Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cool or not cool?
At 4/3/2007 15:10, you wrote: Example: Even though our policy is NO, there's a repeater owner south of our area that links his 900 MHz machine to our LINK FREQUENCY (he's figured out it's a hub) regularly. Nice, huh? We asked him to formalize the relationship and send us command codes (not that we could hit his repeater) to take it down if it ever causes problems on our HUB, and... no reply. Fine... whatever. That's the kind of stuff that will drive you crazy when trying to run a clean well-engineered system... waste of time. The 900 MHz system owner has every right to repeat your system, but given your links are considered private, auxiliary links, he or she may NOT transmit back into your system without your authorization. Although this isn't spelled out explicitly in Part 97, Riley Hollingsworth has repeatedly consistently upheld the right of a system owner to restrict repeater/aux. access to specific stations designated by the trustee, has threatened sanctions against those who violate these restrictions. There are many such examples in the FCC enforcement logs posted on the ARRL web page. Bottom line: anyone can repeat your system elsewhere, but may NOT repeat INTO your system without your permission. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cool or not cool?
On 4/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bottom line: anyone can repeat your system elsewhere, but may NOT repeat INTO your system without your permission. Bob NO6B Yeah, totally understood, and known, but it's a good addition to the conversation on the list... Being a VHF and up weak-signal fan, I'm just happy he has a 900 system up and running. :-) Nate
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cool or not cool?
Go ahead, but please keep it on topic... Kevin Ken Arck wrote: I forgetwhat's the policy of discussing legal/ethical issues (as they relate to repeater operation of course) on the list? Ken (had an interesting situation arise over the weekend that folks may enjoy hearing about)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cool or not cool?
At 04:20 AM 4/3/2007, you wrote: Go ahead, but please keep it on topic... Well, I'll keep it simple for the moment and save the gory details should they be needed. Essentially, the situation involves a 2 meter remote base on a UHF system being used to monitor a regularly scheduled Saturday swap net that is conducted on a non-related linked repeater system. The remote base simply monitors one of the 2 meter repeaters of that system. One of the owners of the linked system demands that the 2 meter remote base owner cease and desist because he doesn't have permission to rebroadcast the net and to do so is illegal. The owner of the 2 meter remote base tells the linked system member to go pound sand (in so many words) - there is nothing illegal about using a remote base to monitor a linked system and that permission is not needed. Who's right? Ken
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cool or not cool?
If the repeater owner doesn't want others to receive his signal, his only choice is to cease transmitting. Of course, this could have a side-effect on the net operations. ;- This is like a band opening where two inversed repeaters are locked-up, and each repeater owner complains that the other is causing the problem. Maybe the repeater owner should be introduced to SkyCommand. Joe M. STeve Andre' wrote: On Tuesday 03 April 2007 11:04:33 Ken Arck wrote: At 04:20 AM 4/3/2007, you wrote: Go ahead, but please keep it on topic... Well, I'll keep it simple for the moment and save the gory details should they be needed. Essentially, the situation involves a 2 meter remote base on a UHF system being used to monitor a regularly scheduled Saturday swap net that is conducted on a non-related linked repeater system. The remote base simply monitors one of the 2 meter repeaters of that system. One of the owners of the linked system demands that the 2 meter remote base owner cease and desist because he doesn't have permission to rebroadcast the net and to do so is illegal. The owner of the 2 meter remote base tells the linked system member to go pound sand (in so many words) - there is nothing illegal about using a remote base to monitor a linked system and that permission is not needed. Who's right? Ken Amateur frequencies are fair game. The communcations act doesn't apply here, because amateur spectrum is OPEN, receive wise. What a crock. Even if the owner of the remote was doing something illegal with it (hard to imagine) it would be the FCC's responsibility, not the originator of the signal. --STeve Andre' wb8wsf en82 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cool or not cool?
If you want to justify it, just say you are monitoring the channel until it is clear, which you are supposed to do.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cool or not cool?
Thanks to all who replied to this. Yea, my take is the same - the linked system owner doesn't know what he's talking about and there's nothing illegal about using a remote base to listen (and retransmit elsewhere) *any* legal amateur communications. And in case there was any doubt, this situation is one *I* was involved in. I never doubted for a second my position but though I'd share the experience so it might benefit someone when some yahoo takes an unsupported position. Ken
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cool or not cool?
