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. --- In [email protected], "Glenn Shaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How does he have a repeater on the simplex channels and not get an > enforcement letter. Really bad practice, > > Glenn > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Mullarkey > Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 9:43 AM > To: [email protected] > 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: [email protected] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JOHN MACKEY > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 5:37 PM > To: [email protected] > 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: [email protected] > <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 "he's never > > heard of anyone trying to do it", it doesn't mean someone desperate > > for a VHF pair won't try... > > > > Tim's comments about "where do we put it" falls on deaf ears here, > > though -- if they can't find an analog system willing to come off the > > air to accommodate the new digital system... tough. Don't put it up VHF. > > > > But since he ASKED if he could... and the only authority that counts > > said, "Yes"... I can see why he's not happy now that they might > > reverse themselves. > > > > He might even have a pretty good case for a lawsuit, if it came to that. > > > > Nate WY0X > > > > > > > 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 >
