ad: elecraft


Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by NN6EE, Feb 13, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: FBNews-1
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-3
ad: OK1UUad-1
ad: Left-2
  1. K9STH

    K9STH Platinum Subscriber Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    I don't think that the transmitter being a "remotely controlled" simplex transmitter being fed from a repeater would hold up in court, no matter what Riley says! If he wants to issue a waiver for the operation, then so be it! But, the transmitter is repeating the information from another frequency and that is illegal when a portion of the signal falls into the 431 - 433 MHz range.

    Also, if you check CFR 47 part 97.201(b), you will see that auxillary stations are also banned from the 431 - 433 MHz range! Thus, calling the transmitter an "auxillary" station gets you still further into "hot water"!

    Simplex operation is definitely legal. Repeater and auxillary operation is not legal unless a specific waiver has been issued by the FCC.

    Like I have been saying all along: Get the FCC to officially issue a waiver allowing the transmitter to repeat the ATV audio carrier within the 431 - 433 MHz range. If the FCC is actually aware of the situation, and if they definitely approve of the operation, then there should be no problem at all getting an official waiver. But, if, for some reason, the FCC doesn't want to issue an official waiver, then those who are involved with the technical aspects of the repeater are definitely at risk!

    Glen, K9STH
  2. NN6EE

    NN6EE Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Glen, as this gross/flagrant violation of rules concerning ATV frequency placement is concerned the old powers of yesteryear namely KT6Y and W6NKF in managing the W6CX/R system overall have never taken kindly to anyone who either calls them on a particular issue or impropriety of their various sheninanigans concerning the operations of the said repeater or the general direction of the club!!!

    The only reason that I was cited by Mr. R Hollingsworth as per Part 97.205e by said club is because of my SPEAKING OUT against how the club was being run!!!

    As you can see by either W6NKF's or Jay Caldis/trustee of W6CX/R postings that even they had sunk so low as to try and deride me by NAME CALLING/IGNORANCE on my part??? MATURE ADULTS??? NOT!!!

    Well. by now you can see more clearly and really understand what truly transpired concerning their trumped-up complaint against me!!! All that anyone has to do is read all of their own postings and then it will become crystal-clear!!!

    The BOYS over at CX had never expected me to complain about them even more now, they thought that I'd run and hide with my tail between my legs and disappear!!! They thought wrong!!! All of the guys I talk to now on other repeaters systems, who at one time were potential MDARC members have got the message from me and others that it's not a club to waste your hard-earned money on!!!

    My God Guys, meaning CX, you've shot yourselves in the FOOT, as you always have, AGAIN!!! And if there was ever an issue of 1st Amendment Rights being abused by the aformentioned parties, in trying to stifile justified dissent, then what is??? If you are not a "FOLLOWER" in the club then you are'nt welcome!!!

    73 es VINDICATION is SWEET!!! [​IMG]

  3. K9STH

    K9STH Platinum Subscriber Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Quote (w6nkf @ Feb. 16 2002,15:17)

    The audio subcarrier is BELOW the 432.000 edge of the weak signal band. (431.750) This makes it a legal signal for this portion of the band.

    Sorry, but the weak signal band is designated by the FCC to be 431 - 433 MHz. You find this in CFR 47 parts 97.201(b) and 97.205(b) which PROHIBIT auxillary and repeater outputs in the 431 - 433 MHz and 435 -438 MHz ("space communications band") in the amateur 70 cm band. This is "black and white", not subject to interpretation.

    Again, the solution is for the ATV repeater to seek, and receive, an official waiver from the FCC. What is so hard about this? If a waiver is denied by the FCC, then the only alternative is to change the frequency to another cable channel that is within the 420 - 450 MHz range that does not prohibit auxillary or repeater operation if it is desired that amateur radio operators be able to receive the ATV transmissions without needing a separate converter. The fact that anyone can receive the signal is immaterial. Anyone can receive any amateur transmission without penalty.

    Glen, K9STH
  4. NN6EE

    NN6EE Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I'll tellya Donnie OL'BOY, you and a few others tried it thru HARASSMENT, it did'nt work then and it sure in-the-HELL does'nt work now!!! CHECKMATE!!! You're now down to as low as you can go, meaning BEDROCK!!! Your only other option is to SHUT THE COMPUTER OFFFFF just to save FACE as ugly as it maybe!!!

    [​IMG] nn6ee
  5. K9STH

    K9STH Platinum Subscriber Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Things are starting to get personal. That I won't allow! Keep to the subject which is the fact that the ATV repeater in question has an audio output between 431 MHz and 433 MHz.

    I have been contacted by both parties off forum, and I stand by my opinion that the audio carrier is illegal unless a waiver has been granted by the FCC. There are basically five types of stations that are recognized by the FCC: Repeater, Auxillary, Beacon, Space, and what can be called "Simplex", or "normal" operation of an amateur station from a fixed location (no repeater, etc.). Space, of course, is the operation of the OSCAR (etc.) satellites.

    The first three have various limitations as to power levels and to the authorized frequencies on which operation can take place. Of these three, the Beacon type of transmitters have the most stringent restrictions. Auxillary and Repeater stations have less stringent, but do have restrictions as to which frequencies their transmitters can, and cannot, operate.