At 12:56 PM 4/3/2007, you wrote: And in case there was any doubt, this situation is one *I* was involved in. I never doubted for a second my position but though I'd share the experience so it might benefit someone when some yahoo takes an unsupported position. ---My last comment about this, really! This situation reminds me of when I had a 2 way shop on Maui (yes, that Maui). This was in the heyday of Midland LMR and since the cops were given an allowance to go buy some of their own equipment, I sold a LOT of Midland radios to 'em. Bear in mind that Maui County at that time (like lots of other places) was a Motorola stronghold. And being a relatively small community, I know the guys at the Motorola shop and they knew me. Let's just say they weren't happy I was cutting into their business as much as I was. One day I received a letter from the C.O.P., demanding that I stop selling radios programmed on the cop shop channels and that I was breaking the law because I didn't have approval of MPD to do so. Well... I diplomatically responded that not only was I not breaking any law or applicable FCC rule but that I could sell radios programmed on their channels to anyone I pleased, with or without the MPD's permission. But of course, being the big supporter of LE personnel I was (am), I would only sell to sworn officers. I closed my letter by asking him to pass my greetings along to the folks at the local Motorola shop (who I was certain put him up to this). Anyway, fun fun fun! Ken
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cool or not cool?
On 4/3/07, Ken Arck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 04:20 AM 4/3/2007, you wrote: Go ahead, but please keep it on topic... Well, I'll keep it simple for the moment and save the gory details should they be needed. Essentially, the situation involves a 2 meter remote base on a UHF system being used to monitor a regularly scheduled Saturday swap net that is conducted on a non-related linked repeater system. The remote base simply monitors one of the 2 meter repeaters of that system. One of the owners of the linked system demands that the 2 meter remote base owner cease and desist because he doesn't have permission to rebroadcast the net and to do so is illegal. The owner of the 2 meter remote base tells the linked system member to go pound sand (in so many words) - there is nothing illegal about using a remote base to monitor a linked system and that permission is not needed. Who's right? Ken After reading the replies, I think legally there's no problems here anywhere... But if you really want to create a firestorm on this topic, Ken... replace the words remote base with cross-band radio and watch a bunch of us come unglued. Legalities aside (most cross-band radios don't have CW ID's, and their owners don't ID them properly/legally and don't have full-duplex control of them)... Who here has had to go DF some idiots cross-band rig in his car that's locking up your entire repeater system with noise, while he's inside merrily doing something else, not paying attention to it? You could keep changing the wording around, to make the topic even more contentious... Change remote base to unauthorized link... and then depending on local coordination policy... Well, anyway... I gave up arguing all this stuff long ago. Someone points a cross-bander at our repeaters, ID's it properly and behaves, we don't say much... but our official stance is NO... because too many people have not had enough courtesy to read the manual for their rigs, and/or a band plan over the years. A case of one bad apple spoils the bunch, but it's been a lot more than one bad apple... Cross-band radios, remote bases, whatever... mostly they're more of a pain in the butt for the originating repeater owner/operator than they ever are for the remote base/crossband radio owner... because people don't use them correctly. So legally, I bet you're good... ethically, you're crossing a wide obscure line where so many repeater owner/operators have been burned by idiots, that you run the risk of instantly getting people's hackles up. Example: Even though our policy is NO, there's a repeater owner south of our area that links his 900 MHz machine to our LINK FREQUENCY (he's figured out it's a hub) regularly. Nice, huh? We asked him to formalize the relationship and send us command codes (not that we could hit his repeater) to take it down if it ever causes problems on our HUB, and... no reply. Fine... whatever. That's the kind of stuff that will drive you crazy when trying to run a clean well-engineered system... waste of time. In that case above, the link has never caused us any problems, but there's always someday... and it'd be on the HUB for goodness sakes. Not cool... to use Ken's original topic subject. I'm sure in this case, Ken's remote base works fine, he has complete control over it, and the other repeater owner has probably just had (multiple) bad experiences with same. It gets old re-explaining every year to some idiot that they need to put a CTCSS tone on the receiver side of their cross-bander. It also gets old hearing your repeater come out on someone's UHF input because some idiot with a cross-bander put it there, not bothering to read or understand a bandplan... Basically my opinion is, if you don't have full-duplex control of it (Ken does) and/or don't have a bleeding clue what full-duplex control is... keep it off of my group's repeater inputs and link frequencies. And if you're going to put it there, send us a note (yeah, real paper) explaining what it is, what you're doing, and how WE can turn it off if you screw it up. But I'm a softie at heart and don't go screaming at people about it if something's there... the Golden Rule applies... don't bother me, I won't bother you, kind of thing. No time to hunt the few doofuses that do it a year, anyway -- let alone spend hours on the phone educating people how to do it properly. But anyway, a lot of this revolves around what your purpose is -- these folks badgering Ken (well, there's two sides to every story, but we'll call it badgering for now since there are other people mentioning it here) sound like their motivation is not to keep their radio system clean/legal (or they misunderstand the legalities), but it's to keep people tuning only to them... and that's not in the spirit of things, really... Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cool or not cool?
