Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site smu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!smu!neihart
From: neihart@smu.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio
Subject: Simplex patches - (nf)
Message-ID: <13200006@smu.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Jul-84 13:25:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: smu.13200006
Posted: Fri Jul 20 13:25:00 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Jul-84 03:45:37 EDT
Lines: 22
Nf-ID: #N:smu:13200006:000:968
Nf-From: smu!neihart    Jul 20 12:25:00 1984

#N:smu:13200006:000:968
smu!neihart    Jul 20 12:25:00 1984

Why do so many hams consider simplex patches to be illegal?  Why, I even
saw a spot in QST which indicated they were considering not printing any more
ads for the devices because of their questionability.  Since Dallas ham
radio stores have been barred from selling the patches, if QST quits
advertising them, I would most likely have to fly to the middle of Kansas or
somewhere to buy one!  

What is the difference between a simplex patch and a repeater patch, 
besides the duplexity?  The nature of the conversation dictates the patch's
legality.  The argument that simplex patches would compete against Bell's 
mobile phone service is absurd, since hams don't get licenses merely to get
them revoked for calling businesses on patches, and businessmen don't
purchase mobile phones merely for pleasure.  Will someone please enlighten me
to the reason why these patches are considered illegal.

		Carl Neihart, KE5BX
		Southern Methodist University
		Dallas, Texas