If the repeater owner doesn't want others to receive his signal, his only choice is to cease transmitting. Of course, this could have a side-effect on the net operations. ;->
This is like a band opening where two inversed repeaters are locked-up, and each repeater owner complains that the other is causing the problem. Maybe the repeater owner should be introduced to SkyCommand. Joe M. STeve Andre' wrote: > > On Tuesday 03 April 2007 11:04:33 Ken Arck wrote: > > At 04:20 AM 4/3/2007, you wrote: > > >Go ahead, but please keep it on topic... > > > > <----Well, I'll keep it simple for the moment and save the gory > > details should they be needed. > > > > Essentially, the situation involves a 2 meter remote base on a UHF > > system being used to "monitor" a regularly scheduled Saturday swap > > net that is conducted on a non-related linked repeater system. The > > remote base simply monitors one of the 2 meter repeaters of that system. > > > > One of the "owners" of the linked system demands that the 2 meter > > remote base owner "cease and desist" because he doesn't have > > "permission" to rebroadcast the net and to do so is "illegal". > > > > The owner of the 2 meter remote base tells the linked system member > > to go pound sand (in so many words) - there is nothing illegal about > > using a remote base to monitor a linked system and that permission is > > not needed. > > > > Who's right? > > > > Ken > > Amateur frequencies are fair game. The communcations act doesn't > apply here, because amateur spectrum is OPEN, receive wise. > > What a crock. Even if the owner of the remote was doing something > illegal with it (hard to imagine) it would be the FCC's responsibility, > not the originator of the signal. > > --STeve Andre' > wb8wsf en82 > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
