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: 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, 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: 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: RE: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6B
Glenn, No law has been broken. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Glenn Shaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/10/13 Sat AM 09:31:04 CDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC How does he have a repeater on the simplex channels and not get an enforcement letter. Really bad practice, Glenn -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Mullarkey Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 9:43 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC Hi John, I could expect a reply like this from you. You are the only one in Oregon that has an odd split both working in the simplex band. For a person that is in the broadcast business, that has spent many years on the coordinating council you would know better. Why don't you do like I told you several years ago and send in paperwork on the channel I told you that would work, hell it has not seen ac power for over five years and its free for the taking. Hum, sounds to easy for me. If you do not remember the conversation, I could refresh your memory if you would like. On the other hand, just let the other people in the Portland, Oregon area coordinate it. They will probably put a good repeater up, work by the rules, and maintain the repeater the proper way a repeater should be operated. Mike Mullarkey (K7PFJ) From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JOHN MACKEY Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 5:37 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC I thank Tim for what he has done. I'll be installing 100 mS Digital Voice Delay boards in all my repeaters so that they are no longer repeaters and can now all go into the expermintal band. -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 04:55:08 PM CDT From: Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:nate%40natetech.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC Jay Urish wrote: Another guy with an 'expert' buddy saying D-Star IS NOT a repeater.. Never mind the fact that Icom says its a repeater and as you transmit on one frequency, your voice comes out of another..Oh yea, delay is irrelevant.. That's not fair to the content of the interview. Tim points out that his expert buddy convinced not only Tim, but the FCC, specifically Bill Cross, in 2006, that it was NOT a repeater. Tim did the right thing in 2006 and ASKED. And was told, Not a repeater. Go ahead. BY THE FCC. I'm still in the camp that says if it behaves like a repeater, and it needs the same type of protection as a repeater (fixed frequency service -- even Tim admits he wanted a coordination in the interview), it's a repeater. So it should be in the repeater sub-band. But I also know Tim a little bit -- and just stating that he's just a guy with a expert buddy pushing an agenda is blatantly unfair and doesn't cover what the interview really says. People should listen to the interview, and not go by what the peanut gallery is saying, I think. What the interview REALLY says is that Tim ASKED for permission from the FCC, and GOT it. He also DOCUMENTED that fact. He has dates and e-mails. And only THEN did he put his repeater up on 145.61 in Northern California. No one could ask anything more of him than that! Now his system is in the cross-hairs of a national debate, about letting D-Star out of the repeater sub-bands... and meanwhile he's been on the air for almost two years without problems. I could see why he'd be a bit concerned. Hell, I'd have a pretty big beef with that too, if I'd been the pioneer and had: Asked the FCC... GOT PERMISSION... and then found myself sitting under the cross-hairs of the rest of the country. Ouch. Tim's not one of the bad guys out there. I've talked to him on the phone (for IRLP support purposes a couple of years ago) and met him in person at the IRLP convention (I think in 2005?). I don't think he would have put his system on VHF on the air without doing EXACTLY the right thing... and in 2006, he's claiming that he did. Additionally he mentioned in the interview -- that one of the reasons the pendulum swung away from allowing D-Star outside the repeater sub-bands, was that there's a worry that SOME idiot would claim their ANALOG system with a digital-audio-delay board wasn't transmitting simultaneously and should also be allowed out of the repeater sub-band. That's a serious concern of some folks, and while Tim says
Re: RE: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6B
A repeater using what many call simplex freq, but is within the FCC 97 band limits is not illegal so there would be no grounds for an enforcement letter. One does not need coordination to put on a repeater, however, I encourage all to get coordinated. Here in Florida the council would not give coordination, but still nothing legal wise can be done for it is not illegal. 73, ron, n9ee/r From: Daron J. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2007/10/13 Sat PM 03:57:28 CDT To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC How does he have a repeater on the simplex channels and not get an enforcement letter. Really bad practice, 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 Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
