RE: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
Daron- You are probably correct, this is probably not the best forum to drag all this up. That being said, why did you do it?? But since you decided to air the dirty laundry, let me correct and/or address a few statements you made. (numbering below in relation to your data) 1. KA7TRY claimed he did microwave from Table Mountain to his house. If you have evidence he lied, could I please get that in written statement so I can take it back to the coordination council? 2. If you have something to contradict what I am stating, please present it. You were NOT in attendence at the ORRC meeting during the time in question, you started attending meetings sometime after June 2000. (The incident in question occured in 1995) Please present the other side! 3. While you state that I have opinions that don't necessarily jive with a majority of the repeater operators in Oregon, but you fail to admit that there are so many people angry at the ORRC right now that two different groups are attempting to break away about half the state away from the ORRC. Your statement of he hasn't been re-elected by his peers to the coordinating group is also incorrect. I have run for elections (once at large, twice regional) and I have been re-lected twice. The reason I have not run in recent years is I have no time for it any more and after serving a total of 7 years on the board I have done my share. There are no un-coordinated repeaters operating my callsign. Daron - I expected better from you as a representative of the coordination council and as a person who makes their living in the communications field. Please get your facts straight before making a fool of yourself again. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 10:24:19 PM CDT From: Daron J. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC All I can say is wow. Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: Joe- Your understanding is correct! Well yes, WOW is appropriate for this kind of a 'story'. Let me just throw out a couple of things: 1. KA7TRY couldn't have microwaved any signal to his house, I purchase a huge amount of his estate recently from his 'house' and I can guarantee you there is no microwave path from there to Table Mountain where his repeater was. 2. The stories are many, oh so many. As a member of the ORRC, I have many boxes of paperwork from Mr. Mackey's time in the organization (minutes, correspondence, documents, etc.). Rest assured, there is more than one side to these 'stories', and what has been shown thus far is clearly only one side. 3. Most importantly, this is not the forum for it. There are many opinions on how repeaters should be run. Mr. Mackey has some opinions that don't necessarily jive with a majority of the repeater operators in Oregon, those repeater owners make up the coordination council. That is likely why he hasn't been re-elected by his peers to the coordinating group for some time. Right or wrong, he apparently feels mistreated by the coordination body, of which he was a member for many years. His solution was to step outside of the coordinated solution and operate his own system in a manner he saw fit. Again, this really is not the forum to air one sided complaints against a coordination body. 73 N7HQR
RE: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
Daron- You are probably correct, this is probably not the best forum to drag all this up. That being said, why did you do it?? John, I didn't 'drag this up', I did not respond to your initial posts that were alleging wrong doings by the coordination council, I hoped it would just dwindle away so we could get back to repeaters building. But since you decided to air the dirty laundry, let me correct and/or address a few statements you made. I didn't air your dirty laundry, I responded to misinformation you posted and let folks know there definitely was more than one side of the story. 1. KA7TRY claimed he did microwave from Table Mountain to his house. If you have evidence he lied, could I please get that in written statement so I can take it back to the coordination council? I'm quite sure that if a receiver was monitored from Table Mountain, the audio was brought down via the PUD microwave network from Table Mountain to their facility, not to Franks house. 2. If you have something to contradict what I am stating, please present it. You were NOT in attendence at the ORRC meeting during the time in question, you started attending meetings sometime after June 2000. (The incident in question occured in 1995) Please present the other side! My point was that there are other sides to the story. I was not at the meeting your reference, however I do have documentation from that era and I worked with Frank on his (and my) repeaters during that time. I understand you feel mistreated, I'm not sure what you hope to gain by complaining about it here. 3. While you state that I have opinions that don't necessarily jive with a majority of the repeater operators in Oregon, but you fail to admit that there are so many people angry at the ORRC right now that two different groups are attempting to break away about half the state away from the ORRC. Your statement of he hasn't been re-elected by his peers to the coordinating group is also incorrect. I have run for elections (once at large, twice regional) and I have been re-lected twice. The reason I have not run in recent years is I have no time for it any more and after serving a total of 7 years on the board I have done my share. I became a board member 5 years ago, at my first meeting you ran for something and were not elected; I've not seen you run since for either the director of your region or an at large member. There are no un-coordinated repeaters operating my callsign. So why are we going through this? Daron - I expected better from you as a representative of the coordination council and as a person who makes their living in the communications field. Please get your facts straight before making a fool of yourself again. John, I do not officially represent the ORRC, I simply wanted folks to know that there are more sides to this story. Many coordination bodies have issues, political and personal, that cause constituents to be unhappy with the results. The ORRC is made up ONLY of repeater owners/operators, and the policies put in place governing the operation of the organization can only be changed by the membership. That's you, and it is your organization as well. If you want to fix things, grab a mit and get in the game. It's pretty easy to boo the players from the grandstands. Let's spare the list from this discussion, you know where we meet and when, come on down and get involved. 73 Daron Wilson, N7HQR
