35 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Glen, I think you should read Part 97 on this, hi. There is not one word of language making 147.435 a simplex freq and not a repeater freq. A repeater that has been on this pair for what over 15 years would speak to it being legal and allowed. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Glenn Shaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) Date: 2007/10/14 Sun AM 09:00:48 CDT To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com) Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] 147.435 Repeater in Simplex Channels Contrary to Part 97 147.435 most definately is a simplex freq and is not authorized for a repeater freq. See: re:Section 97.101(a) and: _http://www.bloominghttp://wwwhttp:/_ (http://www.bloomington.in.us/~wh2t/) and Riley Hollingsworth opinion FCC and: ARRL Band Plan and Simplex National Channels _http://www.arrl.http://www.http://www.arrl.http://www.http://_ (http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html#2m) After reading these sites each can come to his own interpretation of them. It looks quite clear. There are many more sites, documents and opinions if one wishes to search for them that pretty much say the same thing. 147.435 is NOT a repeater freq. The simplex frequenciesa are there for a reason and need to be protected, probably even more so than the Satellite frequencies. Glenn N1GBY -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com) ] On Behalf Of JOHN MACKEY Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 12:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto: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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) mailto:k7pfj%mailto:k7pmai To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com) mailto:Repeater-mailto:Repeater-mailto:Re 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) ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
[Repeater-Builder] Re: 147.435 Repeater in Simplex Channels Contrary to Part
Not too long ago there was a posting that there was a repeater on the so called simplex freqs on 146 and 147. I posted an answer that they were legal as stated by the ARRL in the Repeater Directory. For those that think part 97 says different should read what the ARRL says. I don't think the ARRL would publish false info about the freqs. The Repeater Directory makes no distinction as to what areas are allowed to use these freqs for repeaters. Read the section in the book under Band Plans and then go to the freq plan for 2 meters. Be sure to read the foot notes Ant area can use these freqs for repeaters. Howard K2IMO
Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6B
In Oregon, the ORRC (Oregon Region Relay Council) has taken the position that they are NOT a spectrum management group as some other areas have done. The ORRC coordinates repeaters in frequency bands they recognize in their policies. That does not stop any other group from forming to coordinate repeaters in areas/frequency bands that the ORRC does not recognize. It also does not stop operators from building repeaters in areas/frequency bands the ORRC does not recognize. If a group such as the ORRC were a spectrum management council, that might be a different story. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 06:48:07 AM CDT From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6B Actually, the FCC has upheld local bandplans, so it does have a legal basis. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: Band plans have 2 requirements...FCC part 97 and gentlemens agreements. The latter has no legal basis. on 2 m repeaters can by FCC 97 use 144.5-145.5 and 146-148. The gentlemens agreement may make some freqs simplex or for repeater operation, but still one can use for repeaters. Simplex is use so little in many areas and 146.52 and maybe a few others in most areas might be used, but are perfectly legal for repeater use. It looks as if the 146.400/147.435 would be acceptable by most and certainly by FCC 97. If it works for the community it is in it is for the better. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/10/13 Sat PM 11:17:19 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 On Oct 13, 2007, at 8:27 PM, kk2ed wrote: I'm not condoning such operations, but a Band Plan is just that - a band plan. If the emitter is otherwise within regulations, a repeater on simplex channels may be legal, provided it is under proper control. It is similar to an uncoordinated repeater. Unless it is causing willful interference, it is not illegal. Such practices may not be very popular among the local hams. Bad practice, yes. Illegal, no. Wrong. Review FCC Part 97.205(b). http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/c.html#205 Repeaters have specific frequencies they are allowed to operate on, and are one of the only types of Amateur Stations with an exclusionary rule in Part 97 saying that they can only operate in specific frequency allocations. If those simplex channels fall outside the frequencies in 97.205 (b), the owner is treading on unstable legal ground. I didn't look at the frequencies the two gentlemen were talking about in their messages back and forth (since it looked like they were just dragging their local mud into a public forum -- usually not worth reading) but in most areas of the country, local bandplans place simplex operation in an area of (whatever) band that is restricted to not allowing repeater operation. I have no other comment on the thread, other than that... simplex frequencies in a local bandplan are usually outside of the bounds of where repeaters are allowed to operate by law. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [Repeater-Builder] 147.435 Repeater in Simplex Channels Contrary to Part 97