    Any transmitter that retransmits a signal received on another frequency IS part of a repeater system. It does not matter if the repeater is "in band" (input and output within the same amateur band) or "cross band" (input in one amateur band and the output in another band). Also, stations with multiple retransmitted outputs ARE repeaters by definition! They just take up even more bandwidth!

    FCC regulations in CFR 47 parts 97.201(b) and 97.205(b) specifically PROHIBIT retransmitted signals in various portions of the amateur bands by auxillary and repeater stations. This includes the 431 - 433 MHz and 435 - 438 MHz ranges (read them yourself - you are supposed to have a copy of the FCC regulations available as part of your station records - or, look them up on the Internet). The fact that there is an audio "sub-carrier" being transmitted from the ATV repeater above 431 MHz and below 433 MHz is a direct violation of the FCC regulations. If this were coming from a "simplex" station (someone operating from his/her QTH), then having the audio "sub-carrier" above 431 MHz is perfectly legal. The problem comes from the fact that the signal in question is part of a repeater system and is not coming directly from an individual amateur's station.

    I have been informed that the entire system was described to the FCC and that nothing was received telling them not to do it. However, I have also been informed that the operators of the repeater do not believe that they have received anything in writing that exempts them from the ban on repeater outputs between 431 and 433 MHz. It has been my experience, over the years in both amateur and commercial operations, that the FCC often does not say anything until they are "pressed" to do so, either by "peer" pressure (other users or licensees complaining) or by inquiry from "The Hill" (U.S. Congress). In the vast majority of cases (that I have seen personally), the FCC, if questioned, then takes the most restrictive action possible (i.e. shutting down the repeater, issuing fines, etc.).

    I have been informed that Mr. Hollingsworth is being contacted by representatives of the repeater to get a formal ruling on this matter. If he, or other representative of the FCC, decides to issue a formal waiver for the repeating of the audio carrier above 431 MHz, then the subject is "moot". If he decides to inforce the regulations, then the audio "sub-carrier" transmitter will have to be changed from the 431+ MHz frequency on which it is now operating. This will make it necessary to use a second receiver with the ATV receiver since the audio will no longer be at the +4.5 MHz commercial standard frequency. However, for the waiver to be "official", it MUST be issued in writing. The fact that "verbal" authorization is given has no legal bearing. You can say that it is worth the paper that it is printed on!

    I am not "taking sides" on a personal basis on this matter. I have said all along that if the ATV repeater can receive a written, official waiver from the FCC that everything will be "OK". If they do not receive such a waiver, then the audio portion of the repeated signal will have to be either discontinued or moved to a frequency that allows repeater transmitters to operate upon. Charges and counter-charges between various amateur operators have no bearing. "Bad blood" between various individuals may certainly have played a part in the bringing up of this subject in the first place. But, in my opinion (and it is the one that counts) the topic is legitimate, and therefore is open for discussion in a rational manner. If things continue to get "personal", then I WILL shut the thread down!

    Glen, K9STH
  6. WA4MJF

    WA4MJF Banned QRZ Page

    This would be a good time to ask:

    What about the EIC of the district?

    It seems everybody wants to run to headquarters
    right away.  Has the EIC for the 6th radio district said anything?

    It was not that long ago that an EIC's word was the LAW in
    his district.

    73 de Ronnie

    PS: Besides OSCARS, space station also include
    manned space craft (or anything more than 50 miles up
    for that matter), in fact, the FCC was issuein'
    so many waviers to the spacemen to operate in
    space, that they downgraded the control op requirement
    from Extra Class to no code Technician a few moons
    (no pun intened) ago.
  7. NN6EE

    NN6EE Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Glen OB,
      I agree with you 100% but when so-called "KEEPERS OF THE PURITY OF THE HOBBY" BLANTENTLY come out here and attempt to slam me then by GOD it will be answered in kind!!!

    That is really what's wrong with the "HOBBY" and our procuring "NEW BLOOD" to perputuate it!!! We've got guys like the aformentioned types who thrive on CONTROLLING instead of LISTENING and learning about new ideas from the young!!! These so-called Radio-Cops are RUINING IT by their archaic/anal attitudes!!!

    CIVILITY is the "KEY-WORD" not Part 97.!!! Even Riley H. has proved he makes up his own rules as his "BUDDYS" feed him information that he wants to HEAR not what Part 97 actually means to all of us!!!

    You and everyone else can find different meanings in the so-called LAWS, just like the bottom-feeding Lawyers can!!!


    JIM/nn6ee [​IMG]
  8. K9STH

    K9STH Platinum Subscriber Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Since Jim started this, and he has finally "rested his case", then I think it is time for everyone to step back and "cool down". The person who contacted me from the repeater side said that the FCC would be contacted on Monday to determine just what the legal position of the repeater is. Therefore, I ask that everyone cease to keep this topic going until we actually get the "official" opinion of the FCC.

    Glen, K9STH
  9. K9STH

    K9STH Platinum Subscriber Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    I asked everyone to keep from getting personal, and I asked everyone to please hold their comments until the FCC was heard from. However, certain people cannot seem to cooperate. Therefore, I'm locking down this thread until I hear from the parties that are checking with the FCC. When that happens, I'll reopen the thread.

    Why must certain people have to continue to "stir the pot"?

    Glen, K9STH
    (one of the moderators)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page