RE: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
-- Original Message -- Received: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:37:01 AM CDT From: Daron J. Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] SNIP I didn't air your dirty laundry, I responded to misinformation you posted and let folks know there definitely was more than one side of the story. SNIP My point was that there are other sides to the story. I was not at the meeting your reference, however I do have documentation from that era and I SNIP Daron - lets deal in facts!! You have not posted any facts to counter what I have said other than Mr Mackey feels he has been mistreated. If the council did something different than what I have posted, then please present your facts. You claim you have a lot of paperwork from years ago, so it should be easy for you! SNIP I became a board member 5 years ago, at my first meeting you ran for something and were not elected; I've not seen you run since for either the director of your region or an at large member. SNIP That is probably correct. I have ran for ORRC board positions about 7 or 8 times starting in 1989. I was elected (or re-elected) every time I ran except twice. I now have 3 children and joined the Naval reserve in 2000, so after giving the ORRC 13 years (1989-2002) I now have other priorities. As soon as the ORRC has a pension program, I'll leave the reserves and get active again with the ORRC.
RE: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
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: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 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.
Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
IF - big IF. We don't know the frequencies involved. And repeaters are legal everywhere between 146-148 MHz, yet I believe all areas have simplex frequencies in that range - at least 146.520 if nothing else. Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: If those simplex channels fall outside the frequencies in 97.205 (b), the owner is treading on unstable legal ground. I have no other comment on the thread, other than that... simplex frequencies in a local bandplan are usually outside of the bounds of where repeaters are allowed to operate by law. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
WAIT A MINUTE! YOUR input was 146.400, and the co-channel input was 147.600, and they didn't like a user of your repeater? The co-channel repeater could have never HEARD your user in their repeater! Since when does anyone have the right to complain about users on someone else's repeater let alone use that as a basis for decoordination? Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: Some may think it is bad practice, but there is much more to the story. The repeater was coordinated at 147.00 output and 146.400 input and ran as such for about 4 years. Then the Oregon coordination coucil rescinded the coordination because the co-channel user did not like one of the users of my repeater. They said that because they rescinded, they did not have to follow the de-coordination proceedure. Since the co-channel user also on 147.000 but used a different input (147.600) I moved kept the input the same moved the output to 147.435 like they do in LA and San Francisco. I also gave the repeater to a friend. It has operated this way for over 12 years with no interference complaints. I have supposedly been on the waiting list for a 2 meter repeater pair for nearly 13 years, but every time I ask for confirmation of the waiting status, have never been given anything. As soon as the Oregon Region Relay Council starts following their own preceedures, maybe others will start following their proceedures. There are a handful of repeaters operating in the Oregon Region Relay Council area and NOT bothering to coordinate with them. Also, about half the state has broken away from them and started a different group called BMUG because of their frustration with the Oregon Region Relay Council. Since I am an OO, I think if I was involved in an illegal repeater I would be a pretty easy target. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:28:06 PM CDT From: kk2ed [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
--- Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have no other comment on the thread, other than that... simplex frequencies in a local bandplan are usually outside of the bounds of where repeaters are allowed to operate by law. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] Most simplex frequencies are in the middle of the repeater band plan. For example 146.52 .55 .58 and several around 147.58 are some of the most common simplex frequencies as per most repeater co-ordinator band plans and are more or less near the middle of the 146 to 148 FCC repeater bandplan. Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=listsid=396545433
Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
