Oh yes, I do agree with you. Let's just say I can hear repeaters in EPA that require a PL, but I can't work them because the WPA repeater has no PL. I would be causing interference to a repeater in WPA when trying to use the one that is PL'd. ARCC did a good thing requiring PL!!!
ok, I am going to let this go. Won't do any good anyway... On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, MCH wrote: > Every repeater in WPA (Minus ATV) has a CTCSS on their coordination. > Whether they choose to use it (full time, part time, or at all) is the > decision of the trustee. So if you don't care for what you heard, > contact the repeater trustee, as it was their decision to pass the > traffic and not enable CTCSS. > > Joe M. > > Corey Dean N3FE wrote: >> >> Speaking of interference. I know MANY WPA repeaters don't run PL and >> aren't required to. EPA (arcc-inc.org) has a PL requirement as well as >> many other coordination bodies. You should hear WPA repeaters during a >> band opening like we had last week!!! >> >> Corey N3FE >> >> On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Ron Wright wrote: >> >>> Joe, >>> >>> Our Florida coordinator has some recommendations on equipment specs on >>> their web site, but not part of any coordination. >>> >>> Wonder what requirments your WPA state. >>> >>> Just because an interference problem occurs might not be because of the >>> equipment. I would hope a coordinator would take a scientific approach to >>> look at a situation, not just look at the equipment. However, been my >>> experience few coordinators can take a scientific approach, but they do a >>> good job. >>> >>> 73, ron, n9ee/r >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> Date: 2007/09/03 Mon PM 09:57:01 CDT >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Frequency coordinator authority (was >>>> ??????? Re: subaudibe tones..) >>> >>>> >>>> Generally that is true, but in WPA if a case of interference comes >>>> about, and the repeater causing the interference is not meeeing the >>>> Council's recommended specs on equipment, goess who is going to be >>>> solving that interference or losing their coordination? (in which case >>>> it will be their responsibility to solve it under Part 97 as well) >>>> >>>> Joe M. >>>> >>>> Ron Wright wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think most repeater coordinators don't ask what equipment one is >>>>> running or going to use. This is how it is in Florida anyway. Besides >>>>> most coordinators don't know much about the equipment being used. >>>>> >>>>> I think they just follow their coordinating policy (distant to co-channel >>>>> repeater, height of requested coord, power out, etc). If an interference >>>>> problem occurs they might be asked to get involved. >>>>> >>>>> There are repeaters packages on e-bay made up of 2 Ham transceivers, but >>>>> probably go to some that are not familiar with what equipment, spec wise, >>>>> is desired, hi. >>>>> >>>>> 73, ron, n9ee/r >>>>> >>>>>> From: George Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> Date: 2007/09/03 Mon AM 11:49:07 CDT >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Frequency coordinator authority (was >>>>>> Re: subaudibe tones..) >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Go back and re-read the original thread: this discussion has never been >>>>>> about what one AGREES to... Bob made the claim that TASMA has "control" >>>>>> of >>>>>> the technical standards for the repeaters it coordinates, and tried to >>>>>> cite >>>>>> Part 97 to back up his claim: >>>>>> >>>>>>> At 9/1/2007 11:25, you wrote: >>>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>>>>>>> At 8/29/2007 09:46, you wrote: >>>>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>>>> {snip} >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sorry, I just assumed that a repeater coordinator's technical >>>>>>>>> standards >>>>>>>>> would be a bit above the "mess" you describe above. I know we (TASMA) >>>>>>>>> wouldn't coordinate such a system. >>>>>> >>>>>> (a repeater built from 2 mobile transceivers and a mobile duplexer) >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bob NO6B >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You guys have control of the quality level of the equipment used when >>>>>>>> issuing coordinations? >>>>>> >>>>>>> We have control of the technical operating parameters; see Part 97.3 >>>>>>> (a)(22). >>>>>> >>>>>> I pointed out that Part 97 only gives a frequency coordinator the power >>>>>> to >>>>>>>> recommend<< technical parameters, not to "control" them, and certainly >>>>>>>> not >>>>>> to deny coordination based solely on the construction of the repeater, as >>>>>> noted above. (A popular Motorola commercial repeater is, in fact, a >>>>>> pair of >>>>>> GM-300 mobiles and a mobile duplexer in a desktop housing. The D-Star >>>>>> 1.2 >>>>>> GHz repeater also consists of a pair of ID-1 mobiles mounted in the same >>>>>> rack-mount chassis. Would TASMA deny them coordination?) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ron Wright, N9EE >>>>> 727-376-6575 >>>>> MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS >>>>> Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL >>>>> No tone, all are welcome. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> Ron Wright, N9EE >>> 727-376-6575 >>> MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS >>> Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL >>> No tone, all are welcome. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> This message has been scanned for viruses and >>> dangerous content by repeater.net, and is >>> believed to be clean. >>> >>> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by repeater.net, and is >> believed to be clean. >> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by repeater.net, and is > believed to be clean. > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by repeater.net, and is believed to be clean.
