Geez guys, Let's give this a rest and take it off the reflector, ok?
I've got a major headache from reading this thread. Hang on a minute, I'm looking in the bathroom cabinet for some medicine . . . . let's see here - Pepto-Bismol, nope. Band-Aids, nope. A&D ointment, nope. Midol, nope. Ah, here it is, extra strength Tylenol. Reading the label: Take 2 tablets every 4 hours for pain when reading. Well, I'm taking 6. If you guys are so hung up on the rules, take it to Riley. The last time I checked, Kevin does not allow discussion of FCC rules on this forum, but I could be wrong about that. Don, KD9PT PS: However said "Damn the rules and full speed ahead, huh?", probably won the argument. But that's just my opinion, don't take it personal. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: NFCC votes to recommend FCC treat all repeaters as repeaters > At 9/22/2007 11:50, you wrote: >>Threaded... >> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > >> > At 9/22/2007 09:14, you wrote: >> > >> > >Bottom line guys & gals, The D-Star units have two frequencies one for >> > >Transmit and one for Receive >> > >> > Incorrect. Most D-Star systems have multiple inputs & outputs & are >> > networked via radio & internet to other D-Star systems around the >> > world. >> >>So do linked repeaters. Does that make them no longer repeaters? > > It might. I don't know, & I don't care to open yet another rules debate. > > >> > > so it belongs in repeater band. The unit re-transmits what it hears >> > > and >> > > that is considered a repeater. >> > >> > So does SkyCommand. Clearly an auxiliary station per the FCC. >> >>Because the VHF/UHF operation IS AUX - it's point-to-point control of >>the HF station. > > So? It still "repeats". It "quacks like a duck", is it not a duck? No, > because it does more than simply repeat. > >> > So do 100s >> > of remote base systems formerly licensed by the FCC SPECIFICALLY & >> > EXCLUSIVELY as AUXILIARY STATIONS. If you like, I will attempt to >> > retrieve >> > the paperwork that was sent to the FCC as part of the auxiliary station >> > license application for one of these "repeaters". It will clearly show >> > in >> > the block diagram a repeater as the primary element of the system. >> >>As the *primary element*. So there were other elements? Like perhaps >>elements that qualified as AUX operation? > > Certainly. But when those elements were not in use, & the system was used > purely as a repeater, it's classification never changed from auxiliary to > repeater. > > One such auxiliary system I know of consisted of nothing more than a > repeater & a 2 meter remote base. If the FCC's really going to get than > nit-picky about differentiating repeaters & auxiliary stations (pure > fantasy IMO), I suppose we can just tack a remote base radio onto every > D-Star system. > > >> > >Why waist all this bandwidth because some individuals keep breaking >> > >the >> > >rules and can t seem to read. >> > >> > Because misinformation which is defamatory to frequency coordinators in >> > California is being propagated here. >> >>Those coordinators are calling repeaters AUX stations ONLY on the basis >>that they cannot legally put repeaters on the frequencies they have >>chosen to use. > > This is starting to sound like a clash of cultures. Out here, we look at > the rules in terms of what they allow, whereas people in other areas seem > to interpret the rules in terms of what's prohibited. However, if you > examine recent statements by FCC officials like Riley Hollingsworth, I > think you'll find that our interpretations are more in line with theirs. > >> The reason these repeaters are not in the repeater >>sub-band, as admitted by the coordinators, is because there is >>supposedly no room there. Sorry, I don't buy that argument. Just because >>there is no room for legal operation does not open the door to authorize >>illegal operation. > > Last time I checked, the coordination territory of the WPRC didn't include > Southern California. > > >>Face it: You are operating (or sanctioning operation) of repeaters in >>band segments where repeaters are prohibited. Calling them something >>other than repeaters to do this in no way changes the fact that it is a >>violation of Part 97. > > Face it: you are attempting to force your particular interpretation of > Part > 97 onto California hams. You are not the FCC, nor do you formulate > bandplans or coordinate repeaters & auxiliary stations here. > > >>Most coordinators have gone on record as not agreeing with what you are >>doing. It's time you accept that and admit your mistake. > > 19 not agreeing, 11 agreeing. Doesn't sound very conclusive to > me. Sometimes (like in this case), the majority can be misled, especially > when there's nothing to be gained for the majority. > > >> > >Keep giving the FCC the headaches of dealing with the amateurs stuff. >> > >Then >> > >eventually the commercial boys will come along and want to invade the >> > >spectrum. Can t we all play nice in the sand box together? >> > >> > I'd like that more than anyone else here. Just leave us Californians >> > to >> > handle frequency coordination the way we see fit. >> >>Damn the rules and full speed ahead, huh? I said before that I believe >>CA doesn't feel the rules apply to them. You're reinforcing that belief >>very well. > > Once again, you're not the FCC. You do not get to interpret the rules for > others. The ARRL OOs do a better job of that, & in fact the local OO > concurs with our interpretation. > > >> > Nothing we're doing here is affecting you. You have your own >> > frequency coordination body which >> > handles coordination matters the way it sees fit for your area. >> >>Oh, but it DOES affect everyone else. The trustees in other areas will >>see that you are 'getting away' with putting repeaters in those band >>segments and will want to follow suit. Some will not understand when >>their request for coordination is denied and will whine that "they are >>doing it in CA..." > > So THAT'S what you're worried about. No problem! If you can accommodate > D-Star systems within your repeater spectrum, then don't allocate any > spectrum in the 145.5-145.8 MHz segment. If anything shows up there in > your coordination territory & it interferes with other modes, the FCC WILL > act on that. BTDT! > > Do you have anyone trying to put repeaters on 146.49 in/147.495 out saying > "why can't I do that - there's doing it in SoCal"? Can anyone say "local > option"? > > >>One has to wonder if these are all AUX stations why the manufacturer is >>calling them repeaters and why they were FCC T/A'ed as repeaters. > > Like I said, there's lots of "repeater" equipment in use here as auxiliary > stations. There are many FTR-5410 "repeaters" in use as auxiliary > stations > even though the nameplate clearly says "repeater" & it was no doubt type > accepted as such. > > Bob NO6B > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > !DSPAM:1016,46f59b66283515209328925! > >