Along with 147.435 being used as a repeater output in Oregon, Northern California, Southern California, it is also used for 3 repeaters in Sioux City, Iowa. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 04:10:42 PM CDT From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] 147.435 Repeater in Simplex Channels Contrary to Part 97 At 10/14/2007 07:00, you wrote: 147.435 most definately is a simplex freq and is not authorized for a repeater freq. It depends on the local bandplan. Here in SoCal, 146.40 in/147.435 is a repeater pair per our bandplan. In many other areas, those two frequencies are simplex. In those areas, repeaters can operate there so long as they do not cause interference to simplex operation on those frequencies. Bob NO6B
Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
Joe- Your understanding is correct! The owner of the co-channel repeater (KA7TRY) heard about a user on my repeater that he did not like. Since our repeaters were over 100 miles apart, he installed a receiver at his repeater site to listen to my 147.000 repeater (when his was not transmitting) and linked it down to his house by microwave. Then he heard the user he did not like and rescinded his approval of the co-channel agreement for my repeater to operate. The ORRC (Oregon Region Relay Council) then used that to rescind my coordination on 147.000 and said it was rescinded and not de-coordinated and therefore no de-coordination hearing was needed. I argued that no one had the right to rescind or de-coordinate based on the fact that they did not like a user of the repeater. It did no good! Pretty sleazy! Supposedly I have been on the waiting list since this happened in 1995. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 06:18:46 AM CDT From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] WAIT A MINUTE! YOUR input was 146.400, and the co-channel input was 147.600, and they didn't like a user of your repeater? The co-channel repeater could have never HEARD your user in their repeater! Since when does anyone have the right to complain about users on someone else's repeater let alone use that as a basis for decoordination? Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: Some may think it is bad practice, but there is much more to the story. The repeater was coordinated at 147.00 output and 146.400 input and ran as such for about 4 years. Then the Oregon coordination coucil rescinded the coordination because the co-channel user did not like one of the users of my repeater. They said that because they rescinded, they did not have to follow the de-coordination proceedure. Since the co-channel user also on 147.000 but used a different input (147.600) I moved kept the input the same moved the output to 147.435 like they do in LA and San Francisco. I also gave the repeater to a friend. It has operated this way for over 12 years with no interference complaints. I have supposedly been on the waiting list for a 2 meter repeater pair for nearly 13 years, but every time I ask for confirmation of the waiting status, have never been given anything. As soon as the Oregon Region Relay Council starts following their own preceedures, maybe others will start following their proceedures. There are a handful of repeaters operating in the Oregon Region Relay Council area and NOT bothering to coordinate with them. Also, about half the state has broken away from them and started a different group called BMUG because of their frustration with the Oregon Region Relay Council. Since I am an OO, I think if I was involved in an illegal repeater I would be a pretty easy target. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:28:06 PM CDT From: kk2ed [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not condoning such operations, but a Band Plan is just that - a band plan. If the emitter is otherwise within regulations, a repeater on simplex channels may be legal, provided it is under proper control. It is similar to an uncoordinated repeater. Unless it is causing willful interference, it is not illegal. Such practices may not be very popular among the local hams. Bad practice, yes. Illegal, no. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K
I did nothing to violate thier policies. They admited they had no basis to de-coordinate me and was why they rescinded the coordination. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 01:43:04 PM CDT From: Ron Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K Joe, I totally agree. Very well put. Makes one wonder about some coordinators, but then again there might have been issues that violated the coordinators policies such as distance. Not going to blame the coordinator until had all the story. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/10/14 Sun PM 01:07:27 CDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K mccrpt, The point is that the other group simply didn't want to hear a user on another repeater and complained. That is a completely ridiculous reason to decoordinate a repeater. I could see if the user was coming through their repeater (and then they have the right to demand that the user stop), but when it comes to another person's repeater, what right do they have to demand terms? (they being the coordinator or the trustee of another repeater) If I don't like someone using your repeater, do I have the right to complain and have your coordination revolked? I think not. I only have any say if they are accessing my repeater. Joe M. Ron Wright wrote: MCH, Both repeater outputs were 147.000 with one high input and one low. Yes both repeater users would have heard both repeaters for they tx on same freq. No of course one repeater user would not have been heard on the other repeater. Guess this is what you are saying. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/10/14 Sun AM 06:18:35 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 WAIT A MINUTE! YOUR input was 146.400, and the co-channel input was 147.600, and they didn't like a user of your repeater? The co-channel repeater could have never HEARD your user in their repeater! Since when does anyone have the right to complain about users on someone else's repeater let alone use that as a basis for decoordination? Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: Some may think it is bad practice, but there is much more to the story. The repeater was coordinated at 147.00 output and 146.400 input and ran as such for about 4 years. Then the Oregon coordination coucil rescinded the coordination because the co-channel user did not like one of the users of my repeater. They said that because they rescinded, they did not have to follow the de-coordination proceedure. Since the co-channel user also on 147.000 but used a different input (147.600) I moved kept the input the same moved the output to 147.435 like they do in LA and San Francisco. I also gave the repeater to a friend. It has operated this way for over 12 years with no interference complaints. I have supposedly been on the waiting list for a 2 meter repeater pair for nearly 13 years, but every time I ask for confirmation of the waiting status, have never been given anything. As soon as the Oregon Region Relay Council starts following their own preceedures, maybe others will start following their proceedures. There are a handful of repeaters operating in the Oregon Region Relay Council area and NOT bothering to coordinate with them. Also, about half the state has broken away from them and started a different group called BMUG because of their frustration with the Oregon Region Relay Council. Since I am an OO, I think if I was involved in an illegal repeater I would be a pretty easy target. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:28:06 PM CDT From: kk2ed [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not condoning such operations, but a Band Plan is just that - a band plan. If the emitter is otherwise within regulations, a repeater on simplex channels may be legal, provided it is under proper control. It is similar to an uncoordinated repeater. Unless it is causing willful interference, it is not illegal. Such practices may not be very popular among the local hams. Bad practice, yes. Illegal, no. Yahoo! Groups Links Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome. Yahoo! Groups Links Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
[Repeater-Builder] Re: 147.435 Repeater in Simplex Channels Contrary to Part
OOooops there Bruce-- don't get too dyslexic on us. 147.3-4-5 is a different frequency than 147.4-3-5... Laryn K8TVZ --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The 4 coordinated NARCC repeaters on the 147.945/345 pair in Northern California will be very upset to learn that after decades of operation on this pair, that their operation is illegal and should be shut down. I think I'll pass on telling them that. Bruce K7IJ
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 147.435 Repeater in Simplex Channels Contrary to P...
Are you telling me it's time for my medication? In a message dated 10/14/2007 6:51:42 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: OOooops there Bruce-- don't get too dyslexic on us. 147.3-4-5 is a different frequency than 147.4-3-5... Laryn K8TVZ --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com) , cruising7388@, crui The 4 coordinated NARCC repeaters on the 147.945/345 pair in Northern California will be very upset to learn that after decades of operation on this pair, that their operation is illegal and should be shut down. I think I'll pass on telling them that. Bruce K7IJ ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 147.435 Repeater in Simplex Channels Contrary to Part 97
It's also used for at least 2 repeaters in PA (actually, 147.430) as well as one in WV. I think there was a report of one in OH, too. The OH one was not coordinated, but the other three are. Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: Along with 147.435 being used as a repeater output in Oregon, Northern California, Southern California, it is also used for 3 repeaters in Sioux City, Iowa. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 04:10:42 PM CDT From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] 147.435 Repeater in Simplex Channels Contrary to Part 97 At 10/14/2007 07:00, you wrote: 147.435 most definately is a simplex freq and is not authorized for a repeater freq. It depends on the local bandplan. Here in SoCal, 146.40 in/147.435 is a repeater pair per our bandplan. In many other areas, those two frequencies are simplex. In those areas, repeaters can operate there so long as they do not cause interference to simplex operation on those frequencies. Bob NO6B Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
