Glen, I think you should read Part 97 on this, hi. There is not one word of language making 147.435 a simplex freq and not a repeater freq.
A repeater that has been on this pair for what over 15 years would speak to it being legal and allowed. 73, ron, n9ee/r >From: Glenn Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: 2007/10/14 Sun AM 09:00:48 CDT >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] 147.435 Repeater in Simplex Channels Contrary >to Part 97 > >147.435 most definately is a simplex freq and is not authorized for a >repeater freq. > >See: re:Section 97.101(a) > >and: http://www.bloomington.in.us/~wh2t/ and Riley Hollingsworth opinion >FCC > >and: ARRL Band Plan and Simplex National Channels >http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html#2m > >After reading these sites each can come to his own interpretation of them. >It looks quite clear. There are many more sites, documents and opinions if >one wishes to search for them that pretty much say the same thing. 147.435 >is NOT a repeater freq. The simplex frequenciesa are there for a reason and >need to be protected, probably even more so than the Satellite frequencies. > >Glenn >N1GBY > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JOHN MACKEY >Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 12:29 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, >Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC > >Hi Mike, >I certainly did NOT expect a reply like this from you! Since you spent many >years serving on a coordination coucil, you should know better. > >First, the repeater (I am sure you are referring to) has the output on >147.435 MHz and the input on 146.400 MHz. BOTH frequencies are in the >repeater sub-band as directed by FCC part 97. They are NOT simplex >frequencies and ARE authorized for repeater use. > >Second, the repeater is NOT mine and operates under someone else's callsign. >I only maintain it and link to it with my UHF and 6 meter repeaters. > >Third, while I appreciate your advice regarding the repeater frequencies you >advised me on, it IS active here in this area, and has been for several >months. > >------ Original Message ------ >Received: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:26:53 AM CDT >From: "Mike Mullarkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:k7pfj%40comcast.net> > >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 > >> 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) > > Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