In case anyone here has forgotten the policies of this list, I quote from the Yahoo Groups homepage for repeater-builder... This list is not for discussing FCC rules, proper operating practices, or brand loyalty (Motorola vs. GE). It is here for providing quality technical information. I may not be a moderator here, but I'm sick of my inbox being clogged with I'm right, you're wrong rhetoric about the rules when such subject matter is not generally acceptable on this list. Have a nice day. Flames, bile and other dreck will be ignored. Brian, N4BWP --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, Ralph Mowery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have no other comment on the thread, other than that... simplex frequencies in a local bandplan are usually outside of the bounds of where repeaters are allowed to operate by law. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] Most simplex frequencies are in the middle of the repeater band plan. For example 146.52 .55 .58 and several around 147.58 are some of the most common simplex frequencies as per most repeater co-ordinator band plans and are more or less near the middle of the 146 to 148 FCC repeater bandplan. __ __ Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=listsid=396545433
RE: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
If you want the exact freq why dont you just ask Mike who posted it (K7PFJ) Pretty much all the simplex band plans for two that I have seen are the same anyway and ALL of them in the US recongnize 52 as the National Simplex freq. I may have missed one or two out there that may be different, nevertheless I have no reason to think that Mike was lying when he posted this item since he has local knowledge of the issue. SO I dont call it an assumption. I am sure MIke will probably respond to this anyway. G. -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MCH Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 6:27 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Bulk] 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: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Mike Mullarkey Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 9:43 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com 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: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of JOHN MACKEY Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 5:37 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com 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 mailto:nate%40natetech.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com 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
RE: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
I hear ya. 52 direct. You have to be kidding. He definately needs some adjustments. Not a member of Mensa. 73 Glenn -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Daron J. Wilson Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 4:57 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 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. 73 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
RE: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
At 10/13/2007 15:23, you wrote: 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. We had something similar show up here in SoCal on 223.50 during FD. It was the impetus for a major 220 MHz bandplan revision here, as there was no dedicated spectrum in the old bandplan for simplex internet links, hence 223.50 was just as good as any other simplex frequency for that use. Now it isn't, as Echolink IRLP have a legitimate home here. Bob NO6B
Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
Joe- Your understanding is correct! The owner of the co-channel repeater (KA7TRY) heard about a user on my repeater that he did not like. Since our repeaters were over 100 miles apart, he installed a receiver at his repeater site to listen to my 147.000 repeater (when his was not transmitting) and linked it down to his house by microwave. Then he heard the user he did not like and rescinded his approval of the co-channel agreement for my repeater to operate. The ORRC (Oregon Region Relay Council) then used that to rescind my coordination on 147.000 and said it was rescinded and not de-coordinated and therefore no de-coordination hearing was needed. I argued that no one had the right to rescind or de-coordinate based on the fact that they did not like a user of the repeater. It did no good! Pretty sleazy! Supposedly I have been on the waiting list since this happened in 1995. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 06:18:46 AM CDT From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] WAIT A MINUTE! YOUR input was 146.400, and the co-channel input was 147.600, and they didn't like a user of your repeater? The co-channel repeater could have never HEARD your user in their repeater! Since when does anyone have the right to complain about users on someone else's repeater let alone use that as a basis for decoordination? Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: Some may think it is bad practice, but there is much more to the story. The repeater was coordinated at 147.00 output and 146.400 input and ran as such for about 4 years. Then the Oregon coordination coucil rescinded the coordination because the co-channel user did not like one of the users of my repeater. They said that because they rescinded, they did not have to follow the de-coordination proceedure. Since the co-channel user also on 147.000 but used a different input (147.600) I moved kept the input the same moved the output to 147.435 like they do in LA and San Francisco. I also gave the repeater to a friend. It has operated this way for over 12 years with no interference complaints. I have supposedly been on the waiting list for a 2 meter repeater pair for nearly 13 years, but every time I ask for confirmation of the waiting status, have never been given anything. As soon as the Oregon Region Relay Council starts following their own preceedures, maybe others will start following their proceedures. There are a handful of repeaters operating in the Oregon Region Relay Council area and NOT bothering to coordinate with them. Also, about half the state has broken away from them and started a different group called BMUG because of their frustration with the Oregon Region Relay Council. Since I am an OO, I think if I was involved in an illegal repeater I would be a pretty easy target. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:28:06 PM CDT From: kk2ed [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