I know Kevin Hates it to discuss the rules on the list so I will be brief. I suggest reading the FCC Rules 97.113(e) and 97.113(f) would be for doing it Although if I wanted to push the issue to attempt to keep someone from repeating I would use 97.113(a)(5) Which can read any way you want, but I see that as something along the lines of 'Don't leave your weather radio receiver on 24/7' I understand that locally I have some idiot that is rebroadcasting GMRS and FRS on 146.52, which is a clear violation, but I have neither heard this my self or have the authority to do anything about it.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cool or not cool?
On 4/3/07, DCFluX [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know Kevin Hates it to discuss the rules on the list so I will be brief. Yeah, I definitely don't want to get into another rules discussion... Just pointing out the devil's advocate reasons why a repeater owner/operator might not really fully appreciate things linked into their system... especially if their system is more than one repeater. As one of my friends says about people being fired... We'd like to give them the opportunity to excel -- somewhere else. :-) Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cool or not cool?
You know my only reply? Check in, then complain about your transmission on the input being repeated without your authorization. ;- Joe M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And I've had the same problem with the same system - repeating out their weekly swap net through one of my Repeaters (which was listening to someone's UHF Repeater, which was listening to their 2-Meter swap net.) They appear to have a crew who makes the rounds of all Repeater frequencies to ensure that no one unauthorized is repeating their Repeater system on any unapproved frequency. Anyone who does so gets a terse phone call very quickly stating YOU DON'T HAVE PERMISSION FROM US TO REBROADCAST OUR SYSTEM. STOP IT AND SHUT IT OFF. NOW. l even had a recording of that phone call that I received which I played for several people - it was so unbelievable that they probably wouldn't have believed something like that really happened unless they had heard it for themselves. One person in this same group is part of the group that was recently discussed on this mailing list, who found a UHF repeater at a site which was not listed as shown on their coordination. They arranged to have it shut off and almost got it kicked out of the site. It appears that this same person also has access to at least one of the sites where I have several of my Repeaters, and after having a meeting here at my office about it, I was instructed to look at getting different locks for my Motorola cabinets. We're hoping to meet with the individual's supervisor to alert him to some of our concerns about him having access to our (and others') sites. If anyone knows how repeating someone else's ham Repeater system through another Ham system (like mine) is illegal, I'd sure like to know about it. I think we can expect to see more fireworks over this in the near future. All frequencies being used here are Repeater sub-band frequencies, in Monitor ONLY (not full transceive) mode -Original Message- From: Ken Arck Sent: Apr 3, 2007 12:56 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cool or not cool? Thanks to all who replied to this. Yea, my take is the same - the linked system owner doesn't know what he's talking about and there's nothing illegal about using a remote base to listen (and retransmit elsewhere) *any* legal amateur communications. And in case there was any doubt, this situation is one *I* was involved in. I never doubted for a second my position but though I'd share the experience so it might benefit someone when some yahoo takes an unsupported position. Ken
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cool or not cool?
I think that you can rebroadcast, repeat or forward anything leagal that you can receive on the band so long as you take responsibility for the transmitter that you are using to do so with--you must sign your call in the prescribed manor and intervals. Maybe this was not being done to the satisfaction of the originating station. Scott, N6NXI - Original Message - From: Ken Arck To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 12:56 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cool or not cool? Thanks to all who replied to this. Yea, my take is the same - the linked system owner doesn't know what he's talking about and there's nothing illegal about using a remote base to listen (and retransmit elsewhere) *any* legal amateur communications. And in case there was any doubt, this situation is one *I* was involved in. I never doubted for a second my position but though I'd share the experience so it might benefit someone when some yahoo takes an unsupported position. Ken
