> Buley, Kenneth L (GE Consumer & Industrial) wrote:
>
> <Uhhh... coordinators DO have the authority to set the terms for which
> they will grant (or deny) a coordination.
>
> That is correct, they have the "authority" to set any terms that
> happen to please them, however, they have no authority, other than
> denial of "coordination", to prevent anyone from operating without
> being "coordinated".
I would agree with that.
Should, however, someone operate CSQ without coordination, and cause
interference to another repeater that is using CTCSS/CDCSS, the FCC
would side with the repeater using means to reduce the interference
(using CTCSS/CDCSS). And, if the other repeater is coordinated, it's an
open and shut case - the uncoordinated repeater has to solve the
interference.
It's all about the effort made to reduce the interference. The FCC will
always side with the ones who are making an effort. (all else being
equal)
> <If you say the coordinator has no authority to
> require specifications, then what IS a coordination? Answer: It's a
> set
> of operating conditions which must be met in order to get along with
> other cochannel and adjacent channel operations. That INCLUDES
> requiring
> CTCSS/CDCSS.
>
> Again, true, however, they have no authority to ENFORCE those
> requirements.
Other than the fact that if someone is operating in violation of their
coordination, it's the same as not being coordinated, and they have to
resolve any interference. The FCC DOES ask the coordinators for a copy
of the coordination when interference issues arise. The terms are set in
black and white, and most (perhaps all?) coordinators specify that the
coordination is null and void if the parameters are exceeded. Again,
what is the purpose of coordination if you can do anything you want.
> Coordination only works because the participating parties VOLUNTEER to
> agree to the terms of the coordination as a means of reducing or
> eliminating interference. The FCC "suggests" the use of coordinating
> bodies because it takes the workload off of THEM !!
> However, it is the FCC who ultimately has AUTHORITY to decide and the
> power to ENFORCE those decisions concerning interference whether
> "coordination" is involved or not.
The FCC 'suggests' the use of a coordinator? They clearly state that not
using one puts all the burden of eliminating interference on the
uncoordinated system. That is, to me, more than a suggestion. It's a
strong recommendation and a warning of liability for not using one.
> Coordination works when (most) everyone wants to play nice, together.
> If EVERYONE wanted to get along, then "coordination" would be
> unnecessary.
Even when everyone wants to play nice, coordination maintains an
independant record of the 'rules'. Professional football players all
want to play fair and not hurt anyone. Yet, they all have refs to police
the game to ensure what they all want is done.
Joe M.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
