Threaded... again... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > 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.
It repeats as part of the control. You seem to keep missing that aspect. It's a control link, not a repeater that repeats users. > 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. That explains your inability to see the prohibited part of "(b) A repeater may receive and retransmit only on the 10 m and shorter wavelength frequency bands EXCEPT..." (caps added for emphasis). You really can't see a rule that prohibits anything, huh? That's too bad. But, I guess I completely understand your point now. To your view, there are no 'exceptions' - even when stated in black and white. > > 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. That's why I quoted the statements (indirectly) of the CA coordinators, not WPRC. I still don't buy the fact that nobody is willing to convert in CA - a land that so often proclaims its progressive visions. > >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. Well, there are only so many ways to interpret (b) 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, <snip> And no, I don't see any way to interpret it as ALLOWING repeater operation in the "145.5-146.0 MHz" segment. But, I guess that depends on how you define the term 'except'. (which you've already admitted you don't know the meaning of within the context of Part 97) > >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, espec ially > when there's nothing to be gained for the majority. Oh! So when they don't agree with you, it's because they don't understand, huh? I'm going to have to stop posting, as I don't have access to enough shovels to deal with all this (stuff) you're dishing out. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper. Last I knew, most was more than half, and certainly 63% was most of anything, but I guess it's that CA math I just don't understand where you have take away 63% of something and still have most of it left. > 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. And who is an OO? His judgments mean less than squat. Do you know what the qualifications are to be an OO? Nothing - absolutely nothing. We had a local OO here who thought some warped ways, too. HE was cited by the FCC! But, I am content to let the FCC decide, as I've said before. So, don't give me this "you aren't the FCC" crap, because you are not either. Until the forthcoming ruling.... ciao. Joe M.
