Joe- Your understanding is correct! The owner of the co-channel repeater (KA7TRY) heard about a user on my repeater that he did not like. Since our repeaters were over 100 miles apart, he installed a receiver at his repeater site to listen to my 147.000 repeater (when his was not transmitting) and linked it down to his house by microwave. Then he heard the user he did not like and rescinded his approval of the co-channel agreement for my repeater to operate. The ORRC (Oregon Region Relay Council) then used that to rescind my coordination on 147.000 and said it was rescinded and not de-coordinated and therefore no de-coordination hearing was needed.
I argued that no one had the right to rescind or de-coordinate based on the fact that they did not like a user of the repeater. It did no good! Pretty sleazy!!!!! Supposedly I have been on the waiting list since this happened in 1995. ------ Original Message ------ Received: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 06:18:46 AM CDT From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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 Then the Oregon coordination coucil rescinded 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 They said that because they rescinded, they did not 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 > > > > > > >
