All I can say is.... wow. Joe M.
JOHN MACKEY wrote: > > 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 Then he heard the user he did not like and rescinded his approval 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 said it was rescinded and not de-coordinated and therefore no de-coordination 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 Then the Oregon coordination coucil rescinded 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 They said that because they rescinded, they did not 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
