Daron- Sorry, but you are not aware of the facts or laws regarding what you are speaking of below.
First - the repeater is not mine. I sold it 12 years ago when it changed frequencies. I do maintain it for the owner because he is not technical. It does NOT use my callsign, I am NOT the licensee. Second - The repeater you are referring to is NOT eligable for an enforcement letter in regards to the frequencies it uses. (147.435/146.400) Please review FCC Part 97-205b which reads as follows: "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, 222.00-222.15 MHz, 431.0-433.0 MHz and 435.0-438.0 MHz segments." I do agree with you that it is a "curious fact" that so many people "feel the need to operate their stuff outside the box, outside of coordination". Perhaps if coordination groups like the Oregon Region Relay Council (ORRC) acted fairly and within their own policies, this would lessen. In Oregon, half the state is breaking away from the old council and starting their own group called BMUG. Another unfortunate example of improper action here in Oregon was roughly a year ago when KJ7IY (the database manager of the ORRC) contacted Day Wireless (the site manager for the "StoneHenge" tower) and had a repeater located in that site shut down for a few days because he claimed it was illegal because it was un-coordinated. There was NO interference complaint, just someone "throwing their weight around". That repeater came back on the air a few days later after several people who were hams and had professional relationships with Day Wireless set them straight and informed them that they had been lied to. And we wonder why so many people dislike the ORRC or simply decide not to bother with certain coordination groups! If you still think the repeater in question is eligable for an enforcement letter because of the frequencies it uses, I suggest you immediately report it to the FCC. ------ Original Message ------ Received: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 03:57:37 PM CDT From: "Daron J. Wilson" <[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 > > >How does he have a repeater on the simplex channels and not get an > >enforcement letter. Really bad practice, > > Mr. Mackey's alleged (I'm being polite) non coordinated, non band plan > compliant analog repeater is certainly 'eligible' for such a letter. What > amazes me more is the IRLP node in Portland that is UHF linked to a 146.520 > remote base on a commercial tower that pretty much hoses the national > simplex frequency for the entire metro area. > > The more curious fact is why folks feel the need to operate their stuff > outside the box, outside of 'coordination' that the rest of us live with. > There will always be one or two that pull this kind of crap and force the > entire amateur population to struggle with it.