All I can say is wow. Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: Joe- Your understanding is correct! The owner of the co-channel repeater (KA7TRY) heard about a user on my repeater that he did not like. Since our repeaters were over 100 miles apart, he installed a receiver at his repeater site to listen to my 147.000 repeater (when his was not transmitting) and linked it down to his house by microwave. Then he heard the user he did not like and rescinded his approval of the co-channel agreement for my repeater to operate. The ORRC (Oregon Region Relay Council) then used that to rescind my coordination on 147.000 and said it was rescinded and not de-coordinated and therefore no de-coordination hearing was needed. I argued that no one had the right to rescind or de-coordinate based on the fact that they did not like a user of the repeater. It did no good! Pretty sleazy! Supposedly I have been on the waiting list since this happened in 1995. -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 06:18:46 AM CDT From: MCH [EMAIL PROTECTED] WAIT A MINUTE! YOUR input was 146.400, and the co-channel input was 147.600, and they didn't like a user of your repeater? The co-channel repeater could have never HEARD your user in their repeater! Since when does anyone have the right to complain about users on someone else's repeater let alone use that as a basis for decoordination? Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: Some may think it is bad practice, but there is much more to the story. The repeater was coordinated at 147.00 output and 146.400 input and ran as such for about 4 years. Then the Oregon coordination coucil rescinded the coordination because the co-channel user did not like one of the users of my repeater. They said that because they rescinded, they did not have to follow the de-coordination proceedure. Since the co-channel user also on 147.000 but used a different input (147.600) I moved kept the input the same moved the output to 147.435 like they do in LA and San Francisco. I also gave the repeater to a friend. It has operated this way for over 12 years with no interference complaints. I have supposedly been on the waiting list for a 2 meter repeater pair for nearly 13 years, but every time I ask for confirmation of the waiting status, have never been given anything. As soon as the Oregon Region Relay Council starts following their own preceedures, maybe others will start following their proceedures. There are a handful of repeaters operating in the Oregon Region Relay Council area and NOT bothering to coordinate with them. Also, about half the state has broken away from them and started a different group called BMUG because of their frustration with the Oregon Region Relay Council. Since I am an OO, I think if I was involved in an illegal repeater I would be a pretty easy target. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:28:06 PM CDT From: kk2ed [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
All I can say is wow. Joe M. JOHN MACKEY wrote: Joe- Your understanding is correct! Well yes, WOW is appropriate for this kind of a 'story'. Let me just throw out a couple of things: 1. KA7TRY couldn't have microwaved any signal to his house, I purchase a huge amount of his estate recently from his 'house' and I can guarantee you there is no microwave path from there to Table Mountain where his repeater was. 2. The stories are many, oh so many. As a member of the ORRC, I have many boxes of paperwork from Mr. Mackey's time in the organization (minutes, correspondence, documents, etc.). Rest assured, there is more than one side to these 'stories', and what has been shown thus far is clearly only one side. 3. Most importantly, this is not the forum for it. There are many opinions on how repeaters should be run. Mr. Mackey has some opinions that don't necessarily jive with a majority of the repeater operators in Oregon, those repeater owners make up the coordination council. That is likely why he hasn't been re-elected by his peers to the coordinating group for some time. Right or wrong, he apparently feels mistreated by the coordination body, of which he was a member for many years. His solution was to step outside of the coordinated solution and operate his own system in a manner he saw fit. Again, this really is not the forum to air one sided complaints against a coordination body. 73 N7HQR
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, Glenn -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Mullarkey Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 9:43 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 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: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JOHN MACKEY Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 5:37 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 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: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 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
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. 73
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: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Mullarkey Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 9:43 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 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: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JOHN MACKEY Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 5:37 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 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: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 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
Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
There's a repeater in Canada (Ontario) that has an input on 146.520 MHz. Joe M. Daron J. Wilson wrote: 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. 73 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
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 Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, 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: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Mullarkey Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 9:43 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 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: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JOHN MACKEY Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 5:37 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 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: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 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
Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
On Oct 13, 2007, at 8:27 PM, kk2ed wrote: 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. Wrong. Review FCC Part 97.205(b). http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/c.html#205 Repeaters have specific frequencies they are allowed to operate on, and are one of the only types of Amateur Stations with an exclusionary rule in Part 97 saying that they can only operate in specific frequency allocations. If those simplex channels fall outside the frequencies in 97.205 (b), the owner is treading on unstable legal ground. I didn't look at the frequencies the two gentlemen were talking about in their messages back and forth (since it looked like they were just dragging their local mud into a public forum -- usually not worth reading) but in most areas of the country, local bandplans place simplex operation in an area of (whatever) band that is restricted to not allowing repeater operation. I have no other comment on the thread, other than that... simplex frequencies in a local bandplan are usually outside of the bounds of where repeaters are allowed to operate by law. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
The repeater is NOT on simplex channels, and it IS operating within the FCC repeater sub-band as stated in part 97. Incidentially, the repeater (which has been operational for over 12 years) was being jammed about 7 years ago. Riley Hollingsworth called me on the phone and was well aware of the frequency pair used and said nothing. There are also repeaters operating on the exact same frequency pair (147.435/146.400) in San Francisco and Los Angelos. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 02:15:40 PM CDT From: Glenn Shaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 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, Glenn -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Mullarkey Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 9:43 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 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: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JOHN MACKEY Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 5:37 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 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: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 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
Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
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: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 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: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Mullarkey Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 9:43 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 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: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JOHN MACKEY Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 5:37 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 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: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 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
Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC
Some may think it is bad practice, but there is much more to the story. The repeater was coordinated at 147.00 output and 146.400 input and ran as such for about 4 years. Then the Oregon coordination coucil rescinded the coordination because the co-channel user did not like one of the users of my repeater. They said that because they rescinded, they did not have to follow the de-coordination proceedure. Since the co-channel user also on 147.000 but used a different input (147.600) I moved kept the input the same moved the output to 147.435 like they do in LA and San Francisco. I also gave the repeater to a friend. It has operated this way for over 12 years with no interference complaints. I have supposedly been on the waiting list for a 2 meter repeater pair for nearly 13 years, but every time I ask for confirmation of the waiting status, have never been given anything. As soon as the Oregon Region Relay Council starts following their own preceedures, maybe others will start following their proceedures. There are a handful of repeaters operating in the Oregon Region Relay Council area and NOT bothering to coordinate with them. Also, about half the state has broken away from them and started a different group called BMUG because of their frustration with the Oregon Region Relay Council. Since I am an OO, I think if I was involved in an illegal repeater I would be a pretty easy target. -- Original Message -- Received: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:28:06 PM CDT From: kk2ed [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
