This is true. We've only heard one side of the story. Joe M.
Ron Wright wrote: > > Joe, > > I totally agree. Very well put. Makes one wonder about some coordinators, > but then again there might have been issues that violated the coordinators > policies such as distance. Not going to blame the coordinator until had all > the story. > > 73, ron, n9ee/r > > >From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Date: 2007/10/14 Sun PM 01:07:27 CDT > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater > >Trustee, K > > > > >mccrpt, > > > >The point is that the other group simply didn't want to hear a user on > >another repeater and complained. That is a completely ridiculous reason > >to decoordinate a repeater. I could see if the user was coming through > >their repeater (and then they have the right to demand that the user > >stop), but when it comes to another person's repeater, what right do > >they have to demand terms? (they being the coordinator or the trustee of > >another repeater) > > > >If I don't like someone using your repeater, do I have the right to > >complain and have your coordination revolked? I think not. I only have > >any say if they are accessing my repeater. > > > >Joe M. > > > >Ron Wright wrote: > >> > >> MCH, > >> > >> Both repeater outputs were 147.000 with one high input and one low. Yes > >> both repeater users would have heard both repeaters for they tx on same > >> freq. > >> > >> No of course one repeater user would not have been heard on the other > >> repeater. Guess this is what you are saying. > >> > >> 73, ron, n9ee/r > >> > >> >From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >Date: 2007/10/14 Sun AM 06:18:35 CDT > >> >To: [email protected] > >> >Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater > >> >Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC > >> > >> > > >> >WAIT A MINUTE! > >> > > >> >YOUR input was 146.400, and the co-channel input was 147.600, and they > >> >didn't like a user of your repeater? The co-channel repeater could have > >> >never HEARD your user in their repeater! > >> > > >> >Since when does anyone have the right to complain about users on someone > >> >else's repeater let alone use that as a basis for decoordination? > >> > > >> >Joe M. > >> > > >> >JOHN MACKEY wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Some may think it is bad practice, but there is much more to the story. > >> >> The repeater was coordinated at 147.00 output and 146.400 input and ran > >> >> as such for about 4 years. Then the Oregon coordination coucil > >> >> rescinded > >> >> the coordination because the co-channel user did not like one of the > >> >> users > >> >> of my repeater. They said that because they rescinded, they did not > >> >> have to follow the de-coordination proceedure. > >> >> > >> >> Since the co-channel user also on 147.000 but used a different input > >> >> (147.600) > >> >> I moved kept the input the same & moved the output to 147.435 like they > >> >> do in > >> >> > >> >> LA and San Francisco. I also gave the repeater to a friend. It has > >> >> operated > >> >> this way for over 12 years with no interference complaints. > >> >> > >> >> I have supposedly been on the waiting list for a 2 meter repeater pair > >> >> for nearly 13 years, but every time I ask for confirmation of the > >> >> waiting > >> >> status, have never been given anything. > >> >> > >> >> As soon as the Oregon Region Relay Council starts following their > >> >> own preceedures, maybe others will start following their proceedures. > >> >> > >> >> There are a handful of repeaters operating in the Oregon Region Relay > >> >> Council > >> >> area and NOT bothering to coordinate with them. Also, about half the > >> >> state > >> >> has > >> >> broken away from them and started a different group called BMUG because > >> >> of > >> >> their > >> >> frustration with the Oregon Region Relay Council. > >> >> > >> >> Since I am an OO, I think if I was involved in an illegal repeater I > >> >> would > >> >> be a pretty easy target. > >> >> > >> >> ------ Original Message ------ > >> >> Received: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:28:06 PM CDT > >> >> From: "kk2ed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >> > I'm not condoning such operations, but a Band Plan is just that - a > >> >> > band plan. If the emitter is otherwise within regulations, a repeater > >> >> > on simplex channels may be legal, provided it is under proper > >> >> > control. It is similar to an uncoordinated repeater. Unless it is > >> >> > causing willful interference, it is not illegal. > >> >> > > >> >> > Such practices may not be very popular among the local hams. Bad > >> >> > practice, yes. Illegal, no. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> 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. > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
