See below ... (please excuse me, Kevin)
mch wrote:
>
> > 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.
CFR 47, Part 97 - 97.205(c) (read in part) "..... the licensee of
the non-coordinated repeater has the primary responsibility to
resolve the interference."
Neil - WA6KLA
> 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/