All I can say is wow. Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: Joe- Your understanding is correct! The owner of the co-channel repeater (KA7TRY) heard about a user on my repeater that he did not like. Since our repeaters were over 100 miles apart, he installed a receiver at his repeater site to listen to my 147.000 repeater (when his was not transmitting) and linked it down to his house by microwave. Then he heard the user he did not like and rescinded his approval of the co-channel agreement for my repeater to operate. The ORRC (Oregon Region Relay Council) then used that to rescind my coordination on 147.000 and said it was rescinded and not de-coordinated and therefore no de-coordination hearing was needed. I argued that no one had the right to rescind or de-coordinate based on the fact that they did not like a user of the repeater. It did no good! Pretty sleazy! Supposedly I have been on the waiting list since this happened in 1995. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 06:18:46 AM CDT From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] WAIT A MINUTE! YOUR input was 146.400, and the co-channel input was 147.600, and they didn't like a user of your repeater? The co-channel repeater could have never HEARD your user in their repeater! Since when does anyone have the right to complain about users on someone else's repeater let alone use that as a basis for decoordination? Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: Some may think it is bad practice, but there is much more to the story. The repeater was coordinated at 147.00 output and 146.400 input and ran as such for about 4 years. Then the Oregon coordination coucil rescinded the coordination because the co-channel user did not like one of the users of my repeater. They said that because they rescinded, they did not have to follow the de-coordination proceedure. Since the co-channel user also on 147.000 but used a different input (147.600) I moved kept the input the same moved the output to 147.435 like they do in LA and San Francisco. I also gave the repeater to a friend. It has operated this way for over 12 years with no interference complaints. I have supposedly been on the waiting list for a 2 meter repeater pair for nearly 13 years, but every time I ask for confirmation of the waiting status, have never been given anything. As soon as the Oregon Region Relay Council starts following their own preceedures, maybe others will start following their proceedures. There are a handful of repeaters operating in the Oregon Region Relay Council area and NOT bothering to coordinate with them. Also, about half the state has broken away from them and started a different group called BMUG because of their frustration with the Oregon Region Relay Council. Since I am an OO, I think if I was involved in an illegal repeater I would be a pretty easy target. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:28:06 PM CDT From: kk2ed [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not condoning such operations, but a Band Plan is just that - a band plan. If the emitter is otherwise within regulations, a repeater on simplex channels may be legal, provided it is under proper control. It is similar to an uncoordinated repeater. Unless it is causing willful interference, it is not illegal. Such practices may not be very popular among the local hams. Bad practice, yes. Illegal, no. Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
[Repeater-Builder] Sinclair Can
I just picked up a Sinclair BPBR can from a ham fest. It has 1-150-1r10 on it but some of the 1s could be Ls the way it's printed it's hard to tell. This thing is massive. Does any one know anything about this can and if it can be tuned to 2 meter? If it can't be tuned out of the box what would have to be changed to get it to work on 2? Right now the reject is 154.205 and the pass is 154.355 My hope is that I may be able to add this to my duplexer and help fix some of the desense with it. Thanks, Vern KI4ONW
RE: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
All I can say is wow. Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: Joe- Your understanding is correct! Well yes, WOW is appropriate for this kind of a 'story'. Let me just throw out a couple of things: 1. KA7TRY couldn't have microwaved any signal to his house, I purchase a huge amount of his estate recently from his 'house' and I can guarantee you there is no microwave path from there to Table Mountain where his repeater was. 2. The stories are many, oh so many. As a member of the ORRC, I have many boxes of paperwork from Mr. Mackey's time in the organization (minutes, correspondence, documents, etc.). Rest assured, there is more than one side to these 'stories', and what has been shown thus far is clearly only one side. 3. Most importantly, this is not the forum for it. There are many opinions on how repeaters should be run. Mr. Mackey has some opinions that don't necessarily jive with a majority of the repeater operators in Oregon, those repeater owners make up the coordination council. That is likely why he hasn't been re-elected by his peers to the coordinating group for some time. Right or wrong, he apparently feels mistreated by the coordination body, of which he was a member for many years. His solution was to step outside of the coordinated solution and operate his own system in a manner he saw fit. Again, this really is not the forum to air one sided complaints against a coordination body. 73 N7HQR
[Repeater-Builder] Re: 147.435 Repeater in Simplex Channels Contrary to P...
And a nap. Laryn K8TVZ --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you telling me it's time for my medication? In a message dated 10/14/2007 6:51:42 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: OOooops there Bruce-- don't get too dyslexic on us. 147.3-4-5 is a different frequency than 147.4-3-5... Laryn K8TVZ --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com) , cruising7388@, crui The 4 coordinated NARCC repeaters on the 147.945/345 pair in Northern California will be very upset to learn that after decades of operation on this pair, that their operation is illegal and should be shut down. I think I'll pass on telling them that. Bruce K7IJ ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
