Joe- FINALLY, you have entered a voice of reason!! The frequencies used are 147.435 (output) and 146.400 (input). If you look in the FCC part 97, BOTH frequencies are in the repeater sub-band and the repeater has been operating for over 12 years with no interference complaints.
------ Original Message ------ Received: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 05:27:03 PM CDT From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC > It depends where the simplex channels are. What some people call simplex > channels in the 146-147 MHz part of the band are repeater channels in > the ARRL bandplan (and have been for decades). Just look in any ARRL > Repeater Directory. > > So before you go assuming things, let's hear the exact frequencies. > > Joe M. > > Glenn Shaw 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 > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > >
